HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2603-6079CITY OF PALO ALTO
Policy & Services Committee
Special Meeting
Tuesday, June 09, 2026
6:00 PM
Agenda Item
2.Recommendation to the City Council Regarding Adoption of an Ordinance Adding New
Chapter 9.75 (Fair Chance in Housing) to Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals, and Safety) of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code to Limit the Use of Criminal History Information in Rental
Housing Decisions. CEQA Status: Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)
(3). Staff Presentation
9
5
4
2
POLICY & SERVICES COMMITTEE
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: June 9, 2026
Report #: 2603-6079
TITLE
Recommendation to the City Council Regarding Adoption of an Ordinance Adding New Chapter
9.75 (Fair Chance in Housing) to Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals, and Safety) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code to Limit the Use of Criminal History Information in Rental Housing Decisions.
CEQA Status: Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Policy & Services Committee:
1) Provide feedback on a revised Fair Chance in Housing Ordinance based on prior City
Council feedback and staff analysis; and
2) Recommend City Council adopt the ordinance (Attachment A) for first reading, to be
placed on the consent calendar if unanimously recommended by the Committee.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Fair Chance Housing policies offer some protections from potential housing discrimination to
renters with criminal history by limiting the use of criminal history information in rental housing
decisions. Fair Chance Housing policies could also benefit other renters that have inaccurate
information in commercial criminal history databases.
On April 14, 2025, the City Council considered adoption of a draft Fair Chance in Housing
Ordinance. The City Council requested additional staff analysis on certain topics and referred
the ordinance to the Policy and Services Committee (P&S) for further refinement. Attachment A
includes a revised draft Fair Chance in Housing Ordinance for P&S consideration.
BACKGROUND
On November 29, 2021, City Council provided direction to staff to study or implement a
package of rental protection policies to add more certainty, stability, and fairness in the rental
market for both renters and landlords. Staff researched and presented draft Fair Chance
Housing policies to the City Council Housing Ad Hoc Committee in August 2024 and to the
9
5
4
2
Human Relations Commission (HRC) on October 10, 2024.1 Upon recommendation by the HRC,
staff presented a draft Fair Chance in Housing Ordinance for a first reading by City Council on
April 14, 2025.2 City Council provided feedback and referred the item to P&S for further
refinement.3 This staff report incorporates the prior staff reports and discussions on Fair
Chance in Housing policy by reference.
ANALYSIS
Lookback period4 policy development, including:
o Possible “anchor dates” of any lookback period;
o Establishing different lookback periods based on the relative severity of a
renter’s conviction; and
o Lookback period length;
Clarification on permissible use of the registry of California sex offenders,
Clarification on hate incidents and hate crimes,
Ordinance applicability exemptions for single family residences; and
Reducing the likelihood of ordinance circumvention.
5 If that anchor date fell outside the
lookback period, the conviction could not be considered in an adverse housing decision. This is
1 HRC Meeting Minutes, October 10, 2024:
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=39927&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto.
2 City Council Agenda Packet, April 14, 2025, Agenda Item 13, Staff Report on Packet Pages 298-332:
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=6009&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto&searchid=99c15d7e-6969-4f35-
931d-e8c8c5894aee.
3 City Council Action Minutes, April 14, 2025:
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=43259&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto.
City Council Summary Minutes, April 14, 2025:
https://recordsportal.paloalto.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=43261&dbid=0&repo=PaloAlto.
4 A lookback period is the time period, running back from the date of the inquiry, that may be considered when assessing a
renter’s criminal history.
5 The previous draft ordinance used “date of sentencing,” while the current one uses “date of disposition,” which more
commonly appears on background checks. In cases when the two dates are not the same, they are usually fairly close in time.
9
5
4
2
consistent with the practice in other Bay Area cities like San Francisco11 and Richmond12.
Councilmembers questioned whether the lookback period should instead be anchored to the
date of release from incarceration or another post-conviction date. Councilmembers expressed
concern that a renter who was incarcerated for all of a lookback period would be able to seek
housing without their criminal history being considered, even though they had not
demonstrated a track record of lawful behavior post-release.
The date of disposition and/or the date of sentencing are the most reliably reported and
available data points in criminal history databases for convictions. Commercial criminal
history databases do not reliably report dates of release from incarceration or date of
sentence completion. Furthermore, many people with a conviction are not incarcerated.
Additionally, even the date of disposition or the date of sentencing is not always reliably
reported: a recent survey of state criminal history information systems found that 69%
of arrests and 72% of felony charges in those state databases have final disposition
data.13
While renters who serve longer terms of incarceration might receive some immediate
protection after release by a lookback period that is anchored to the date of disposition
or sentencing, that outcome furthers the policy aim of a Fair Chance ordinance by
promoting housing stability at a renter’s most vulnerable time (immediately upon
reentry), thereby reducing a risk factor associated with recidivism (see discussion on
recidivism data below).
A combination of anchor dates, such as release from incarceration where applicable and
sentencing where no incarceration was imposed; or
Any post-conviction anchor date (although, as noted, other dates, such as end of
probation, are less reliably reported).
11 San Francisco Police Code § 4906(a)(5).
12 Richmond Municipal Code § 7.110.050(a)(5).
13 Congressional Research Service, In Focus, Access to Criminal History Record Information for Non-criminal Justice Purposes,
April 22, 2024, Accessed March 5, 2026: https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF12643/IF12643.3.pdf.
Note: this source did not specify the percentage of reporting for misdemeanors.
9
5
4
2
default but allow the renter an opportunity to show that the relevant anchor date fell outside
the lookback period and the conviction should therefore not be considered.
17 For example, theft crimes may be charged as either a misdemeanor or a
felony depending on the value of the stolen items. In California, the threshold is $950;18 while in
Texas, it is $250019. However, classification of crimes into felony versus misdemeanor is the
most reliable proxy for the relative seriousness of an offense. It is a distinction used across
jurisdictions and is most reliably reported in criminal history databases.
20 for
misdemeanor convictions, felony convictions, and for “violent felonies” or “serious felonies” as
17 Similarly, even within the same jurisdiction, some offenses (for example, forgery under CPC 470) are ”wobblers” that a
prosecutor may decide to charge either as a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the circumstances.
18 California Penal Code § 487.
19 Texas Penal Code § 31.03.
20 Staff would implement this by adding the following language (or similar) as PAMC 9.75.060(g): A landlord may not base an
adverse action “On a Conviction for a Serious Felony as defined in California Penal Code Section 1192.7(c) or 1192.8, or a
Violent Felony as defined in California Penal Code Section 667.5(c), or the out-of-state analogue for such an offense, that is
more than seven years old calculated from the date of disposition. If there is insufficient information to determine whether a
Conviction is for a Serious or Violent Felony or its out-of-state analogue, it is subject to the five-year lookback period described
in Subsection (f) of this Section. If the date of disposition is not available, the Landlord may consider a Serious or Violent Felony
Conviction unless the Renter produces mitigating information showing that the disposition date was outside the seven-year
lookback period.”
9
5
4
2
defined in the California Penal Code.25 This approach is not recommended due to the additional
difficulty of determining whether a conviction on a renter’s criminal history report corresponds
to one on California’s “violent” or “serious” lists, which use both general categories of offenses
(e.g., kidnapping) and citations to specific sections of the California Penal Code. It may be
impractical to ask landlords and renters to do that analysis without input from a legal advisor.
”26 and “serious felonies”27 are used in California, but are not used consistently
across states. Analogizing an out-of-state conviction to California’s list of “violent” or “serious”
crimes could be difficult, especially with limited information about the underlying facts of a
conviction.
28 However, including this provision
would introduce significant enforcement concerns, making it much more difficult for renters
with out-of-state felony convictions to prevail in court.
A landlord must treat an out-of-state felony conviction as a misdemeanor if the renter
can show that it would have been classified as a misdemeanor in California, and
If the Committee recommends a three-tier system, the ordinance would specify that a
landlord may treat an out-of-state felony conviction as a “serious“ or “violent“ felony
only if the landlord can show that it would have been classified as such in California.
25 “Serious felonies” are defined in California Penal Code Section 1192.7(c) and 1192.8, and “violent felonies” are defined in
California Penal Code Section 667.5(c). Almost all “violent felonies” are also “serious,” but the reverse is not true.
26 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Definition of Serious Felony Offenses As specified in Penal Code (PC)
Section 1192.7(c) and PC Section 1192.8, Accessed May 26, 2026: https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/parole/violent-offenses-defined/.
27 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Violent Offenses Defined, Accessed May 26, 2026:
https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/parole/serious-offenses-defined/.
28 Sample safe harbor ordinance language could be: ”Affirmative Defense: A Landlord who erroneously treats an out-of-state
Felony Conviction as a Serious or Violent Felony Conviction shall not be liable for a violation of this Chapter if the Landlord can
demonstrate that they acted on a good-faith, reasonable belief that that the out-of-state Felony Conviction corresponds to
Serious or Violent Felony under California law.”
9
5
4
2
The revised ordinance now also includes explicit exceptions for certain types of convictions,
such as convictions under federal law or another state’s law for conduct related to seeking or
providing reproductive or gender affirming care that is lawful in California.
33 This approach would not
capture all hate-motivated crimes, however, as many hate-motivated offenses are not charged
under a hate crime statute. For example, a hate-motivated assault may be charged as a simple
assault, and a criminal history check would not give any indication of the underlying conduct.
Non-criminal hate incidents are not generally reported in criminal history background checks
and would not be affected by this ordinance.
Recidivism data is often measured from the date of release rather than the date of
disposition or date of sentencing;
Although recidivism risk declines over time, available research does not necessarily
show convergence with the general population within two or three years; and
Recidivism data does not capture all criminal activity.
Rates of recidivism decline over time. A February 2024 report by the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) (for Californians released from
incarceration in fiscal year 2018-19) showed that a majority of the cohort (58.1%) had
no convictions within three years of their release from prison and that most convictions
33 Staff would implement this recommendation by revising PAMC 9.75.060(f) to say that landlords may not base an adverse
action “On a Felony Conviction, or a Misdemeanor Conviction for a hate crime under California Penal Code section 422.6 or that
carries a hate crime enhancement under California Penal Code section 422.7, that is more than five years old calculated from
the date of disposition. If the date of disposition is not available, the Landlord may consider a Felony Conviction unless the
Renter produces mitigating information showing that the disposition date was outside the five-year lookback period” or similar.
9
5
4
2
occurred during the first and second year of the three-year follow-up period.35 An April
2025 report issued by the CDCR (for Californians released from incarceration in fiscal
year 2019-20) had similar results, with a majority of the cohort (60.9%) with no
convictions within three years of release from incarceration.36 CDCR notes that
fluctuations are expected with future release cohorts.37
At the April 2025 meeting, a comment was made regarding an apparent inconsistency
between the ordinance's finding that most reconvictions occur in the first two or three
years after release and data suggesting the absolute number of cases of recidivism rises
over time. These findings are not contradictory: the first measures how quickly
individuals within a cohort reoffend, while the second reflects cumulative convictions
over time. Both support the idea that rates of recidivism decline over time.
Criminal history alone appears to have limited predictive value for tenancy outcomes,
particularly without an individualized context, as demonstrated by studies of
participants in supportive housing programs.38, 39 Further, not all new offenses that
show up in the recidivism data would necessarily bear on an individual’s fitness as a
renter.
Housing instability is associated with an increased risk of recidivism for people with
criminal history.40, 41 Supporting fair access to stable housing is part of the purpose of
the ordinance. The ability to compete fairly for access to housing may support
reintegration into the community and improve access to employment, housing stability
and services, and may reduce the incidence of homelessness for people with a criminal
35 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Correctional Policy Research and Internal Oversight,
Office of Research, Recidivism Report for Individuals Released from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
in Fiscal Year 2018-19, February 2024, Accessed March 10, 2025: https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/research/wp-
content/uploads/sites/174/2024/02/Statewide-Recidivism-Report-for-Individuals-Released-in-Fiscal-Year-2018-19.pdf.
36 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Correctional Policy Research and Internal Oversight,
Office of Research, Statewide Recidivism Report for Individuals Released from the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation in Fiscal Year 2019-20, April 2025, Accessed February 26, 2026: https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/research/wp-
content/uploads/sites/174/2025/04/Statewide-Recidivism-Report-for-Individuals-Released-in-Fiscal-Year-2019-20.pdf.
37 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Correctional Policy Research and Internal Oversight,
Office of Research, Statewide Recidivism Report for Individuals Released from the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation in Fiscal Year 2019-20, April 2025, Accessed February 26, 2026: https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/research/wp-
content/uploads/sites/174/2025/04/Statewide-Recidivism-Report-for-Individuals-Released-in-Fiscal-Year-2019-20.pdf.
38 Ehman and Reosti, “Tenant Screening in an Era of Mass Incarceration: A Criminal Record is No Crystal Ball", N. Y. U. Journal of
Legislation and Public Policy Quorum, 19, March 2015, Accessed March 19, 2025: https://nyujlpp.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/03/Ehman-Reosti-2015-nyujlpp-quorum-1.pdf.
39 Malone, Psychiatric Services, Assessing Criminal History as a Predictor of Future Housing Success for Homeless Adults with
Behavioral Health Disorders, 2009 Feb;60(2):224-30.
40 Jacobs LA, Gottlieb A. THE EFFECT OF HOUSING CIRCUMSTANCES ON RECIDIVISM: Evidence from a Sample of People on
Probation in San Francisco. Crim Justice Behav. 2020 Sep;47(9):1097-1115. doi: 10.1177/0093854820942285. Epub 2020 Aug 6.
PMID: 34629568; PMCID: PMC8496894.Published Online August 6, 2020, Accessed March 12, 2025:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8496894/.
41 Ehman and Reosti, supra note 21.
9
5
4
2
history.
Additionally, various state and federal requirements limit the reporting and/or use of
criminal history records in renter screening contexts — for example, state law prohibits
consumer reporting agencies from reporting records that predate the report by more
than seven years “from the date of disposition, release, or parole,”49 and state
regulations prohibit landlords from considering criminal records other than convictions
(e.g., arrests that did not result in conviction).50 A local fair chance ordinance adds value
by requiring procedural steps (like making a conditional offer before running a criminal
history check and requiring an individualized assessment) that are merely encouraged
under state law. Another key protection that a local fair chance ordinance may provide
is a lookback period shorter than the seven-year reporting cutoff.
Based on the above, staff have revised the draft ordinance to propose lookback periods of
three years for misdemeanors and five years for felonies, though the Committee may
recommend alternate lengths.
Reducing or Preventing Circumvention
A Council member asked whether the draft ordinance could be edited to reduce circumvention.
Staff’s approach to reduce circumvention has two parts:
(1) make the required procedures and documentation as clear as possible and
(2) provide City implementation guidance,
Both parts are already in the draft ordinance. The draft ordinance also aims to balance
landlords’ interest in using some criminal history information with renter protections by
establishing an anti-discrimination process, clarifying expectations, and providing remedies if
discrimination occurs. While the City cannot prevent noncompliant background checks, the
ordinance increases transparency (including addressing potentially inaccurate or incomplete
information) and is intended to help landlords avoid some inadvertent discrimination, including
when artificial intelligence-based screening tools might be used. Staff did not add any anti-
circumvention edits to the revised ordinance, but welcomes further suggestions from P&S and
the community.
Additional Changes to the Draft Ordinance in Response to Council Feedback
In response to Council feedback at the April 2025 City Council meeting, staff implemented
several additional revisions to the draft ordinance. These include:
Applicability Exemptions for Single-Family Residences (Section 9.75.030 Applicability).
Consistent with other cities’ fair chance ordinances, the original draft ordinance
exempted single-family residences, including those with accessory dwelling units and
49 CA Civil Code §§ 1786.18, 1785.13.
50 2 CCR § 12269.
9
5
4
2
junior accessory dwelling units, where the landlord occupies either the main unit or an
accessory unit as their primary residence. However, in response to Councilmember
concerns that this approach could result in landlords removing their single-family homes
from the rental market, staff revised the draft ordinance to exempt all single-family
homes regardless of whether the landlord is in residence. This revision was a deliberate
balancing decision rather than an evidence-based necessity.
Sex Offender Registration (Section 9.75.080 Exceptions to Prohibition). Each state
maintains a list of registered sex offenders. As of 2022 in California, not all sex offenses
require those convicted to permanently stay on the registry; for some offenses, an
individual can petition to be removed after a certain number of years. Based on Council
feedback, staff revised the draft ordinance to clarify that landlords may consider
whether a prospective renter is listed on the registry at the time of the criminal history
background check, regardless of whether their conviction is one that requires them to
remain on the registry permanently.
Additionally, staff updated the draft ordinance to:
Make additional minor text clarifications throughout;
Update the findings and declarations to include additional information and discussion
from public hearings;
Clarify that this ordinance does not prohibit landlords from using other lawful renter
screening tools, such as employment verification;
Add definitions of misdemeanor and felony as defined by the jurisdiction in which the
crime occurred, with exceptions for offenses that would be more leniently classified in
California (Section 9.75.020 Definitions) and for offenses related to reproductive or
gender affirming care that would be legal in California (Section 9.75.060 Basis for
Adverse Action);
Add longer and different lookback periods for misdemeanors (3 years) and felonies (5
years) (Section 9.75.060(e) and (f)).
Staff did not update the draft ordinance to include:
Explicit distinctions for drug offenses, hate crimes, or other specific types of crimes
(including serious or violent crimes); or
Additional remedies or other text to reduce the likelihood of circumvention of the
ordinance; or
Safe harbor provisions.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
The policy recommendation in this report does not have a significant fiscal or budgetary impact.
Implementation of the draft ordinance would primarily occur through private action, with
limited staff time associated with staff development of any ordinance implementation guidance
and any City processing of any request for a waiver or adjustments to the requirements of the
ordinance under the provisions in draft ordinance Section 9.75.140. However, if the Policy &
Services Committee recommends that City Council take one or more alternative actions other
9
5
4
2
than the recommended action, staff would need to evaluate the potential fiscal and resource
impacts.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
ATTACHMENTS
APPROVED BY:
*NOT YET APPROVED*
1
0290194_20260423_ms29
Ordinance No. _____
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting Chapter 9.75
(Fair Chance in Housing) to Limit the Use of Criminal History Information
in Rental Housing Decisions
The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. The City of Palo Alto is making significant efforts to address homelessness and promote
fair access to housing.
B. On November 29, 2021, City Council directed staff to study or implement a package of
rental protection policies to add more certainty, stability, and fairness in the Palo Alto
rental market for both renters and landlords. This direction included the evaluation of a
potential Fair Chance Housing Ordinance including any consequences, both intended
and unintended.
C. On April 15, 2024, City Council adopted the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element, including
Program 6.6: Fair Housing. Program 6.6 directs the pursuit of renter protections,
including a proposed Fair Chance Housing Ordinance.1
D. On October 10, 2024, the Human Relations Commission held a public hearing on Fair
Chance Housing policy considerations, components, and approach options regarding the
use of criminal history information in rental housing decisions and recommended
support of City Council consideration of a draft Ordinance for Palo Alto.
E. On April 14, 2025, City Council held a public hearing on a draft Fair Chance in Housing
Ordinance, received public comments, posed topics for additional staff research, and
referred the ordinance to the Policy & Services Committee.
F. State law currently includes some restrictions on the use of criminal history in
decisions about rental housing. However, local jurisdictions may adopt Fair Chance
Housing policies that are more protective than existing State requirements, including by
further restricting the criminal history information a landlord and/or housing provider
may consider, as long as these local regulations do not conflict with State or Federal
law.2
G. According to the Santa Clara County Point in Time Count from 2025, 10,711 people were
unhoused in Santa Clara County, including 418 people in Palo Alto.3
1 City of Palo Alto 2023-2031 Housing Element, Accessed March 18, 2025:
https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/housing-element/housing-
element_2023_2031/palo-alto-housing-element.pdf.
2 See 2 CCR § 12271.
3 Santa Clara County 2025 PIT Report, Accessed February 26, 2026:
https://files.santaclaracounty.gov/exjcpb1571/2025-09/santa-clara-county-point-in-time-count-2025-final-
report.pdf?VersionId=Rl1.G6aaDKy9frtsmdKUrEepVwgOmZQ3.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
2
0290194_20260423_ms29
H. As of 2018, an estimated eight million Californians, or nearly one in five Californians,
were living with a past criminal conviction.4
I. People with a criminal history face barriers to securing stable housing. People with
criminal history are significantly more likely to be unhoused than the general public.5 6 7
J. Commercially available criminal history databases used for renter screening often
include inaccurate or incomplete information.8
K. Research has shown that the risk of recidivism tends to decline over time.9 Recent
reports from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation show that a
majority of the Californians released from prison had no convictions within three years
of their release from incarceration, and that most convictions occurred during the first
and second year of the three-year follow-up period.10, 11
4 Californians for Safety and Justice, Repairing the Road to Redemption in California, May 2018, Accessed March
17, 2025: https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/repair_road_to_redempt_ca-20180928.pdf.
5 Center for American Progress, Strengthening Access to Housing for People With Criminal Records Is Key to
Successful Reentry, April 17, 2024, Accessed March 12, 2025:
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/strengthening-access-to-housing-for-people-with-criminal-records-is-
key-to-successful-reentry/.
6 California Health Policy Strategies, LLC, Criminal Justice System Involvement and Mental Illness among
Unsheltered Homeless in California, November 2018, Accessed March 12, 2025: https://calhps.com/wp-
content/uploads/2023/03/policy-brief-unsheltered-homelessness-11.20.2018.pdf.
7 Prison Policy Initiative, Nowhere to Go: Homelessness among formerly incarcerated people; August 2018,
Accessed March 12, 2025: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/housing.html.
8 Sarah Lageson and Robert Stewart, Criminology, The Problem with Criminal Records: Discrepancies between
State Reports and Private-Sector Background Checks, February 11, 2024, Accessed March 18,
2025: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-
9125.12359; https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/problem-criminal-records-discrepancies-between-state-
reports-and-private . Funding was provided by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National
Institute of Justice, under Award 2017-IJ-CX-0036.
9 Federal Register, Reducing Barriers to HUD-Assisted Housing A Proposed Rule by the Housing and Urban
Development Department, April 10, 2023, Accessed March 11, 2025:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/10/2024-06218/reducing-barriers-to-hud-assisted-housing .
10 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Correctional Policy Research and Internal
Oversight, Office of Research, Recidivism Report for Individuals Released from the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation in Fiscal Year 2018-19, February 2024, Accessed March 10, 2025:
https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/research/wp-content/uploads/sites/174/2024/02/Statewide-Recidivism-Report-for-
Individuals-Released-in-Fiscal-Year-2018-19.pdf.
11 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Correctional Policy Research and Internal
Oversight, Office of Research, Statewide Recidivism Report for Individuals Released from the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in Fiscal Year 2019-20, April 2025, Accessed February 26, 2026:
https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/research/wp-content/uploads/sites/174/2025/04/Statewide-Recidivism-Report-for-
Individuals-Released-in-Fiscal-Year-2019-20.pdf.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
3
0290194_20260423_ms29
L. Studies of participants in supportive housing programs suggest that criminal history is
not predictive of problematic tenancy.12, 13 Conversely, housing stability is associated
with a reduced risk of recidivism for people with criminal history.14
M. Structural barriers to accessing stable housing for people with a history of criminal
convictions are detrimental to the health, welfare, and public safety of the City’s
residents.
N. Limiting the use of criminal history information in rental housing decisions will give
previously incarcerated people and other people with a history of criminal convictions a
fair opportunity to compete for rental housing, thus putting them in a better position to
reintegrate into the community, obtain gainful employment, and access health and
other services.15
SECTION 2. Chapter 9.75 (Fair Chance in Housing) of Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals and
Safety) is hereby adopted to read as follows:
9.75.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this Chapter is to reduce the potential for discrimination on the basis of
criminal history in rental housing decisions. The City desires to limit the use of criminal history
information in decisions regarding rental housing in order to give previously incarcerated
people or other people with criminal convictions a fair opportunity to compete for rental
housing, thus putting them in a better position to reintegrate into the community, obtain
gainful employment, and access health and other services. Such housing opportunities should
also reduce the incidence of homelessness for people with a criminal history and reduce the
risk of recidivism through housing stability. Further, the findings and declarations set forth in
the adopted form of this Ordinance are incorporated into this Chapter as if fully set forth
herein. This Ordinance does not require landlords to perform criminal history checks; it
applies when landlords choose to do so. It does not prohibit landlords from using other lawful
renter screening tools, such as employment verification. This Ordinance is intended to be at
least as protective as state law, as amended from time to time. Where this Ordinance differs
12 Ehman and Reosti,"Tenant Screening in an Era of Mass Incarceration: A Criminal Record is No Crystal Ball", N. Y.
U. Journal of Legislation and Public Policy Quorum, 19, March 2015, Accessed March 19, 2025:
https://nyujlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Ehman-Reosti-2015-nyujlpp-quorum-1.pdf.
13 Malone, Psychiatric Services, Assessing Criminal History as a Predictor of Future Housing Success for Homeless
Adults With Behavioral Health Disorders, 2009 Feb;60(2):224-30.
doi: 10.1176/ps.2009.60.2.224, Accessed March 19, 2025:
https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/epdf/10.1176/ps.2009.60.2.224.
14 Jacobs LA, Gottlieb A. THE EFFECT OF HOUSING CIRCUMSTANCES ON RECIDIVISM: Evidence From a Sample of
People on Probation in San Francisco. Crim Justice Behav. 2020 Sep;47(9):1097-1115. doi:
10.1177/0093854820942285. Epub 2020 Aug 6. PMID: 34629568; PMCID: PMC8496894.Published Online August 6,
2020, Accessed March 12, 2025: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8496894/.
15 Center for American Progress, Strengthening Access to Housing for People With Criminal Records Is Key to
Successful Reentry, April 17, 2023, Accessed March 12, 2025:
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/strengthening-access-to-housing-for-people-with-criminal-records-is-
key-to-successful-reentry/.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
4
0290194_20260423_ms29
from state law, the provision more protective of renter rights shall prevail to the extent allowed
by law.
9.75.020 Definitions.
For the purpose of this chapter only, the following terms are defined as follows:
(a) "Adverse Action" means an action related to the rental of a Residential Rental Unit that
has negative effect, including but not limited to the following actions:
(1) Failing or refusing to rent or lease housing to a person;
(2) Failing or refusing to continue to rent or lease housing to a person;
(3) Reducing the amount or term of any person’s subsidy for housing;
(4) Treating an Applicant or Renter differently from other Applicants or Renters,
including but not limited to requiring higher security deposit or rent, or not
accepting certain sources of income or rent payment, such as vouchers or third-
party checks;
(5) Treating a person as ineligible for a renter-based rental assistance program; or
(6) Failing to permit a Renter’s Close Family Member to occupy a rental unit while the
occupying Renter remains in occupancy.
(b) "Aggrieved Person" means any person who believes they have been injured by a
housing practice prohibited under this Chapter. This definition could include, but is not
limited to, an Applicant or Renter who believes they were subject to an Adverse Action
based on their own Criminal History; or a Renter who seeks to have another person
reside in the renter’s Residential Rental Unit (to replace an existing Renter, to add a new
Renter, or sublet to a subtenant) when the Landlord takes Adverse Action based on the
prospective new Renter’s Criminal History.
(c) "Applicant" means a person who seeks information about, visits, or applies to rent or
lease a Residential Rental Unit; who applies for a renter-based rental assistance
program; who seeks to be added as a household member to an existing lease for a
Residential Rental Unit; or, with respect to any Criminal History that occurred prior to
the beginning of the person’s tenancy, who currently rents or has a lease for a
Residential Rental Unit.
(d) "Arrest" means a record from any jurisdiction that does not result in a Conviction and
includes information indicating that a person has been questioned, apprehended, taken
into custody or detained, or held for investigation by a law enforcement, police, or
prosecutorial agency and/or charged with, indicted, or tried and acquitted for any
felony, misdemeanor, or other criminal offense.
(e) "Background Check Report" means any report regarding an Applicant’s Criminal History,
including but not limited to those produced by the California Department of Justice, the
*NOT YET APPROVED*
5
0290194_20260423_ms29
Federal Bureau of Investigation, other law enforcement agencies, courts, or any
consumer reporting or Renter screening agency.
(f) "Close Family Member" means a spouse, registered domestic partner, child, sibling,
parent, grandparent, or grandchild.
(g) "Conviction" means a record from any jurisdiction that includes information indicating
that a person has been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor or other criminal offense
and for which the person was placed on probation, fined, imprisoned, and/or paroled.
(h) "Criminal History" means information transmitted orally or in writing or by any other
means, and obtained from any source, including but not limited to the person to whom
the information pertains, a government agency, or a Background Check Report,
regarding one or more Convictions or Arrests.
(i) “Directly Related Conviction” means a criminal conviction whose underlying conduct has
a direct and specific negative bearing on a substantial, legitimate, and nondiscriminatory
purpose of the Landlord, such as protecting the safety of other residents, the Landlord’s
employees, or the property. In determining whether a Conviction is directly related to
the Landlord’s purpose, the Landlord shall consider whether the housing offers the
opportunity for the same or similar offense to occur, whether circumstances leading to
the conduct for which the person was convicted will recur in the housing, and whether
supportive services that might reduce the likelihood of a recurrence of such conduct are
available on-site. Those matters identified in section 9.75.060 may not qualify as Directly
Related Convictions.
(j) “Evidence of Rehabilitation or Other Mitigating Factors” means credible information
about the individual that suggests that the individual is not likely to pose a
demonstrable risk to the achievement of the Landlord’s identified interest. Credible
information is information that a reasonable person would believe is true based on the
source and content of the information. Mitigating information includes, but is not
limited to:
(1) Whether the individual was a minor or young adult at the time of the conduct
upon which the criminal conviction is based;
(2) The amount of time that has passed since the date of conviction;
(3) Evidence that the individual has maintained a good tenant history before and/or
after the conviction;
(4) Evidence of rehabilitation efforts, including a person's satisfactory compliance
with all terms and conditions of parole and/or probation; successful completion
of parole, probation, mandatory supervision, or Post Release Community
Supervision; a Certificate of Rehabilitation under Penal Code section 4852.01; or
other conduct demonstrating rehabilitation, such as maintenance of steady
employment;
(5) Whether the conduct arose from the individual's status as a survivor of domestic
violence, sexual assault, dating violence, stalking, or comparable offenses against
the individual;
*NOT YET APPROVED*
6
0290194_20260423_ms29
(6) Whether the conduct arose from untreated substance abuse or mental illness;
(7) Whether the conduct arose from the individual's disability, or any risks related to
such conduct, which could be sufficiently mitigated or eliminated by a
reasonable accommodation; or
(8) Other relevant facts or circumstances surrounding the criminal conduct and/or
conduct after the conviction.
(k) “Felony” is defined as in the jurisdiction where the Conviction occurred. However, if a
Renter presents mitigating information showing that a Felony Conviction would have
been treated as a Misdemeanor or less had it occurred in California, the California
classification shall govern.
(l) "Landlord" means the owner or property manager exercising effective control over the
terms and conditions of the tenancy of a residential rental unit, including a person with
such control delegated through a durable power of attorney.
(m) “Misdemeanor” is defined as in the jurisdiction where the Conviction occurred.
However, if a Renter presents mitigating information showing that a Felony Conviction
would have been treated as an infraction or less had it occurred in California, the
California classification shall govern.
(n) “Inquire” means any direct or indirect conduct intended to gather information from or
about an Applicant, or a potential Applicant or candidate, using any mode of
communication, including, but not limited to, application forms, interviews, and
Background Check Reports.
(o) "Renter" means a person or entity entitled by written or oral agreement to occupy a
residential rental unit to the exclusion of others.
(p) “Residential Rental Unit” means any housing structure occupied as a dwelling or offered
for rent or lease as a dwelling, whether attached, detached, single- or multiple-family.
The term "Residential Rental Unit" shall not include an attached bedroom of a landlord-
occupied dwelling where the landlord and renter(s) share living facilities.
9.75.030 Applicability.
This Chapter applies to any Residential Rental Unit in the City of Palo Alto, except:
(a) Single-family dwellings, including those with accessory dwelling units and junior
accessory dwelling units;
(b) Duplexes or triplexes where one of the units is occupied by one or more Landlords as
their principal residence; and
(c) Renter-occupied units where an occupying Renter seeks to replace an existing co-
Renter, add an additional co-Renter, or sublet the unit, provided that the occupying
Renter remains in occupancy.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
7
0290194_20260423_ms29
9.75.040 Prohibition.
A Landlord may not take adverse action against an Applicant or a Renter based on Criminal
History except as allowed by this Chapter.
9.75.050 Conditional offer required.
Except when State or Federal law requires otherwise, a Landlord shall not inquire about or
require an Applicant to disclose any Criminal History until the Landlord:
(a) Has determined the Applicant is qualified to rent the Residential Rental Unit under all of
the Landlord's criteria not related to Criminal History; and
(b) Has provided to the Applicant a conditional lease agreement that commits the unit to
the Applicant as long as the Applicant passes the Criminal History review.
9.75.060 Basis for adverse action.
Except as provided in section 9.75.080, a Landlord shall not take Adverse Action against an
Applicant or a Renter based in whole or in part:
(a) On any arrest that has not resulted in a criminal conviction, or based on information
indicating that an individual has been questioned, apprehended, taken into custody or
detained, or held for investigation by a law enforcement, police, military, or
prosecutorial agency;
(b) On referral to, participation in or completion of a diversion or a deferral of judgment
program;
(c) On a Conviction that has been sealed, dismissed, vacated, expunged, voided,
invalidated, or otherwise rendered inoperative by judicial action or by statute (for
example, under California Penal Code Sections 1203.1 or 1203.4) or by executive
pardon, or for which a certificate of rehabilitation has been granted pursuant to Penal
Code section 4852.01 et seq.;
(d) On a Conviction or any other determination or adjudication in the juvenile justice
system, or information regarding a matter considered in or processed through the
juvenile justice system;
(e) On a Misdemeanor Conviction that is more than three years old, calculated from the
date of disposition. If the date of disposition is not available, the Landlord may consider
a Misdemeanor Conviction unless the Renter produces mitigating information showing
that the disposition date was outside the three-year lookback period;
*NOT YET APPROVED*
8
0290194_20260423_ms29
(f) On a Felony Conviction that is more than five years old, calculated from the date of
disposition. If the date of disposition is not available, the Landlord may consider a
Felony Conviction unless the Renter produces mitigating information showing that the
disposition date was outside the five-year lookback period;
(g) On a Conviction under federal law or another state’s law for conduct related to seeking
or providing reproductive or gender affirming care that is lawful in California; or
(h) On information pertaining to an offense or violation other than a felony or
misdemeanor, such as an infraction.
9.75.070 Procedures for use of criminal history information.
(a) If a Landlord chooses to Inquire about or require Renters or Applicants to disclose
Criminal History as part of a screening or other process relating to a Residential Rental
Unit, the Landlord must first:
(1) Inform the Applicant or a Renter in advance that the Landlord will check for certain
types of Criminal History, and that the process is regulated by the City’s Fair Chance
Ordinance;
(2) Offer the Applicant or a Renter a reasonable opportunity to present evidence of
inaccuracy or Evidence of Rehabilitation or Other Mitigating Factors; and
(3) Request and obtain written consent to check their Criminal History, or if the
Applicant or Renter objects, provides the Applicant the opportunity to withdraw
their application. If an Applicant or a Renter does not object within three calendar
days, the applicant will be deemed to have consented.
(b) In reviewing an Applicant or Renter's Criminal History and making a decision related to
eligible housing based on such history, a Landlord shall conduct an individualized
assessment, considering only:
(1) Directly Related Convictions, as defined in Section 9.75.020 of this Code;
(2) Time that has elapsed since the Conviction; and
(3) Any evidence of inaccuracy or Evidence of Rehabilitation or Other Mitigating Factors
presented by the Applicant or Renter.
(c) If a Landlord intends to base an Adverse Action related to eligible housing on an item or
items in the Applicant or Renter’s Criminal History, prior to taking any Adverse Action
the Landlord shall:
(1) provide the Applicant or Renter with a copy of the Background Check Report,
and
(2) notify the Applicant or Renter in writing of the prospective Adverse Action,
the specific items forming the basis for the prospective Adverse Action, the
*NOT YET APPROVED*
9
0290194_20260423_ms29
Applicant or Renter’s right to present evidence of inaccuracy or Evidence of
Rehabilitation or Other Mitigating Factors, and the timeframe for the Applicant
or Renter response as outlined in Subsection (d) of this section.
(d) If, within seven calendar days of the date that the notice described in Subsection (c) of
this section is provided by the Landlord to the Applicant or Renter, the Applicant or
Renter gives the Landlord notice in writing of:
(1) Evidence of the inaccuracy of the item or items of Criminal History,
(2) Evidence of Rehabilitation or Other Mitigating Factors set forth in this section, or
(3) A request for additional time to respond,
the Landlord shall delay any Adverse Action for a reasonable period of time that is not
less than seven calendar days after receipt of the information. During that time the
Landlord shall reconsider the prospective Adverse Action in light of the information
provided by the Applicant or Renter.
(e) If a Landlord takes any Adverse Action based in whole or in part on the Applicant or
Renter's Criminal History, the Landlord shall within seven calendar days provide a
written notice to the Applicant regarding the Adverse Action that includes, at a
minimum:
(1) A written statement of the reason(s) for such adverse action, specifically describing:
a. How the individual’s Criminal History qualifies as a Directly Related
Conviction; and
b. How any Evidence of Rehabilitation or Other Mitigating Factors or other
information submitted in support of such individual’s tenancy was taken into
account.
(2) A list of local legal services providers including contact information; and
(3) A copy of any Criminal History, Background Check Report, or other information
related to the Applicant's Criminal History that served as a basis for the Adverse
Action. The Landlord shall not require reimbursement or payment from the
Applicant or Renter for providing any Criminal History or criminal Background Check
Report.
9.75.080 Exceptions to prohibition.
(a) A just cause eviction pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code 9.68.020(a)(1)(F) shall not
constitute a violation of this Chapter.
(b) It shall not be a violation of this Chapter for a Landlord to comply with Federal or State
laws that require the Landlord to automatically exclude Applicants or Renters based on
certain types of Criminal History (e.g. Ineligibility of Dangerous Sex Offenders for
Admission to Public Housing (42 U.S.C. Section 13663(a); Ineligibility of Individuals
*NOT YET APPROVED*
10
0290194_20260423_ms29
Convicted for Manufacturing Methamphetamine on Premises of Federally Assisted
Housing for Admission to Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher Programs
(24 C.F.R. Section 982.553)). However, if such a requirement applies, the Landlord shall
not inquire about, require disclosure of, or, if such information is received, review an
Applicant's criminal history until the Landlord first does the following: (1) informs the
Applicant in advance that the Landlord will check for certain types of Criminal History;
and (2) requests written consent, or if the Applicant objects within three days,
provides the Applicant the opportunity to withdraw the rental application. If any
Adverse Action is based in whole or in part on the Applicant's Criminal History, the
Landlord shall provide a written notice to the Applicant regarding the Adverse Action
that includes, at a minimum, the reason(s) for the Adverse Action; a copy of any
Criminal History, Background Check Report, or other information related to the
Applicant's Criminal History that served as a basis for the Adverse Action, and an
opportunity to respond with rebutting or mitigating information prior to the denial of
Applicant's housing application.
(c) In compliance with California Penal Code Section 290.46(j)(1), in order to protect
persons at risk, the Landlord may review the State registry of sex offenders operated by
the State of California Department of Justice and may take an Adverse Action against an
Applicant based on a Conviction that leads to the Applicant appearing on the registry
provided the Landlord first:
(1) Determines that the Applicant is qualified to rent the Residential Rental Unit
under all of the Landlord criteria for assessing Applicants except for any criteria
related to Criminal History;
(2) Provides to the Applicant a conditional rental agreement that commits the
Housing to the Applicant as long as the Applicant meets the Landlord’s Criminal
History and other qualifying criteria; and
(3) Informs the Applicant in advance that the Landlord will be checking the sex
offender registry and requests the written consent of the Applicant to obtain
such information or gives the Applicant the opportunity to withdraw the
application. If an Applicant or a Renter does not object within three calendar
days, the applicant will be deemed to have consented to the check.
(d) If any Adverse Action is based in whole or in part on the Applicant's Criminal History,
the landlord shall provide a written notice to the Applicant that includes, at a
minimum, the reason(s) for the Adverse Action; a copy of any Criminal History,
Background Check Report, or other information related to the Applicant's Criminal
History that served as a basis for the Adverse Action, and an opportunity to respond
with rebutting or mitigating information prior to the denial of Applicant's application.
9.75.090 Advertising and notice requirements for Landlords.
(a) Advertising
*NOT YET APPROVED*
11
0290194_20260423_ms29
(1) It shall be unlawful for any Landlord to engage in any communication, including the
production or dissemination of advertisements, related to eligible housing, which
expresses, directly or indirectly, that any person with an Arrest or Conviction record
will not be considered for the rental or lease of real property or may not apply for
the rental or lease of real property, except as required by local, State, or Federal law.
For purposes of this subsection, engaging in a communication includes, but is not
limited to, making a verbal statement or producing or disseminating any solicitation,
advertisement, or signage.
(b) Notice requirements
(1) The City Manager shall publish and make available to Landlords, in English, Spanish,
and all languages spoken by more than five percent (5%) of the City’s population, a
notice that informs Applicants for housing of their rights under this Chapter. The
notice shall contain the following information:
a. A description of the restrictions and requirements of this Chapter; and
b. Information about community resources available to assist an Applicant in
connection with a violation of this Chapter.
(2) Landlords subject to the requirements of this Chapter shall include the notice made
available pursuant to this Section in their advertisements, application materials and
leases.
9.75.100 Retaliation prohibited.
It shall be a violation of this Chapter to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of, or the
attempt to exercise, any right protected under this Chapter, or to take any Adverse Action
against any person because the person exercised or attempted in good faith to exercise any
right protected under this Chapter.
9.75.110 Recordkeeping and confidentiality.
Landlords shall maintain a record of any Criminal History obtained for any Applicant for housing
for a period of at least three years from the date that the Criminal History Background Report
was obtained. To the maximum extent permitted by law, any information obtained regarding
an Applicant’s Criminal History shall remain confidential.
9.75.120 Landlord’s employees and agents.
It is the responsibility of a Landlord to ensure that its employees and agents comply with this
chapter.
9.75.130 Implementation.
*NOT YET APPROVED*
12
0290194_20260423_ms29
The City Manager or their designee is authorized to take all necessary steps to implement this
Chapter, including but not limited to the following:
(a) Developing any notice required for purposes of implementing the requirements of this
Chapter, and other implementation documents, including written materials for
Landlords and potential Applicants; and
(b) Adopting any regulations necessary to implement the requirements of this Chapter.
9.75.140 Request for waiver.
A Landlord may request a waiver or adjustment of the requirements of this Chapter upon a
showing that strict application of its requirements would effectuate an unconstitutional taking
of property or otherwise have an unconstitutional application to the Landlord, or that a waiver
is necessary to avoid a reasonably foreseeable harm to the Landlord, Landlord’s agents, or
other Renters. Requests for waiver or adjustment must be submitted in writing to the Director
of Planning and Development Services or their designee together with supporting
documentation, and must include a citation to this Chapter. Requests shall be acted on by the
Director of Planning and Development Services or their designee within 30 days .
9.75.150 Remedies.
(a) Any Aggrieved Person who believes that the provisions of this Chapter have been
violated shall have a private right of action for injunctive relief, and may institute a civil
proceeding for injunctive relief, actual damages, and other relief deemed appropriate by
the court. Nothing in this Chapter is intended to limit the damages recoverable by any
party through a private action. In any action brought under this Chapter, the court may
award reasonable attorneys’ fees and cost of action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
Section 1021.5.
(b) An attorney who represents an Applicant in litigation against a Landlord brought under
this Chapter shall provide notice to the City within ten (10) days of filing court action
against the Landlord, and inform the City of the outcome of the court action within ten
days of any final judgment.
9.75.160 No conflict with state or federal law.
This Chapter is not intended to conflict with state or federal law. If there is a conflict between
the provisions of Federal or State law and this Article, federal or state law shall control.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or
sections of the Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance
*NOT YET APPROVED*
13
0290194_20260423_ms29
and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any
one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
SECTION 4. The Council finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA
Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance
will have a significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its
adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________ ____________________________
City Attorney or Designee City Manager
____________________________
Director of Planning and Development
Services
CITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 1 of 21
Regular Meeting
April 14, 2025
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers and by virtual
teleconference at 5:30 P.M.
Present In Person: Burt, Lauing, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, Stone, Veenker
Present Remotely: None.
Absent: None.
Special Orders of the Day
1. Proclamation Honoring National Public Safety Telecommunicators Week April 13-19,
2025
NO ACTION
Mayor Lauing read the proclamation aloud.
James Reifschneider, Assistant Police Chief, spoke on behalf of Police Chief Andrew Binder and
the Police Department to the proclamation describing the significance of the role of the Public
Safety Telecommunicators.
2. Proclamation Honoring National Animal Control Officer Appreciation Week April 13-19,
2025
NO ACTION
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims read the proclamation aloud.
Assistant Police Chief Reifschneider spoke on behalf of Police Chief Andrew Binder and the
Police Department to the proclamation acknowledging the work of the animal control officers.
3. Proclamation Celebrating César Chávez and Dolores Huerta
NO ACTION
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 2 of 21
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025
Vice Mayor Veenker read the proclamation aloud.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Ed Shikada, City Manager, reported there were no changes.
Public Comment
1. Jill A., board member of the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation, provided a slide
presentation celebrating Arts, Culture and Creativity Month and the Palo Alto Art
Center’s contribution to the economic development of Palo Alto including the art
center’s Holiday Studio Sale, facility rental and class programs, community events, 2025
ACGA Clay and Glass Festival on July 12-13 and the appreciation of the support of the
City of Palo Alto.
2. Roger S., founder of Palo Alto Police Foundation and Friends of the Palo Alto Parks,
described the Magical Bridge 10-year anniversary event coming up the next Saturday.
He stated he would like to work together to get the bathrooms at the park up to
standards.
3. Roberta A. pointed out that over the last 20-30 years, no low-income rental housing had
been built in Palo Alto, a group of people had attempted over the last seven years to get
the City to address the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women to no avail and the homelessness issue in the City wanted to see more
shelters in the downtown area.
4. Anika D., Palo Alto Youth Council, shared the month’s progress of the PAYC including
their issue census which revealed teens were most concerned with bike safety. In
response, the posted about the City’s plans of bike safety on their social media account.
On May 2, they would be hosting a music festival called Palopalooza in collaboration
with the Teen Advisory Board. She stated they were making a song about what the Palo
Alto City Council had been up to.
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Vice Mayor Veenker shared that she had the pleasure of talking about the City’s Climate and
Sustainability programs alongside the CEO of the Greater Washington, D.C. region Clean Cities
Coalition and a council member from Leeds in the U.K. on an EarthDay.org panel comparing the
progress each had made and plans to make more. She was happy to report their relationship
with their sibling city in Bloomington, Indiana was strong. She described a podcast in which she
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 3 of 21
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025
was interviewed about their City Council and stated it could be accessed. She shared items from
the prior week’s Policy and Services Committee meeting. First, there was a city auditor
presentation of the Emergency Preparedness and Wildfire Audit Report. Second, they had an
update from Townsend and recommendations regarding state and federal legislation, executive
orders and other regulatory and funding circumstances. She described 3 2024 grants from the
past year for which disbursement had become somewhat uncertain. Finally, she reported they
discussed City Council’s interview selection process for boards, commissions and committees
and a recommendation would be coming to the Council so they could have a standing policy.
Councilmember Burt described developments relating to MTC, VTA and Caltrain which was
consideration of a regional tax measure for support of transit agency operations throughout the
Bay Area. VTA originally opted not to participate but was reconsidering after some positive
developments.
Mayor Lauing talked about a discussion he had the prior week at the Chamber of Commerce.
He mentioned the upcoming Mayor’s Press and Community Briefing at the library on Thursday
the 24th at 4 o’clock. The theme would be housing.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims recognized members of the Palo Alto Youth Council were
present in the audience. As the Parks and Recreation liaison, she reported that Commission had
a retreat the previous Friday at Foothills Park covering work they had done. There was also a
focus on advancing equity, access and inclusion for programs, parks, and open space and
enhancing biodiversity, environmental sustainability and climate change resilience. She
explained much of their work is done through ad hoc committees. She was impressed by the
breadth and depth of their conversations and looked forward to what would come from the
PRC in the coming year. She pointed out that the Tall Tree Award sponsored by the Palo Alto
Chamber of Commerce and Palo Alto Weekly would be happening on the 17th at the JCC
starting at 5:30 as a networking reception and the awards presentation would begin at 7.
Councilmember Reckdahl pointed out a Quiet Zone meeting in front of City Hall on Wednesday
the 16th at 6 PM for anyone interested in omitting train horns.
Councilmember Stone announced Third Thursday coming up from 6 to 9 PM on Cal Ave.
Consent Calendar
MOTION: Councilmember Lythcott-Haims moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl to
approve Agenda Item Numbers 4-10.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 4 of 21
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025
4. Approval of Professional Services Contract Number C25193356 with Martina Entriken in
the Amount Not to Exceed $658,390 for a Preschool and Toddler Program for a Period
of Five Years. CEQA Status - Not a Project.
5. Approval of Amendment No. 2 via Change Order No. 2 to Contract Number C22183580
with MP Nexlevel of California, Inc. in the Amount of $4,000,000 for a Total Not-to-
Exceed Amount of $15,347,390, and Extending the Three-Year Term of the Contract for
an Additional Four Months Through August 31, 2025 to Provide Substructure and Utility
Trenching Construction Services for the Foothills Rebuild Wildfire Mitigation and Grid
Modernization for Electrification Projects; CEQA Status: the Foothills Rebuild and Grid
Modernization Project are Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15302, 15303 and
15183
6. Approval of Contract Amendment Number 1 to Contract Number S22183286 with The
Permanente Medical Group Inc in an Amount Not to Exceed $100,000 for Pre-
employment and Other Occupation-Related Medical Services; CEQA Status – Not a
Project.
7. Approval of Professional Services Contract No. C25191690 with InfoSend in an Amount
Not to Exceed $2,344,573 to Provide Utilities Bill Print and Mailing Services for a Term of
Five Years; CEQA Status - Not a Project.
8. Approval of Professional Services Contract Number C25191738 with Sedgwick Claims
Management Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $612,840 for Administration of
Workers Compensation Benefits through June 30, 2025; CEQA Status – Not a Project.
9. FIRST READING: AdOption of an Ordinance Setting the Regular Meeting Time of the
Finance and Policy & Services Committees by Resolution or Ordinance (Palo Alto
Municipal Code §§ 2.04.190 and 200); and AdOption of a Resolution Setting the Regular
Meeting Times at 5:30 pm for Finance and 6:00 pm for Policy & Services; CEQA status –
not a project.
10. SECOND READING: Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter
2.32 (Sales and Use Tax) and Chapter 4.10 (Solicitors, Peddlers, Pawnbrokers,
Secondhand Dealers, and Other Businesses Regulated by Police) of the Municipal Code
to Delete Obsolete References to the California Board of Equalization and Replace Them
with References to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (FIRST
READING: March 24, 2025; PASSED: 6-0-1, Veenker absent)
City Manager Comments
City Manager Shikada provided a slide presentation including updates on Ramos and Boulware
Parks and the Magical Bridge Playground 10th Anniversary celebration, invitation for community
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 5 of 21
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025
feedback for the City’s emergency and wildfire response plans, Architectural Review Board
recruitment and notable tentative upcoming Council items.
Action Items
11. Review and Provide Direction on a Preferred Option for a New Parking Structure and
Reserved Space for Future Affordable Housing at 375 Hamilton Avenue and Direct Staff
to Pursue Preliminary Design and Environmental Review for the New Downtown Parking
Garage Capital Project (PE-15007) for the Preferred Option; CEQA Status - Not a Project
Holly Boyd, Assistant Public Works Director, provided a slide presentation on the Downtown
Parking Garage including purpose/overview of Council item and prior Council actions for the
project. Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects Founder & Principal, joined the presentation
discussing an aerial view of the project site on Lot D; Option 1 – Waverley residential; Option 2
– no residential; Option 3 – dogleg residential; Option 1A – Waverley, separate pedestrian
circulation ground floor and upper floors; Option 1B - Waverley, shared pedestrian circulation
ground floor and upper floors; Option 1C – Waverley, with podium ground floor and upper
floors; Option 2 – no residential; Option 3A – dogleg, separate pedestrian circulation ground
floor and upper floors; Option 3B – dogleg, shared pedestrian circulation ground floor and
upper floors; Option 3C – dogleg, with podium ground floor and upper floors; and their
recommendation of Option 1A along with its benefits and drawbacks. Assistant Director Boyd
ended the presentation with Staff’s recommendation.
Mayor Lauing inquired if there was a choice B.
Assistant Director Boyd replied Staff and Alta Housing felt strongly that Option 1A would best
balance the housing and parking needs but they were willing to proceed with whatever Council
decided.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims asked questions about the podium option. She asked Staff to
walk them through how they came to consult Alta Housing.
Mr. Hayes responded from the ground, there would probably not be a big impact because the
first floor would be 11 ½ or 12 feet in the air. They would build the entire garage, including the
ground floor of the garage where the housing would go eventually. There would not be a visual
issue but a weatherproofing issue that would incur additional costs to waterproof the podium.
Assistant Director Boyd explained Staff contacted Alta Housing because Council had previously
selected them as the preferred developer on Lot T.
City Manager Shikada elaborated that was with no expectation that they would be the
preferred developer at Lot D. It was simply to get feedback from an affordable housing
developer to understand how they would look at this as a potential development site.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 6 of 21
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025
Councilmember Lu queried if there were any notable cost differences that could be predicted at
the outset for the different options. He asked about the second staircase in Option 1B. He
wanted to know why 1A would have more housing square footage than 1B. He asked for
elaboration about having street frontage on the ground floor and what major constraints might
incur in terms of things like costs or building codes.
Mr. Hayes remarked Watry Design had put together some cost summaries in the packet just for
the garage portion of the project. No numbers had been put together for the housing portion of
the project. He observed the podium option would be more expensive. He stated that because
of the height and number of units, they needed two stairs for the residential component so 1B
had a shared stair and elevator for the whole building that would need to be built with the
garage to get in and out. The housing would have the stair by the paseo and would be the
second means of egress for the housing component. He explained because of how the elevator
and stair encroach in on 1A, they would be able to wrap the housing around the corner some
picking up 500 square feet per floor. He thought it was a good idea to have ground floor active
frontage if it was not going to just be a parking garage. The parking garage originally had some
active street frontage along Waverley to hide the parking, provide pedestrian interest and
continue that ribbon along Waverly Street. He proposed putting amenity spaces on the ground
floor if it was all housing. He did not yet know what constraints might occur in terms of cost.
Councilmember Burt questioned if the cost per stall was the cost for all stalls constructed or the
net. He mentioned the statement of goals for the project and asked if they were the goals Staff
was operating under. On Option 2, he asked if the retail or service space would be shallow
spaces to minimize parking stall loss or if there was concept on the size or depth of that. He
queried how many dollars were set aside in the parking in-lieu fund and what the anticipation
was of how they would fund the balance of the options that ranged from $20 to $24 million. He
asked about a design to budget option.
Gordon Knowles, Watry Design architect, believed the cost per stall was for all the stalls. He
explained the cost worked on efficiency. If they were building efficient floors, there would be a
straightforward calculation. Depending on number of floors, there would be certain code
requirements on emergency power, structural issues with the sheer wall proportion and
structural development.
Assistant Director Boyd confirmed those were the goals Staff was operating under. She believed
there was about $15 million in the parking in-lieu fund earlier in the year. Funding the balance
would be to be determined pending Finance Committee budget discussions and other
meetings.
Mr. Hayes said they could probably get 25 to 30 feet depth on the retail or service space on
Option 2.
Brad Eggleston, Public Works Director, wanted to make sure it was clear to Council that the
construction cost figures in the report were early rough order of magnitude for the direct
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 7 of 21
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025
construction costs only. He did not want Council to think they were the potential costs for the
garages. The numbers would like change and there were a lot of construction-related costs not
in them. They were provided for comparative purposes between the options.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims asked if anyone was prepared to give a sense of the estimated
full scope of the project cost wise.
Assistant Director Boyd replied they had not calculated the full project cost.
Director Eggleston confirmed they were not prepared to give a full project cost but with the
previous iteration of the garage with an underground level introducing other costs, he recalled
that at the time the project was paused five years ago, they were looking at a total project cost
on the order of $31 to $32 million.
Councilmember Reckdahl inquired if it would be possible to finance the difference between
what was in the in-lieu fund and the cost. He wondered if they would have to sell COPs if some
of the parking was used for affordable housing.
City Manager Shikada confirmed that would be conceivably a part of their infrastructure
planning using available capital funds and how this project would be prioritized against other
needs throughout the City. He stated any funding needed for affordable housing would be
separate from the funds needed for the garage. He added there were a variety of financing
mechanisms for a public structure. They would need to look at whether issuing tax-free debt
versus assumption of any private activity associated with the garage made more sense.
Regarding affordable housing, the same issues would apply in terms of what the funding source
would be and what method of financing might be needed similar to the conversation related to
Lot T. Subject to Council’s decisions on priority, he was confident they would be able to finance
a parking structure. He thought it was more complicated as it related to allocation or
assignment of any of the new parking spaces to a specific development and was not prepared
to give an opinion on that but thought it was something to have Staff look at.
Mayor Lauing wanted to know if the timing of housing versus the parking lots was relatively
arbitrary other than getting in the way of each other on construction and they could be
sourcing a developer for that at the same time they were developing a garage.
City Manager Shikada thought the expectation was that they would be ready to go with the
garage quicky. Understanding the nature of affordable housing development and the complex
financing structures, both in terms of selecting a partner as well as their need to develop a good
financing plan, he assumed that that would take longer than the garage would.
Public Comment:
1. Mark M. claimed it was not good to add more parking spaces to a city and that it was
better for new housing to be under parked and the goal they should be looking for was a
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 8 of 21
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025
reduction of aggregate parking spaces. He advised the best use of the in-lieu fees would
be to put forward to the demolition of existing parking garages.
2. Aram J. (Zoom) wanted to forget about the parking aspect of the project and make it all
affordable housing with a top priority for the police officers in the City of Palo Alto. He
was distressed to know the police chief lived an hour away.
Councilmember Reckdahl’s first inclination was to support one of the Waverley projects but
having stairs and ramps in structures created lost overhead so they would be much more
expensive per spot than the parking only. From a financial standpoint, he thought it made more
sense to build on economies of scale and maximize the parking spots they missed allowing
them their next housing opportunity to maximize the scale of housing. He supported the only
parking option.
Councilmember Stone strongly preferred Option 1A. He thought it provided a balanced
approach looking at future needs of affordable housing and parking demand in the downtown
area.
Councilmember Burt observed that the goal of this lot was to offset the parking lots at different
other locations to balance out the parking through these projects so there was not a net loss as
a result of the several affordable projects being worked on. He thought Option 2 was the most
cost effective to get the most affordable housing with the least amount of additional subsidy.
Vice Mayor Veenker remarked she preferred Option 1A since this was primarily a parking
project and would provide 3 to 6 times more net new parking stalls with only slightly greater
costs in order to get additional affordable housing downtown. She added she greatly preferred
Option 2 to Option 3.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims agreed that 1A was the preferred option. She agreed that the
location was part of a whole package of projects in the downtown and this location would
become the offset for the parking they would take away as they built more affordable housing
on city-owned surface parking lots. She supported spending a little more to tuck some
affordable housing in.
Councilmember Lu echoed Councilmembers Stone and Lythcott-Haims and Vice Mayor
Veenker’s comments. He thought the urban design and block-by-block variability of having
chunked out space that was initially green space and future housing had intangible value. He
was happy to advance 1A but was more open to Option 1B than the others.
Mayor Lauing found it a little frustrating they were talking about only 15 homes. He did not
think going to zero fit with their vision. He agreed with Councilmember Stone’s comment about
the balance being appropriate. He concurred with Councilmember Burt’s comments about a
package of projects. He opined if there was any way to work in more housing without
outrageous costs they should look at that. He thought the issue of financing this was important
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 9 of 21
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025
but would require a long-term, strategic approach. He reluctantly supported 1A because it
would provide some affordable housing.
Councilmember Burt wanted to argue that supporting the recommendation because it has
more affordable housing worked against the economics of more affordable housing downtown.
Making that decision in the isolation of this lot did not optimize their package of projects. He
did not think it was a bad option, just not the best option.
Councilmember Reckdahl agreed it was not a bad option but not the best option. He did not
believe this to be the most cost-effective way of providing housing and parking.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Veenker moved, seconded by Councilmember Stone to direct staff to
proceed with preliminary design and environmental review for Option 1a, a new 274-space
parking garage, featuring six levels of above-ground parking with a reserved area to allow for
future construction of affordable housing on the site with separate access on Waverley Street.
MOTION PASSED: 5-2, Burt, Reckdahl no
12. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 70 Encina Avenue [24PLN-00095]: Adopt an
Ordinance Rezoning the Subject Property and an Adjacent Vacant Parcel to Planned
Community/Planned Home Zoning and Adopt the Record of Land Use Action to
Demolish a Surface Parking lot and to Construct a New Three-Story, 19,035 Square Foot
Building with 10 Residential Condominium Units. CEQA Status- Streamlined Review in
Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Comprehensive Plan Consistency).
Zone District: CC (Community Commercial).
Emily Kallas, Senior Planner, provided a slide presentation for the Planned Home Zoning public
hearing for 70 Encina including project location, project overview, background/process, Council
prescreening – September 2022, ARB and PTC recommendations – February 2025, key
considerations for Council to consider, public benefits of the proposed project, CEQA status –
streamlined review, public comments and recommendation for Council.
Jeff Galbraith, Hayes Group Architects Principal, provided a slide presentation about the 70
Encina project including site context – aerial photo, original concept – September 12, 2022, PHZ
prescreening comments from September 12, 2022, Ellis Partner concerns September 12, 2022,
original concept diagram – 4 stories over a ground floor podium, PHZ prescreening concept
September 12, 2022, stepped massing diagram – reduced unit count, reduced program – 2 or 3
stories over podium, solution that resolved economics and T&C concerns, conceptual site and
unit layout diagram, design precedent photos, proposed plan – ground floor, proposed plans –
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 10 of 21
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025
second and third floors, proposed design – seen from the rear entry into T&C, visibility from
Town & Country, Town & Country – context diagram, proposed design – view from Encina Ave,
proposed design – northeast corner, proposed design – sideyards for maintenance and fire
access, proposed design – courtyard view looking south, proposed design – front façade on
Encina Ave and recent changes in Ellis Partners concerns at February 26 hearing.
Ed Storm, Applicant, explained the property came on the market three years prior. He was
contacted by the family that owned it asking what he thought it should be. He proposed it was
an ideal residential location. He met with Town & Country initially who did not think it was
possible. They continued doing what was necessary to get it approved. He felt they had done
everything asked of them. He observed there was now another bigger project that may come
forward and he was not sure how to respond to that. He indicated approval of their project did
not preclude the possibility of a much larger project. He opined a positive vote would tell
people this was a place where residential can be build and they ought to pursue it. He hoped
Council would take the opportunity to light a spark that would make the whole area become a
great place for people to live. He stated they would continue to work with any of their
neighbors who thought they could make a better project out of this.
Councilmember Burt disclosed he met with both the applicant and the Town & Country Ellis
Properties and did not receive information that had not been disclosed in their comments,
written and oral.
Councilmember Lu disclosed he also met with both the applicant and Ellis Partners. Ellis
Partners showed a very blocky rendering of what a five story or so development could look like
across the entire parking lot area. That was the only notable thing he had seen that was not on
the public record.
Vice Mayor Veenker disclosed she met by Zoom with both the applicant and his architect with
Ellis Partners and associate. She did not receive any additional information. She thought she
had seen the blocky drawing.
Mayor Lauing disclosed he similarly met with both the developer and Ellis Partners and got up
to date. The goal was just to spend a little more time looking at the drawings and
understanding the concepts but no additional information that was not disclosed to the public.
Councilmember Reckdahl disclosed he met with Ellis partners and the applicant. He had nothing
to report.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims disclosed she met by Zoom with Ellis partners as well as with
the applicant, Stormland and the Hayes group. She did not see anything that had not been
presented in the documents presented to them.
Councilmember Stone disclosed he met with the applicant and Ellis partners. To the best of his
knowledge, he did not receive anything outside of the public record.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 11 of 21
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025
Public Comment:
1. David H., spoke individually and not as an ARB member. He was opposed to moving
ahead with the 70 Encina part of the project but he was delighted that the whole site
had been redesigned PHZ. He was not opposed to the design of the project presented
by Hayes Group. He advised it would interfere with the possibility of this being a really
significant more than one acre site. He pointed out that the reason the ARB had a
coordinated area plan was for this kind of a site and it would be a much more effective
project if it were developed as a single unit for the entire site. He described reasons he
suggested that this particular project be deferred until the entire site could be analyzed
and presented to the Board.
2. Justine B. supported rezoning Encina Avenue. She referred Council to the 2016
Transportation Demand Management Plan that Town & Country did if there were
concerns about the site losing surface parking.
3. Dean R., director of development for Ellis Partners, indicated their team saw the
opportunity to reimagine Town & Country as a well-planned mixed use retail, office and
housing project for the City. He alleged that the 70 Encina project did not comply with
the intent or letter of the PHZ Ordinance. He advised the project could comply with the
Comp Plan if it were scaled down to a more typical density. It was their opinion the
project would set a bad precedent for future residential developments.
4. B. Taylor spoke on behalf of himself and the family that owned the land. He advocated
for developing it as a residential property. He thought it was notable that the owners of
Town & Country were not there to advocate their desire to build X number of units and
there was no objection from them for the proposed development. He advised it checked
all the boxes for what the City was looking for regarding affordable housing.
5. Alex A., officer and board member of Williams Charitable Foundation, stated his
organization was supportive of exploring a housing project adjacent to Town & Country.
They preferred to see a project built with more than 100 units and a parking structure.
Ideally, they would like this area developed in conjunction with 70 Encina. They were
committed to continuing to work with Ellis Partners and the City to find a more aligned
with the goals and requirements of the Council as established for PHZ projects.
6. Amie A., executive director of Palo Alto Forward, spoke about her support of the project
and urged Council to approve it and provide guidance in support of long-term master
planning.
7. Herb B. said the site was not replacing a primary parking use but a parking use that was
part of Town & Country’s development. He suggested Ellis and Hayes were working
together to get a bigger development. He thought a clear statement was needed as to
the property owner was and who was the true applicant. He recalled a section of the
zoning code included in the administrative record that no part of Town & Country would
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 12 of 21
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025
be replaced by residential. He mentioned having sent letters he assumed Council never
received.
8. Randy P. (Zoom), architect, indicated he was a strong supporter of housing in Palo Alto
and wanted to housing built here but was not in support of this project. He agreed with
the PTC that it remained too dense and could not satisfy the required findings for
compatibility due to inadequate setbacks. He explained how the facts of this project's
design were incompatible with the Comp Plan policies related to urban greening and
preservation of scale and architectural compatibility. He asked Council to consider the
decision in the context of decades and make the best choice for how it would impact all
of Palo Alto.
Mr. Storm rebutted that this was urban living and that there were people who wanted to live in
that environment. He was surprised the Ellis’ did not thank him for opening the door to build
residential on their parking lot as it would be a great economic opportunity. He stated a big
project could be done on this property. They were 16% of the land. They could also create a
smaller project in front of a much bigger project. He opined that people only wanted to talk
about the negatives and that was a reason things did not get done in the City. He indicated they
were ready to build it, they believed in it and they were going to put their own money up to
make it happen. He hoped Council could see the path forward to approve the project and
hoped bigger projects would come forward.
Councilmember Reckdahl wanted to hear how the setback would affect what Ellis did with their
property, particularly the 7-inch setback in the back. He mentioned downtown buildings with
zero setbacks and assumed Ellis could use the same technique to build right up to the property
line.
Senior Planner Kallas replied the 7-inch setback was not an issue in terms of fire access to the
site, which would be provided through the courtyard as well as through the 5-foot side
setbacks. She confirmed things like fire rated walls and fire sprinklers contribute to being able
to construct a building at the property line.
Councilmember Burt had trouble justifying a reversal to scaling down now that they had a
bigger project potentially on the horizon on the other parking areas, Town & Country or some
of the other parking. He wondered whether there had been any consideration of utilizing the
rooftop space as either a private or a common among the tenants open space with some
limited landscaping. He was interested in his colleague’s thoughts on the issue. He asked if
there was some access issue at the end of Encina up against the bike path next to the Caltrain
tracks that would require improvement.
Mr. Galbraith replied having a rooftop garden required a stairwell. It could also impacted
placement of HVAC equipment and access to firefighters. It would also offset a lot of the ability
to have photovoltaic arrays or they would get pushed up creating a higher project. He indicated
it was possible to consider a rooftop garden. They would have to overcome the cost of getting
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 13 of 21
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025
up to the roof and the fact that the units were condominiums making it a common roof access
would make it more complicated.
Senior Planner Kallas remarked one of the Planning Commissioners noted there was a portion
of Encina Avenue between the project site and the entry to the bike trail where there was not a
sidewalk. They did not consider that to have a nexus to this project in terms of site
improvements.
Mayor Lauing summarized that the impetus in 2020 for Council to create this was to try
something radical to jumpstart a lot of new projects at scale that would get permitted in 2022
and prepare for the 2023 t 2030 RHNA cycle. The original intent of the emergency motion was
the scale of 70 Encina caused him pause. He discussed the history of the project from the
beginning up to the current proposal. He acknowledged that the applicant did what was asked
and scaled the project down. He was not sure if they did a prescreening at that time that they
would not go in the opposite direction and ask for more height and density and more than 20
units. Circumstances had radically changed because the RHNA numbers were exponentially
higher than in 2020.
Vice Mayor Veenker expressed interest in the rooftop garden or adding trees if it were possible.
She wanted to know if the parcel that cut through the parking lot going to the Medical
Foundation would have to stay if the rest of the parking lot was developed by the Ellises. She
appreciated that both BMR units were at 80% AMI.
Senior Planner Kallas replied that because they did not have a formal or preliminary application
from Ellis Partners at the time, they had not been able to evaluate what the fire access
requirements for the shopping center would be.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims asked if she was right that the PHZ must demonstrate
compatibility with existing or potential uses on adjoining sites. She struggled with the obligation
about finding compatibility with existing and potential uses. She was looking to Staff for
guidance about making a decision about a potential impact on a potential future use or lack of
compatibility with it if that potential future use is hypothetical until it becomes you know a
project that's proposed and entitled and permitted and so on. She asked how they assess the
extent to which this project asked them to compromise on some of the expectations they might
have knowing that additional housing might go in around it and would be impacted by the fact
that this project had pushed to the edges of its limitations and they had given some
concessions.
Senior Planner Kallas presented a slide showing the three findings for planned community
application. She indicated Staff looked at it as the use would refer to the land use and not the
density. They would look at housing as being compatible next to future housing. In the case of
Town and Country, housing was also appropriate next to the community commercial land use.
When talking about land use for the purpose of the finding, they were thinking land use equals
housing commercial, they were not thinking 150 units. She commented that they believed this
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 14 of 21
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025
project was sufficient within its boundaries in the same way a potential future project on
adjoining sites would also need to be sufficient and meet fire and building code within the
parameters of their property lines.
Councilmember Lu queried if there was any precedent for prioritizing the tree in-lieu fee to
apply to the adjacent parts of El Camino, Encina and the Embarcadero Bike Path such that the
trees in-lieu for this project attempt to offset some of the heat island impacts from this project.
He was curious if that had ever happened before. He thought it would be useful to consider or
take a second look at any tree planting opportunities in the public right-of-way in the adjacent
area. He suggested considering if that would appreciably tackle some of those concerns. He
thought this was a good project and was appropriate for an urban setting. He opined a small
setback was okay for a service alley or passageway. He would prefer an expanded, thought-out,
planned project across that strip of parking lots. He would support projects at least as dense
with similar setbacks and rules for the adjacent sites. He hoped negotiations would continue
and they could get another proposal before this one was constructed. He did not want to block
this project due to the speculative future project.
Jonathan Lait, Planning & Development Services Director, did not remember a specific case but
thought there was an opportunity for a conversation on where to direct those in lieu funds in
areas of the City. He believed the Urban Forestry Department knew where they wanted to
increase the canopy in the City. To the extent that their mapping and analysis would include
this area, they could have a conversation about how they might be able to direct those funds in
that area.
Vice Mayor Veenker inquired about the standard of review. She queried if it was dispositive or a
necessary predicate. She observed if the project were approved, a comprehensive set of
housing projects could continue to be developed and they might end up amending the
application which she would encourage. Because they did not have an application in front of
them for the larger project, she felt they should rule on this one on its own merits.
Albert Yang, Assistant City Attorney, explained the normal standard of review for a land-use
decision was substantial evidence where the Council would need to show the link between the
facts in the record, the findings that need to be made and the ultimate decision yes or no.
Because this is a rezoning legislative item, the Council would likely receive a little more
deference than the usual substantial evidence review standard but substantial evidence would
still be the basic framework they were working within. He recommended basing the yes or no
decision on the ability to make findings or not. He suggested that the findings were fairly broad
and hopefully any factors entering into Council's considerations could be tied to those findings
in some way to inform whether or not they could be made.
Councilmember Reckdahl agreed if they were prescreening this at the time, they would kick it
back saying it was not dense enough. He thought they had to appreciate they lead them down a
path and they followed that path. He tended to support the project. He had concern about the
greenery. He asked about the in lieu fees for trees. He asked if they were still following the
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 15 of 21
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025
Comp Plan if they planted in the neighborhood of Town & Country. He asked how narrow they
had to follow the findings as they were losing trees.
Senior Planner Kallas replied the in lieu tree fees would depend on the project but they were
very common. She commented Policy L-2.11 encouraged projects to incorporate greenery and
natural features and L-4.13 encouraged a vibrant retail environment and urban greening in
Town & Country Village.
Director Lait remarked the Comp Plan was a high-level document that set forth their aspirations
for what they wanted to accomplish in different parts of the City. It talks about the
environment and how the City will change or evolve over time. It relies on the zoning code to
implement those visions and that that policy into either objective or subjective standards set
forth in the municipal code. Included in the municipal code are opportunities to address when
trees do need to be removed as part of a development and procedures for in lieu payment are
included. Any project will find areas of general consistency and other areas where it may not be
as consistent. They tend to speak about a project's conformance with the general plan on
balance that the project is more compliant or not compliant. These would be the factors
Council would weigh in its decision. Staff did its analysis and fell on a set of findings they
believed could support the project.
Mayor Lauing asked the applicant if there was a willingness to reduce the size of the space of
one or two of the units to accommodate open space greenery so they could get around that
problem for any future developer that would have to deal with the setbacks or having to add
greenery. He asked if they looked at projects beyond condos.
Mr. Galbraith explained the CC District required zero setback and they were pulled back five
feet on both sides. The only place they were down to 7 inches was on the rear lot line and on
about 12 or 13 feet about the side lot lines for just the lower story toward the rear garages.
Part of the reason for that was the one-story bump outs were where the fire department
needed to get up onto in order to get access to the roof so they were serving a couple of
possibilities. If they pulled the sides in from the seven inches to the five feet like the rest of the
of the project, it would cause problems for the fire access to the roof. On the rear setback, they
were facing up against Town & Country and their back of house. If they pulled back two, three,
four or five feet, they would create dead space on the lot that could be planted potentially but
would have to be maintained somehow. It would basically green the edge of the service alley.
That underlied a zone that the fire department was relying on for half of the building.
Hypothetically, they could shrink the garages on the ground floor, pull the back facade in and
create a dead space back there on one half of the project but the other half needed the fire
access to the roof. In terms of greenery, it was a question of finding space. They were relying on
the trees in the central courtyard which was the space that would get used by occupants the
most. They started the side yards out as more green garden spaces. The fire department
needed both of those to fight fires so they had to give that space up. Creating more green space
that was not vertical planting on walls would require either something on a rooftop or finding
other horizontal space and would be tough. There was about an 18-inch setback on the side
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 16 of 21
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025
yards past the 5 foot that created space for low planting on. He agreed deleting two condos
would leave space for greenery but he did not think the project would work at that point. He
stated they did look at rentals. He explained they would commonly develop a project and do
cost analysis on the rental side and the condo side. They had to weigh the BMR impacts and the
rentals did not work.
Councilmember Stone’s concerns were the setback, greenery and the density. He appreciated
the applicant working with Town & Country. He opted to vote in favor for a housing project
than deny it in hopes for a future larger housing project and this would not preclude a future
larger housing project. He encouraged the applicant to continue to engage with Ellis Partners to
see what could be possible there. He noted there were still concerns raised by PTC and ARB
that had not been addressed. He appreciated the two BMR units at 80% AMI.
Mayor Lauing commented that in a future agenda, they would have to get back to making some
adjustments to the PHZ. He reiterated the applicant did what they were asked and he could not
see penalizing them for it going down. He thought the two discounted homes was the only
benefit.
MOTION: Councilmember Lu moved, seconded by Councilmember Lythcott-Haims to:
1. Consider the CEQA Guidelines section 15183 checklist analyzing the project’s
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan 2030 Environmental Impact Report
(SCH#2014052101);
2. Approve an Ordinance (Attachment B) rezoning the subject site from Community
Commercial to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning; and
3. Approve the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment C) approving the proposed project,
based on findings and subject to conditions of approval to the City Council.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
13. FIRST READING: Adoption of an Ordinance Adding New Chapter 9.75 (Fair Chance in
Housing) to Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals, and Safety) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to
Limit the Use of Criminal History Information in Rental Housing Decisions. CEQA Status -
Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
Rebecca Atkinson, Planner, provided a slide presentation about the Fair Chance Housing Policy
and Draft Ordinance including the meeting purpose, Fair Chance Housing past policy discussions
and motions, Fair Chance Housing Ordinance overview, Fair Chance Housing policy comparison,
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 17 of 21
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025
Fair Chance Housing Ordinance: procedures, potential alternative policy considerations, a
proposed timeline and the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Reckdahl queried when the lookback period started.
Planner Atkinson answered the lookback period was from the date of application for the type of
decision being made. The date of the record would be the date of sentencing. She stated the
procedure set up the ways in which a landlord could look at criminal history information. State
law already required looking at only directly related convictions.
Madeleine Salah, Deputy City Attorney, clarified if the sentencing occurred beyond more than
two years prior to the date of the application, the landlord would not be able to consider that
conviction regardless of whether or not it was a directly related conviction.
Councilmember Stone wanted to understand why Staff was proposing the lookback period be
the time from conviction rather than from the date of release from custody and why reports
were cited that seemed to be using date of release rather than date of sentencing. He thought
it would be relevant for a landlord to be able to see if a person had been able to stay out of
trouble and not cause issues of concern for a perspective landlord after being released from
prison. He wanted to know the landlord would receive only the two-year window if there was a
two-year lookback or the entire criminal history report. He asked if this ordinance as proposed
would apply to a single-family home assuming the property owner was not living there.
Planner Atkinson thought that in general when people were released it was considered that
they served their time. It was her understanding that all records would be coming depending on
the different types of databases being used. She stated the definition of landlord in the
ordinance was similar to other definitions of landlord elsewhere in the municipal code and
property owner or property manager were in the definition of landlord so it could be both.
Director Lait asked if it followed state law.
Deputy City Attorney Salah explained state law did not have a lookback period. She thought the
data Staff cited in the report varied in terms of whether or not it analyzes from date of release,
conviction or sentencing. She stated it was standard in many of the other ordinances that Staff
based their proposed ordinance on to consider date of sentencing and the point about the
policy rationale being that once somebody is released from incarceration they were generally
considered to be rehabilitated. Another important policy piece of feedback that Staff received
was that the time immediately succeeding release from incarceration was a particularly
vulnerable time for people who have experienced incarceration.
Vice Mayor Veenker was under the impression that it may not be very easy to get dates of
incarceration from some of the databases. Her worry was that they may be disadvantaging
those who commit less egregious crimes and advantaging those who commit more egregious
crimes. She wondered if that was part of why the legislature did not do a lookback. She thought
it looked like some other jurisdictions may do a proxy-type thing and asked if there was any
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 18 of 21
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025
look at that to try to deal with the logic problem with a flat lookback. She thought what they
were aware of would be uneven having a cutoff for the lookback.
Planner Atkinson explained in general what was considered a felony and misdemeanor could
differ across different jurisdictions. The HRC recommendation was to include a two-year
lookback period for both misdemeanors and felonies. Given the differences in how offences
could show up in criminal history databases, that was one consideration to have a single
lookback period. Given that it was an individualized assessment and would be on the obligation
of the landlord to identify directly related convictions was another reason to have a lookback
period and have the landlords make their decisions and do that process rather than specifying
what types of offenses would be something to consider or not right rather than the local
organization doing it.
Councilmember Burt agreed the lookback seemed problematic. He wanted to know why they
were focusing on a two-year versus a stepped one or other alternatives.
Planner Atkinson remarked in general as policymaking in the Fair Chance space had recently
produced a proposed rule where anything longer than three years for misdemeanors and
felonies was considered presumptively unreasonable based on the various points of reference
they included in the proposed rule for consideration including the how the risk of recidivism
was reduced over time.
Director Lait added it had been a few years since the City Council gave Staff direction to study
this issue and report back on the implications of a Fair Chance Policy. They had reached out to
the Human Relations Commissions and had a number of community engagement opportunities
but they had not had a chance to check in with City Council on how they wanted this policy to
develop. The intent for that night was to frame it as a discussion to share what they learned
and to get feedback. They included an ordinance as a starting place for Council to begin to look
at it and find areas where they were supportive and other areas they thought needed further
refinement. They heard the lookback provision might be one of those areas. From a Staff
perspective, they wanted to make sure Council would have options to take action if they so
wanted but if there were policy items they had not had a chance to dive into, they would like to
hear that feedback and get that direction and they could make refinements to the ordinance.
Councilmember Lu queried if consideration had been made for the workability of an exception
for serious crimes having a longer lookback window. He inquired if it would be viable for a
landlord to request to know the locations of where the individual last lived and a reference
from their last landlord. That would effectively exclude people recently released. He asked how
possible ways to circumvent this had been considered or discussed.
Deputy City Attorney Salah answered that proposal had not been considered and Staff did not
put forth a perspective definition of serious crimes. There would be implementation challenges
defining what a serious crime might be. Even if they were to call out certain types of offenses,
not every offense is classified in a one-to-one way in different jurisdictions.
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 19 of 21
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025
Planner Atkinson observed that the staff report mentioned that it is not possible to prevent
someone from running a criminal history check without consent but the procedures offered in
the code offered some protections. This was one means by which to address it. It was not
necessarily a problem with the ordinance itself but a situation where it was one way to be able
to address some of the circumstances with the problems with criminal history databases and
providing renters with a fair opportunity to compete.
Councilmember Lythcott-Haims underscored that they all appreciated the illogic of a lookback
period that started with sentencing.
Public Comment:
1. Emily R. spoke on behalf of SV@H expressing their support for the proposed Fair Chance
Housing Ordinance and to urge Council to commit Staff time and resource to ensure
effective enforcement for the full suite of tenant protections they adopted in recent
years.
2. Anil B. (Zoom), California Apartment Association, expressed why he had concern about
the duplicative nature of this ordinance. He commended Planner Atkinson for her
diligent outreach to all parties involved.
3. Mary Kate S. (Zoom), chair of Human Relations Commission, addressed Councilmember
Lu’s question about loopholes by saying they set up the procedure where a tenant
would have to give their consent to having their background checked and it would be
more clear when that background check uncovered something informing the landlord’s
decision. She remarked they talked about the lookback period but the nuance around
when it would begin was not something they turned onto and she thought it was worthy
of more discussion. She mentioned other issues brought up by the HRC that were listed
on page 309 of the packet.
Vice Mayor Veenker appreciated the work that had gone into the proposal and understood the
link between being unhoused and recidivism. She supported the consistency with the state law
prohibiting consideration of anything but directly related convictions and the procedural steps
suggested by the HRC that a landlord must take before rejecting somebody based on criminal
history such as making a condition offer before doing a background check. She wondered if a
little more work could be done finding out if they could get incarceration and release data and
if not figure out what would be the best proxy. She remarked the criminal justice system takes a
variety of factors into account in setting the length of a sentence. They had to figure out a way
around the issue of the longer a sentence is, the less likely it will be found out. She was not
inclined to pass the ordinance at that time but wanted to continue to pursue it as a City. She
hoped the things she mentioned would be looked at and they could see it again.
Mayor Lauing concurred with looking at calculating the lookback by the release date. He asked
if comparing to other jurisdictions meant other states or other cities within the state and if they
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 20 of 21
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025
would be able to apply the California standards. He commented that criminals get past the
system and they could not ignore the threat to tenants and landlords was real.
Deputy City Attorney Salah stated it was a comparison between states. She stated it might not
be easy to understand what the relevant California standards would be because the categories
of crimes in different jurisdictions were different.
Councilmember Stone was confused by the recidivism rates shown on the graph on page 3 of
the Department of Corrections report and asked if Staff could clarify where in the report it
showed most convictions occur during years 1 and 2 and falls off in year 3. He asked if there
was a way hate incident would show up on a criminal background check or if it could be
incorporated as something a landlord could consider. He wanted to know if a landlord who
found out that someone went off on a racist rant would have a basis to deny an applicant based
on that. He inquired if an applicant wanted to dispute any of the findings of a criminal
background if there was a requirement that the landlord would have to consider that evidence
or if it was at the discretion of the landlord and if the prospective tenant was still unhappy if
they would have the right to pursue legal litigation. He wanted to see the lookback window
changed. He wanted to ensure they were using data that was informing their decision and
finding a balance. He thought separating serious crimes would be an important piece to this. He
was more comfortable with a three-year lookback window for less serious crimes. He thought
more serious crimes should require a 10-year lookback window. He suggested looking closer
into exempting single-family home rentals even if the property owner was not living there.
Planner Atkinson stated she would be happy to take another look at that and write up the
response.
Molly Stump, City Attorney indicated that Staff would have to follow up about hate incidents.
Deputy City Attorney Salah did not think this ordinance would prohibit that because if it did not
show up in the criminal history, it would not be taking action based on something in the
criminal history and did not change the landlord’s ability to not rent to someone who engaged
in that type of behavior. She explained a landlord would be required to consider mitigating
information or evidence of inaccuracy in the criminal history report they receive. If they
ultimately decide to take adverse action based on the applicant’s criminal history information,
they have to include in the written statement of reasons how they took that information into
account and that becomes a documented paper trail for the applicant whose next step would
be to bring a lawsuit. Planner Atkinson added the actual information the landlord needed to
provide could be found in draft ordinance 9.75.070E1b.
Councilmember Burt wanted to talk about distinguishing between serious and less serious
crimes. He did not think the fact that they could not have perfection in how they establish the
standards should not mean they abandon certain principles of distinguished distinction. He
opined they knew the difference between a serious violent crime and trespassing. He
recognized it would not be simple to reconcile that but did not accept that they could not make
SUMMARY MINUTES
Page 21 of 21
City Council Meeting
Summary Minutes: 04/14/2025
those distinctions because of state-to-state differences. He discussed his understanding of the
Statewide Recidivism Rates. He observed that they had to figure out how to strike the right
balance in the Fair Chance Housing Ordinance.
Mayor Lauing asked Director Lait if their comments would be enough to bring back another
draft or if it should go to a subcommittee.
Director Lait replied they were open to any path forward. He felt they had information they
could react to. Options to consider would be to engage with the Policy and Services Committee
to work through the process to refine the ordinance or go back and work with the HRC.
City Manager Shikada offered that they could bring it back to Council after conferring with the
city attorney’s office to see what would be the most defensible approach to extending the
lookback period to a level reflective of the seriousness of the crime.
Vice Mayor Veenker wanted to bear in mind that part of the purpose of the Fair Chance
Ordinance was to help reduce recidivism rates by giving people stable environments and having
them be housed. She wanted to make Staff aware of the tiers of sex crimes moving forward to
the next step. She was fine for it to go to P&S. She wanted to see the Planning Department and
the city attorney’s office work on this.
Councilmember Reckdahl commented they had to balance their good intentions with the good
intentions for the landlords and other tenants and could not close their eyes that other tenants
were impacted by this. He thought Policy and Services was the right way to go. He did not think
the lookback window made sense to start at sentencing and it had to be from release and they
also needed to separate minor crimes from violent crimes.
MOTION: Councilmember Burt moved, seconded by Councilmember Reckdahl to refer this
item to the Policy and Services Committee.
MOTION PASSED: 7-0
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 10:18 P.M.
Fair Chance in Housing
Ordinance
Rebecca Atkinson, Planner
Policy & Services Committee – June 9, 2026 www.paloalto.gov1
2
Meeting Purpose
•Review revised draft Fair Chance Housing Ordinance
•Conduct public hearing to discuss and receive public feedback
•Recommendation from Policy & Services Committee to City Council
3
Discussions & Motions:Fair Chance in Housing Policy
City
Council
(November 29, 2021)
Fair Chance
ordinance to the
Policy & Services
Committee for
analysis on
consequences/
unintended
consequences.
Human Relations
Commission
(February 9, 2023)
Recommended
City Council
proceed with a
Fair Chance
Ordinance to
limit landlords’
ability to inquire
about an
applicant’s
criminal history.
Housing Ad Hoc
Committee
(August 8, 2024)
Recommended
Human Relations
Commission
consideration of
policy
approaches prior
to Council
consideration.
Human Relations
Commission
(October 10, 2024)
Recommended a
Fair Chance
Ordinance with a
two-year
lookback period.
City
Council
(April 14, 2025)
Referred to Policy
& Services
Committee.
Policy & Services
Committee
(June 9, 2026)
Review revised
draft ordinance.
4
Fair Chance Housing Ordinance Overview
Overview
Promotes fair housing,
anti-discrimination, and
renter’s rights
Establishes procedures for
the use of criminal history in
rental housing decisions
Facilitates equal opportunities
for applicants to compete
for rental housing
Location
New
Chapter
in PAMC
Details
If adopted, procedures would be
established.
Example Procedures:
•Criminal history check only after a
conditional housing offer is made
•Individualized assessment of any
criminal history information
5
Analysis Refinement Topics Requested by City Council
•Lookback period anchor date
•Lookback period length/offense types
•Additional changes
6
Refined Draft Fair Chance in Housing Ordinance
Lookback Period Anchor Date Refinements
•City Council request:
•Consider if lookback periods should reflect time in community
•Staff recommendation:
•Anchored by date of disposition (most reliably reported date)
•If anchor date is not listed:
•Directly related conviction may be considered by default
•Renter may show it falls outside of lookback period
•Alternatives:
•Use a combination of anchor dates (e.g., release from incarceration when applicable, disposition
or sentencing where no incarceration imposed) or
•Use any post-conviction anchor date
7
Refined Draft Fair Chance in Housing Ordinance
Lookback Period Lengths/Offense Type Refinements
•City Council request:
•Consider longer and varied lookback periods reflecting severity of offense
•Staff recommendation:
•3 years for misdemeanors/5 years for felonies
•Uses conviction classification in jurisdiction of conviction
•Out-of-state felony treated as misdemeanor if renter shows as misdemeanor in California
•Exceptions for conduct lawful in California
•Alternatives:
•Different lookback period lengths
•Misdemeanor-only approach
•California hate crime convictions
•Three-tier system including serious/violent felonies
•Safe harbor provision
8
Refined Draft Fair Chance in Housing Ordinance
Additional Changes
•City Council request:
•Clarification on permissible use of registry of California sex offenders
•Applicability exemptions for single family residences
•Reducing likelihood of circumvention
•Staff recommendation:
•Exempt all single family residences
•Add language clarifying that landlords may use:
•Sex offender registry
•Other lawful screening tools (e.g. employment verification)
•Existing ordinance language addresses potential circumvention
9
Staff Recommendation
1.Provide feedback on a revised Fair Chance in Housing Ordinance based on prior City
Council feedback and staff analysis; and
2.Recommend City Council adopt the ordinance (Attachment A) for first reading, to be
placed on the consent calendar if unanimously recommended by the Committee.
Rebecca Atkinson
Planner
rebecca.atkinson@paloalto.gov
650.329.2596
10