7 0
9 2
once the resulting road condition is known following completion of heavy construction activities and utility lateral installations, at minimum the extent will be the project frontage.
45. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA. The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. To determine the impervious surface area that is being disturbed, provide the quantity on the site plan.
46. PRIOR TO PUBLIC WORKS FINAL/ACCEPTANCE (STORM DRAIN LOGO). The applicant is required to paint “No Dumping/Flows to SF Creek” in blue on a white background adjacent to all onsite storm drain inlets.
The name of the creek to which the proposed development drains can be obtained from Public Works Engineering. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan.
47. PRIOR TO PUBLIC WORKS FINAL/ACCEPTANCE (RECORD DRAWINGS). At the conclusion of the project applicant shall provide digital as-built/record drawings of all improvements constructed in the public right-of-way or easements in which the City owns an interest.
48. PRIOR TO PUBLIC WORKS FINAL/ACCEPTANCE (INDEFINITE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT). An approved indefinite encroachment permit will be required for private infrastructure constructed in the public right-of-way, easement or on property in which the City holds an interest, but that was not authorized by a building permit.
PUBLIC WORKS ZERO WASTE
49. Internal refuse bins shall be installed as listed below. Cut sheets of both the signage and bins are required on the plan set.
c. Common Areas requires a green compost, black landfill, and blue recycle d. Mail Area requires a black landfill, and blue recycle e. *Signage with pictorial items of what goes where and a list of “no” items are required on each of the bin.
50. If the scope of work involves internal and external bins (compost, recycle, and landfill) and its related millwork, then on the overall site plan, please show where the bins will be placed and reference the cut sheets of the three bins (recycle, compost, and landfill) that will be used at each location. The recycle, compost, and landfill bin must be placed right next to each other. Please see requirements below.
51. The following comments below are part of the Palo Alto Municipality Code and must be reflected in the plans submitted for building permit as applicable:
a. If your scope of work includes internal and external bins then cut-sheets for the color-coded internal and external containers, related color-coded millwork, and it’s colored signage must be Item 12
Attachment C - Draft
Record of Land Use
Action
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
29 Packet Pg. 244 of 332
7 0
9 2
included in the building plans prior to receiving approval from Zero Waste. Please see below for more details.
b. Per Palo Alto Municipal Code 5.20.108 the site is required to have color-coded refuse containers, related color-coded millwork, and colored signage. The three refuse containers shall include recycle (blue container), compost (green container), and garbage (black container).
Applicant shall present on the plan the locations and quantity of both (any) internal and external refuse containers, it’s millwork, along with the signage. This requirement applies to any external or internal refuse containers located in common areas such as entrances, conference rooms, back of the house kitchen, café, dining area, and etc. except for restrooms, copy area, and mother’s room.
c. Millwork to store the color-coded refuse containers must have a minimum of four inches in height worth of color-coding, wrapping around the full width of the millwork. Signage must be color coded with photos or illustrations of commonly discarded items. Restrooms must have a green compost container for paper towels and a small landfill bin for sanitary products. Copy area must have either a recycle bin only or all three refuse receptacles (green compost, blue recycle, and black landfill container). Mother’s room must minimally have a green compost container and black landfill container. Please refer to PAMC 5.20.108 and the Internal Container Guide. Examples of appropriate signage can be found in the Managing Zero Waste at Your Business Guide. Electronic copies of these signage can be found on the Zero Waste Palo Alto’s website, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Zero-Waste/What-Goes- Where/Toolkit#section-2 and hard copies can be requested from the waste hauler, Greenwaste of Palo Alto, (650) 493-4894.
URBAN FORESTRY
52. TREE REPLACEMENT IN-LIEU FEES. For the replacement value of 21 unplanted 24" box trees (where the replacement value is 28 and 7 are proposed for planting) $13,650 must be paid to the Palo Alto Urban Forestry fund prior to permit issuance. Invoice will be sent to applicant and fees applied, to make payment.
53. ARBORIST REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS AND MONITORING. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR and/or Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC
8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. If called for, project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. When required, the Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City ([email protected]) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11.
54. TREE DAMAGE, INJURY MITIGATION AND INSPECTIONS APPLY TO CONTRACTOR. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30.
Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the PAMC and city Tree Technical Manual, Item 12
Attachment C - Draft
Record of Land Use
Action
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
30 Packet Pg. 245 of 332
7 0
9 2
Section 2.25. No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival.
55. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION INSPECTION REQUIRED. Prior to any site work, contractor must call Uriel Hernandez at 650-329-2450 to schedule an inspection of any required protective fencing. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project.
During the permit phase of a project an applicant must provide the proposed square footage of the rehabilitated landscape to determine if the project requires a MWELO compliance review. Please see the document titled “Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Compliance Submittals and Guidelines” (https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/76159) to determine if the project qualifies for MWELO Review. If a MWELO review is required, please follow the instructions in the above document when submitting your permit application and plan set.
56. NO NET LOSS OF CANOPY. To comply with the city’s no net loss of canopy policy (Urban Forest Master Plan: Goals 6.A, 6.B & 6.C & Comprehensive Plan Natural Environment Chapter: Goal N-2 and others) all trees 4” DBH and larger are subject to replacement to avoid a loss of canopy at the neighborhood level.
Replacement ratios are determined by table 3-1 in the Tree Technical Manual (Section 3.20.C). New landscape tree plantings (24” box or larger) count towards the replacement total. Screening trees may also count toward the total depending on size and species selected. If unable to plant the required number of trees on site (our preferred solution) there is the option to pay in-lieu fees of $650 per each 24” box tree into the forestry fund.
57. T-1 SHEET. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the T1 Sheet and all additional TSheets regarding tree protection and mitigation.
PUBLIC WORKS WATERSHED PROTECTION
The following conditions are required to be part of any Planning application approval and shall be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc. as further described below.
58. Stormwater treatment measures:
f. All Bay Area Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements shall be followed. Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Handbook (download here:
http://scvurppp-w2k.com/c3_handbook.shtml) for details.
59. Stormwater quality protection
g. Temporary and permanent waste, compost and recycling containers shall be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter the containers. h. Drain downspouts to landscaping (outward from building as needed). i. Drain HVAC fluids from roofs and other areas to landscaping.
Item 12
Attachment C - Draft
Record of Land Use
Action
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
31 Packet Pg. 246 of 332
7 0
9 2
j. Offsite downgrade storm drain inlets shall also be identified on this plan set and protected. If City staff removes protection from an inlet in the ROW during a rain event, the contractor shall replace the inlet protection by the end of the following business day.
60. PAMC 16.09.165(h) Storm Drain Labeling
k. Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No dumping - Flows to [Creek]," or equivalent.
WATER-GAS-WASTEWATER UTILITIES
61. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet for the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain).
62. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations, and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater laterals and mains need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes, electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the duct bank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water, and gas.
63. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc).
64. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services, laterals as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services/laterals.
65. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the city inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly.
66. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new WGW utilities required with the project. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation.
67. The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system including all fire department's requirements.
Item 12
Attachment C - Draft
Record of Land Use
Action
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
32 Packet Pg. 247 of 332
7 0
9 2
68. The property shall have its own water meter for domestic and irrigation shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans.
69. A sewer lateral per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans. A profile of the sewer lateral is required showing any possible conflicts with storm, electric/communications ductbanks or other utilities.
70. All existing water, and gas. and wastewater services/laterals that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per the latest WGW utilities standards.
71. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas, or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 2’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas, and wastewater mains/laterals/water services/or meters. New water or wastewater services/laterals/meters may not be installed within 10’ of existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water and wastewater services/laterals/meters.
72. All water system improvement necessary to accommodate the development shall be finalize per WGW requirements and approved by WGW prior to permit issuance.
SECTION 8. Term of Approval.
1. Effective Date. The approvals memorialized in this Record of Land Use Action shall be effective on the same date that the accompanying ordinance, Ordinance _____, rezoning the subject properties takes effect and construction shall occur in accordance with the development schedule as indicated in the ordinance. Notwithstanding the above, construction of the project shall commence within two years or the effective date of the ordinance. //
//
//
//
//
//
//
Item 12
Attachment C - Draft
Record of Land Use
Action
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
33 Packet Pg. 248 of 332
7 0
9 2
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
___________________________ ___________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager
___________________________
Director of Planning and
Development Services
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
1. Those plans prepared by the applicant titled Encina Housing, 70 Encina Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301, consisting of 56 pages, uploaded to Accela Citizen Access on February 19, 2025, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 7.
Item 12
Attachment C - Draft
Record of Land Use
Action
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
34 Packet Pg. 249 of 332
ATTACHMENT D
ZONING COMPARISON TABLE
70 Encina, 24PLN-00095
Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC DISTRICT)
Mixed Use and Residential Development Standards
Regulation Required CC
Residential Standards Existing Proposed PHZ
Minimum Site Area, width and
depth No Requirement
100.0 feet x 121.19
feet
12,119 sf
100.0 feet x 121.19
feet
12,119 sf
Minimum Front Yard 0 feet N/A 0 feet
Rear Yard 10 feet N/A 0 feet 3 inches
Interior Side Yards No Requirement N/A Varies, 0 feet 7 inches – 5 feet
Max. Site Coverage 6,059 sf
50% N/A 7,108 sf
58.64%
Min. Landscape/Open Space 3,630 sf
30%
0%, no ground-level
landscaping or
qualifying open space
Min. Useable Open Space 150 sf per unit
1500 sf total N/A
Unit terraces vary 79
sf – 155 sf
952 sf total
Max. Building Height 50 feet N/A 37 feet 3 inches
Residential Density No Requirement N/A 10 units
28 du/acre
Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.25
15,150 sf N/A
19,035 sf
1.57:1
100% residential
Daylight Plane None N/A N/A
Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Office*
Type Required Existing Proposed
Vehicle Parking No parking required
per AB 2097
Approximately 36
uncovered spaces
16 spaces
Bicycle Parking 1 LT space per unit None 1 LT space in each unit garage
Item 12
Attachment D - Zoning
Consistency Analysis
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
35 Packet Pg. 250 of 332
Aug. 30th, 2024 Emily Kallas / Jodie Gerhardt City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department 285 Hamilton St, 1st Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 PROJECT DESCRIPTION RE: 70 ENCINA AVE – PLANNING REVIEW PROJECT DESCRIPTION Dear Ms. Kallas, On behalf of our client Stormland LLC., Hayes Group Architects submits this project description along with an application form, a set of design drawings and required documents to request planning review for entitlement. The site is comprised of two parcels totaling 12,120 SF located in the CC zone along Encina Avenue, behind the Town & Country shopping center. The site was previously used as a surface parking lot for the shopping center. Proposed Project The proposed project consists of a new 3-story, 22,355 SF building (1.84 FAR), and full site improvements to replace the existing surface parking area. The proposed design organizes 10 new 3-story townhouse style residential units around a common central courtyard. The front facade creates a strong edge along Encina Ave, with the building mass pulled back 3 feet at the ground floor behind raised planters. The building facades facing both interior side-yards are set back a minimum of 5 feet, with additional intermittent setbacks to break up the massing and accentuate the identity of each individual residential unit. The primary building materials exposed to public view are brick veneer (at the ground floor), board and batten, linear rainscreen siding, vertical slat screens, pre-finished glazing frames, clear glass, and standing seam metal roof. Project History Back in May of 2022 we submitted an application for a PHZ ‘Pre-Screening’ hearing for a larger project on the same parcel(s). That hearing was held on Sept 12, 2022. While the project received a warm reception by Council members, there was objection from the neighboring shopping center, mostly regarding the size and height of the proposed project. After reviewing the project with the neighbors and studying various alternative project configurations, we have determined to modify the project as follows:
Item 12
Attachment E -
Applicant’s Project
Description
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
36 Packet Pg. 251 of 332
1. Reduction in height from five (5) stories to three (3). This greatly reduces visibility of the project from within the neighboring Town & Country shopping center. 2. The reduction in height also results in a reduction in residential unit count from twenty units (20) to ten (10). The previous project configuration consisted of four (4) stories of residential area over one floor of parking and common area. The new configuration proposes two (2) stories of living area over individual private garages located at the ground level of each unit. 3. In an effort offset the financial impact of the reduced unit count, the project approach was changed from 'flat' (single story) units over a podium, to three-story town-house units, sometimes referred to as 'carriage units' since their ground floors consist of a private garage. This eliminates costly concrete construction at the ground level and minimizes interior common area. It also eliminates the need for common stairs and an elevator since all units are 'walk-up' units, accessed from grade level, and simplifies the configuration and cost of structural systems. 4. The now proposed ten (10) residential units are organized around a common access court that provides both vehicular and pedestrian access. This courtyard is 30 feet wide and roughly 80 feet long, mostly open to the sky, and is proposed to have pavers for the ground surface and include tall narrow trees to create a more natural and inviting environment with less focus on cars, and bollards to ensure protection of the pedestrian entry points to each unit. This concept is similar to the well-known and successful project: Fulton Grove, located at 421 to 457 Fulton Street in San Francisco, CA. 5. The proposed design incorporates numerous planting / green features throughout the building, contributing to enhancing the aesthetic appeal and softening the building façade. On December 7th 2024 this revised project direction was presented in a Preliminary ARB hearing. While opinions of board members varies widely, there was general consensus around the need to loosen up the vehicular entrance, the desire to activate the Encina street frontage, the need to provide some setback at the rear façade, and feedback from the fire department about the need to provide additional roof access provisions. We also attended a DRC meeting on January 17th 2024 and a formal PHZ application was submitted on March 17th 2024. In the formal submittal package we addressed comments received from the DRC as summarized below: 1. Vehicular Entry: The vehicular entry gate has been widened from the 14’ code minimum to 18 feet. The garage doors to the front units have also been pushed deeper into the site and the entry court width widened by 4 feet to create more maneuvering space. 2. Activate Encina Frontage: We have flipped the front unit layouts, so the stairways are on the front façade instead of being buried behind interior program. Locating a transitional semi-private space such stairs at the façade allows us to create more windows without concerns about visibility into more private spaces. 3. Rear Setback: The upper 2 stories have been set back 3’-9” from the rear property line. This breaks down the massing and allows us to introduce windows facing Town & Country, so the rear façade feels more open instead of closed. 4. Roof Access: We met several times with the Palo Alto Fire Department and established the need to provide ladder accessible paths to the roof at both the front and rear property lines. We also changed the side yards from private areas to common egress and access paths. Built-in roof access stairs have also been integrated into the architecture at both the front and rear facades. The front access is concealed behind the façade and connected to new front facing terraces. The rear access stairs are screened by a new vertical slat screen wall along the Item 12
Attachment E -
Applicant’s Project
Description
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
37 Packet Pg. 252 of 332
property line that also provides privacy for the new rear facing windows. The slats are spaced far enough apart to allow the passage of light and filtered visibility. Following additional coordination with several city departments we further revised our design as follows and submitted the revised package at the end of July 2024. 1. Rear bedroom (Unit ‘D’) egress window: after additional meetings with the fire dept., it was concluded that there should be 12ft of horizontal clearance for rescue ladders. We pushed the window inwards to obtain the clearance. 2. Subsurface transformer in a planted island: due to various constraints, we are proposing a planted utility island to also accommodate a subsurface transformer, please see the letter provided separately for a detailed discussion of this proposal. 3. Expanded refuse room: in order to satisfy the refuse room layout requested by the waste management dept., we expanded the room by approx.100 SF (from 144SF to 240SF) while relocating the fire backflow device on the front façade. 4. To brighten up the façade: we replaced the dark gray color rainscreen with a lighter (to match with the brick veneer on ground level) color to enhance the building façade appearance and also to address some comments/ concerns made from some of the board members during the preliminary ARB hearing. PHZ Summary As noted in the previous PHZ Program Statement, the use of a PHZ designation continues to be essential for the following reasons: a. The underlying Zoning designation of CC would only allow for an FAR of 0.6:1. This limited development potential severely hinders the number of housing units that can be built. Coupled with the high price of land it also further challenges the inclusion of affordable housing. Under these regulations the site would be limited to a maximum of 4 residential units atop fully or semi- underground parking. Application of PHZ regulations would allow for a significant increase in unit count as illustrated in the attached plans. The proposed residential design is supported with the surroundings as there are adjacent planned community and hospital buildings of much greater heights. b. The proposed uses in this project are limited to private residential condominiums, including support and amenity spaces related to residential use. Support and amenity spaces include usable open space, parking, shared circulation, utilities, and trash & recycling. c. The nature of all proposed uses is that of residential living and associated activities. Each residential unit will contain its own private kitchen and bathing facilities, with all parking concealed in fully enclosed private garages. Below is a schedule of unit types and sizes and anticipated sales prices. Please note that sales prices are based on an estimated sales price of $1,250 per occupied square foot, not including common areas such as parking and utilities etc. unit description BR# unit size (avg) quantity sales price (avg) 3 BEDROOM (1 CAR PARKING) 3BR 1,572 SF 1 $1,896,250 3 BEDROOM (1 CAR PARKING) 3BR 1,632 SF 1 $1,998.500 3 BEDROOM (2 CAR PARKING) 3BR 1,555 SF 6 $1,937,500 Item 12
Attachment E -
Applicant’s Project
Description
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
38 Packet Pg. 253 of 332
2 BEDROOM (1 CAR PARKING) 2BR 1,369 SF 2 $1,788,750 TOTAL: 10 Note: Sales prices shown above are for market rate units. Unit sizes represent livable area, not including ground floor garage and storage areas. 20% of units will be sold or rented as BMR units. Pricing for Below Market Rate units shall be established by the Director of Planning & Development Services in accordance with the City’s website. Expected Construction Timeline Construction Phase: Start Date End Date Overall Construction Schedule (start and completion date for entire project) Oct. 2025 Dec. 2026 Demolition 10/1/2025 10/15/2025 Site Preparation 10/1/2025 10/15/2025 Grading 10/16/2025 11/5/2025 Building Construction 11/6/2025 6/1/2026 Asphalt Paving 9/1/2026 9/4/2026 Architectural Coating 4/1/2026 12/31/2026 Other (e.g., Groundwater Dewatering): Other (e.g., Trenching/Utilities): 10/16/2025 12/1/2025 If you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter or the accompanying plans, please feel free to contact me by phone or email. Jeff Galbraith Principal Hayes Group Architects Inc. (650) 223-4026 [email protected] Sincerely,
Item 12
Attachment E -
Applicant’s Project
Description
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
39 Packet Pg. 254 of 332
1 Kallas, Emily
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2025 12:15 PM
To: Architectural Review Board
Cc: Kallas, Emily; Raybould, Claire
Subject: One of the finest public discussions I have ever heard CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Thank you Chair Rosenberg and board members and Emily and Claire.
It was a joy to see five adults work through a complicated challenge of approving the applicant's work and telling council that the entire site should have more housing.
I appreciate David's persistence of reminding us that the city's adopted housing goal will require bold action and that projects of 10 units will not make it happen.
I appreciate the board's approval of this project and the hard work (and expenses) that the applicant has put in.
I appreciate Peter's hard work to embrace both positions and I hope you reapply for the ARB. You are a powerful and thoughtful voice.
I look forward to attending future meetings.
Thank you again for the fine and, I thought, respectful discussion.
Steve
Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
40 Packet Pg. 255 of 332
Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
41 Packet Pg. 256 of 332
/0 /1 /2 /i255 /4 /1 /5 /6 /2 /i255 /7 /8 /5 /9 /2 /10 /0 /i255 /11 /12 /10 /6 /13 /14 /11 /12 /15 /i255 /16 /6 /6 /i255 /11 /0 /17 /i255 /17 /2 /15 /18 /2 /12 /0 /17 /i255 /1 /16 /17 /i255 /19 /2 /2 /12 /i255 /2 /20 /16 /6 /13 /16 /0 /2 /14 /i255 /16 /17 /i255 /16 /17 /11 /12 /15 /6 /2 /i255 /7 /8 /5 /9 /2 /10 /0 /i255 /16 /17 /i255 /8 /2 /21 /13 /11 /8 /2 /14 /i255 /19 /22 /i255 /23 /24 /25 /26 /27 /28 /1 /16 /12 /29 /i255 /22 /5 /13 /i255 /30 /5 /8 /i255 /22 /5 /13 /8 /i255 /10 /5 /12 /17 /11 /14 /2 /8 /16 /0 /11 /5 /12 /i255 /5 /30 /i255 /0 /1 /2 /17 /2 /i255 /10 /5 /18 /18 /2 /12 /0 /17 /27 /31 /2 /8 /19 /i255 /32 /5 /8 /5 /10 /29
Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
42 Packet Pg. 257 of 332
January 30, 2025
Emily Kallas
Planner, City of Palo Alto
[email protected]
(650) 617-3125
RE: Applica&on No. 24PLN-00095
Dear Ms. Kallas,
We have reviewed the latest submi3al from Storm Land LLC and The Hayes Group (Storm Development) for Applica&on No. 24PLN-00095 (Plan Set Date 01/07/2025, Comment Response 3), which requests a Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) for the construc&on of a new 3-story residen&al condominium at 70 Encina.
Our past review and commentary about the requested PHZ project are summarized below:
• a le3er to the Palo Alto City Council dated September 8, 2022 • a le3er to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) dated December 2, 2023 • a le3er dated July 24, 2024
• a le3er dated September 3, 2024
• a le3er dated October 30, 2024
Addi&onally, we have voiced these concerns in person at the City Council hearing on September 12, 2022, at the ARB Study Session on December 7, 2023, the Planning and Transporta&on Commission (PTC) Hearing on September 11, 2024, and an ARB Hearing on November 7, 2024.
Feedback on Current Submial
In the current submission, we find no meaningful changes have been made to address our previous feedback about the massing, layout and opera&onal impacts of the proposed project on Town and Country Village (TCV).
Based on encouragement from ARB members before and at the November 7, 2024, ARB Hearing, we have reached out to each ARB member and discussed a possible path forward on a comprehensive development plan for the en&re North parking lot at TCV, inclusive of TCV parking areas and the proposed 70 Encina development site (North Lot). During each of these discussions, ARB members expressed a desire to see a comprehensive proposal, crea&ng a thoughFully planned project resul&ng in a greater number of new housing units than the 10 isolated luxury condominium units proposed by the 70 Encina project.
Given this feedback, we have taken meaningful steps over the last 60 days to study residen&al development at the North Lot. To that end, the collec&ve ownership of TCV has discussed possible deal structures that will bring housing to the North Lot, and the ownership is generally suppor&ve of such a project. Addi&onally, we have retained an architect and have begun to evaluate the best approach for Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
43 Packet Pg. 258 of 332
the North Lot that balances architecture and the experience of our retail customers, opera&onal considera&ons and the need to maximize housing development.
TCV reached out to Storm Development to solicit a collabora&on for a possible joint comprehensive project for the North Lot. We look forward to further discussions with Storm Development in the coming weeks. Addi&onally, should a collabora&on fail to materialize, we are also studying mul&family development for our por&on of the North Lot. However, in our opinion, a comprehensive solu&on would result in the best design and greatest number of housing units for the City.
Given the need for housing in the City, we understand that the North Lot is a prime candidate for new residen&al development, and support such a project. As we have repeatedly expressed in our prior le3ers and comments, we con&nue to feel that the proposed development in the current applica&on is poorly conceived, and in isola&on would be detrimental to TCV and its customers who treasure this important community asset. Planned Home Zoning is intended for comprehensive planned developments, and the required findings cannot be made for a small isolated 10-unit project that is not compa&ble with exis&ng uses, and may not be as compa&ble as possible with any future residen&al development of the North Lot. We, therefore, respecFully request that the ARB pause on a decision for this applica&on un&l a cohesively planned and architecturally suitable residen&al development across the full North Lot can be studied, crea&ng more meaningful new housing towards the City’s RHNA goals.
We thank you for the chance to again be heard on this applica&on, and value our partnership with the Palo Alto Planning Department. As we embark on our third decade as the stewards of TCV, we see a great future for this unique property and we hope to work with the ARB, City staff and poten&ally with Storm Development to create a be3er project that we can all be proud of in the future.
Sincerely,
Dean Rubinson
Director of Development
Ellis Partners LLC on behalf of CEP Town & Country Investors LLC
Cc: James F. Ellis, Ellis Partners
Melinda Ellis Evers, Ellis Partners
Mitchell Serrato, Ellis Partners
Architectural Review Board, Palo Alto
Claire Raybould, City of Palo Alto
Leigh Prince, Fox Rothschild
Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
44 Packet Pg. 259 of 332
Outlook
70 Encina Place
FromSusan Setterholm <[email protected]>
Date Sat 11/2/2024 12:48 AM
To Architectural Review Board <[email protected]>
Cc Palo Forward <[email protected]>
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hello,
I urge you to approve 70 Encina Place.
Palo Alto needs more housing.
I worked in Palo Alto for years. I lived in Palo Alto until I was priced out.
Please approve the development with two below market units for others like me.
Thank you.
Susan Setterholm
1000 Sutter Street
San Francisco CA 94109
Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
45 Packet Pg. 260 of 332
Outlook
70 Encina
Fromeileen menteer <[email protected]>
Date Sat 11/2/2024 7:23 PM
To Architectural Review Board <[email protected]>
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Tho not a beautiful building, it provides 2 units of affordable housing, which isn't nothing. It would be a much better place to call home than the Harry Potter cubby, the $800 Palo Alto version. I hope you will approve this project and many more which will help people live closer to their jobs.
Eileen Menteer
Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
46 Packet Pg. 261 of 332
Outlook
SUPPORT - new homes at 70 Encina Street
FromAdam Schwartz <[email protected]>
Date Mon 11/4/2024 9:02 AM
To Architectural Review Board <[email protected]>
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Greetings:
I write in strong support for the construction of new homes at 70 Encina Street. I urge the Architectural Review Board, at its upcoming meeting on November 7, to approve the application to rezone this lot, to allow construction of ten new homes, including two at below market rate (BMR).
Palo Alto has a severe housing crisis. Our teachers, civil servants, and service workers cannot afford to live here, so they are driving super-commutes both ways, burning green-house gasses as they go. We need new homes at all price points -- including these proposed two new BMR homes and eight new market-rate homes.
I've lived in Palo Alto for nine years. My friends have been priced out. My kids, who went to junior high school and high school here, cannot afford to move back to be near me. My mother, who has increasing health problems, cannot afford to move here to be near me.
This is an excellent location for ten new homes: 70 Encina Street is next to transit, shopping, and other amenities. This project has already been under review for more than two years, and has already been significantly reduced in size to address various concerns. Now is the time to approve this project -- and build new homes.
Sincerely,
Adam Schwartz
523 Channing Ave.
Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
47 Packet Pg. 262 of 332
Outlook
ARB Items #2 & #3 - 70 Encina & 3150 ECR
FromPalo Alto Forward <[email protected]>
Date Tue 11/5/2024 4:28 PM
To Architectural Review Board <[email protected]>
2 attachments (316 KB)
3150 ECR Support Ltr (11.5.24).pdf; 70 Encina Support Ltr (11.5.24.pdf; CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Architectural Review Board & City Staff,
Please see our attached letters of support for agenda items #2 and #3 being heard on November 7th.
Thank you,
--
Amie Ashton
Executive Director, Palo Alto Forward
650-793-1585
**Want to be counted as a supporter of housing? Add your name here.** Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
48 Packet Pg. 263 of 332
November 5, 2024
SUBJECT: AgendaItem#3- 70EncinaAvenueTownhomeProject
Dear Chair RosenbergandReviewBoardMembers,
Wewriteinsupport of theproject at 70EncinaAvenue. Thismodest 10-unit townhomeproject(includingtwoaffordableunits) hasbeenthroughalong, but sadlytypical, PHZprocesssince2022. It hasundergonesignificant changes, includingadecreaseinthetotal number of units, inorder toaddressneighboringpropertyissues. Theproject ishalf itsoriginal size.
Theproject locationisperfect for housing, withlocal schools, jobs, retail, andserviceswithinwalkingdistance. Theproject isalsoclosetoCaltrainandthereisabundant existingandplannedactivetransportationinfrastructureintheimmediatevicinity, includingtheEl CaminoReal bikelanesandtheEmbarcaderoBikePath.
Thisisaconstrained, infill sitewithlimitedopportunitiesfor increasedsetbacksandlandscapingwithout significantlycompromisingthefeasibilityof theproject asawhole. However, ourmassivehousingshortagerequiresustorecognizethetradeoffsthat must bemadetofacilitatehousing. For theselarger, family-sizedunitsinthislocation, thetradeoffsareworthmaking.
Theproject still facesalongapproval process, withat least twomorehearingsbeforeapproval.Weurgeyounot todelaythisproject further. Longdelaysoftenmeantheendof housingprojectsduetocontinuallyincreasingcosts. Pleasetakesubstantiveactionat thehearingandrecommendapproval of theproject tothePlanningandTransportationCommission.
Thankyoufor your thoughtful commentsontheproject andfor your servicetoour community! AmieAshtonExecutiveDirector, andonbehalf of theBoardof PaloAltoForward Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
49 Packet Pg. 264 of 332
October 30, 2024
Emily Kallas
Senior Planner, City of Palo Alto
[email protected]
(650) 617-3125
Dear Emily,
We have carefully reviewed the latest submi,al from Storm Land LLC and The Hayes Group for Applica2on No. 24PLN-00095, which requests a Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) for the construc2on of a new 3-story residen2al condominium at 70 Encina. Town & Country Village (TCV) has reviewed all itera2ons of this applica2on and has par2cipated in all related public hearings to voice our concerns about the design, density, and opera2onal impact on TCV, its tenants, customers, and the community.
Our concerns have been communicated through the following documents:
• a le,er to the Palo Alto City Council dated September 8, 2022 • a le,er to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) dated December 2, 2023 • a le,er to Planning staff dated July 22, 2024
• a le,er to Planning staff dated September 3, 2024
Addi2onally, we have voiced these concerns in person at the City Council hearing on September 12, 2022, at the ARB Study Session on December 7, 2023, and the Planning and Transporta2on Commission (PTC) hearing on September 11, 2024.
Feedback on Current Submial
We are not reitera2ng herein our specific concerns for the aesthe2c and opera2onal impacts that we foresee this proposed project imposing on our property, our tenants and the community. Please refer to our prior le,ers for that detail.
In the interest of simplicity and clarity, we are providing the a,ached matrix to highlight that the applicant has not addressed the overwhelming majority of the feedback that it has received at the last two hearings (ARB on December 7, 2023 and PTC on September 11, 2024). The feedback at these hearings was very clear and consistent and aligns with the concerns that we have con2nued to raise in our le,ers and at the prior hearings.
We understand and support the City’s efforts to increase the local housing supply, however, given the limited 2me availability of City staff and the City’s Boards and Commissions, it feels inappropriate for the applicant to request con2nued expenditure of the City’s resources while largely ignoring the clear feedback they have received. Addi2onally, we feel that the most recent submi,al makes no effort to Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
50 Packet Pg. 265 of 332
Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
51 Packet Pg. 266 of 332
Feedback from PTC Applicant Response
PTC Meeting - September 11, 2024 Cycle 3 Plans - Plan date 10.4.24 Bulb Outs beyond curb not supported Bulb out removed.
Results in fewer trees since no trees
have been added
Concerns about sound and proximity of commercial
services, recommends accoustic dampening added to
design
Concern not addressed in 10.4.24 plans
Setbacks at property lines desired Concern not addressed in 10.4.24 plans Concerns about project being too dense for size of
parcels
Concern not addressed in 10.4.24 plans
Insufficient greenspace and trees included Applicant removed the only added greenspace (bulb out).
Project adds no new greenspace or added trees
Gate at property line will be a traffic issue Concern not addressed in 10.4.24 plans Trash Pickup Room is too close to curb Concern not addressed in 10.4.24 plans Feedback from ARB Applicant Response
ARB Study Session - December 7, 2024 Cycle 1 Plans - Plan date 3.8.24 Lack of setbacks at property lines raised as a concern
Concern not addressed in 10.4.24 plans
Trash room only accessible by leaving the property Minor updates made, still requires residents to leave property to access trash room.
Windows facing each other in the courtyard is a privacy concern
Minor window adjustments made.
Submission still has a
number of windows facing each other.
Access to parking in northern two units is a problem,
and would require multi-point turns to access
Concern not addressed in 10.4.24 plans
Gate at property line is a traffic and queuing issue Concern not addressed in 10.4.24 plans
SUMMARY OF APPLICANT RESPONSES TO FEEDBACK FROM PTC & ARB 70 Encina - 24PLN-00095 - 10.4.24 Submittal
Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
52 Packet Pg. 267 of 332
July 22, 2024
Emily Kallas
Planner, City of Palo Alto
[email protected]
(650) 617-3125
Dear Emily,
As you proceed with your staff level review of application number 24PLN-00095, request for Planned Community Zone Change (PHZ) to allow construction of a new 3-story, 22,552 sf residential condominium building, we, as the owners and operators of Town & Country Village (“TCV”) wish to raise our continued concerns with regards to the proposed 70 Encina development. Our concerns and objections were previously communicated in our September 8, 2022, letter to the Palo Alto City Council, in our letter from December 2, 2023 to the Architectural Review Board (both attached) and we addressed these concerns in person at the City Council hearing on September 12, 2022 and at the Architectural Review Board (ARB) Study Session on December 7, 2023.
We and our consultant architect, Randy Popp, have carefully reviewed the revised development plans, dated March 8, 2024. While we recognize that the applicant has made some minor changes to the proposal, our team and Mr. Popp believe that the vast majority of the concerns raised by the ARB on December 7, 2023 have gone completely ignored, notably the lack of a buffer between this zero lot line proposal and TCV and the lack of architectural compatibility for this sensitive setting. Furthermore, all the operational concerns that we have repeatedly raised about this problematic project remain unaddressed.
Background
We of course understand the critical need for new housing development in Palo Alto and throughout the region, but we request that you require the applicant to revise its proposal to address the concerns raised by the ARB as well as the aesthetic and operational impacts that we have continued to highlight over the last three years. We do not consider this ¼ acre site surrounded by our north parking lot to be a suitable housing site and feel that the ten luxury townhomes this project will create will do little to address the City’s housing shortage. Furthermore, the addition of these ten units does not justify the degradation of TCV, a unique and treasured community asset and source of significant sales taxes for the City of Palo Alto.
As you may be aware, at the September 8, 2022, hearing, the City Council “asked the applicant to work with Town & Country to receive their support of the project and stated that consideration should be paid to how this development may affect the vitality of Town & Country. Council also wanted any project at 70 Encina to provide a better visual connection with Town & Country, such as through the use of materials.”
Ever since that hearing, we have reviewed the prior revisions from the applicant and provided clear and consistent feedback to the applicant and to City staff in the hopes that the design would evolve in a manner that we can support and that is more appropriate and consistent with TCV’s architectural vocabulary, massing and operational considerations.
Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
53 Packet Pg. 268 of 332
In terms of specific feedback on the most recent submittal, we are providing herein a summary of the impacts the proposed project would have on the operation of TCV and the potential areas of conflict it might create for our tenants and customers with the future occupants of the proposed development.
Also attached is a letter from Randy Popp highlighting his concerns with the current design and the lack of architectural compatibility with TCV.
TCV Operational Concerns
1. The Planning Department has expressed concern multiple times about parking at TCV, and while we comply with current code and issued approvals, our concern is that guest parking for the proposed residential development is going to spill into our adjacent lots and displace our customers. The proposed design includes no guest parking for ten residences and only provides an average of 1.4 spaces for these three-bedroom units. While we understand the desire to not build large parking facilities in Palo Alto, it is inevitable that future guests and residents will park on our property given its proximity. TCV will then be forced to police and tow guest parking for this development, and TCV will need to involve the City in repeated complaints about unauthorized use of our property.
2. This development will also result in an increase in vehicular traffic on our property. Given its design and orientation, residents and guests will likely use our property to drive through from Embarcadero, given Encina is sometimes hard to access by car via El Camino Real. As stated above, we believe the increase in traffic posed by the proposed development will create adverse impacts to our property and our patrons. TCV will be forced to involve the City in mitigation of neighbors using our property for path of travel.
3. Poke House, Asian Box, Antoine’s Cookies, Jamba Juice, Douce France, and Horsefeather will all be operating food and beverage facilities adjacent to the new residents, whose homes will be along on our primary service alley. Our concern is that residents will complain and try to impose on our tenants’ ability to operate. Each of these food service operations receive deliveries at early hours, and early morning businesses like Jamba Juice & Douce France will have employees and patrons arriving at the site early each day. Horsefeather will be utilizing a nearby outdoor patio until 10 PM at night, as allowed in their planning approval, which poses a potential conflict with residents who will likely complain to the City about the incompatibility of a these two nearly adjacent uses.
4. Since the proposed development abuts our rear service alleyway, we are concerned that residents will complain about off-hours deliveries, trash pickups, and other typical elements of commercial food operations. Employees occupy the service alleys adjacent to the residences at all hours of the day, and our concern is that residents will inevitably complain to the City about their presence, and the general operations of our tenants. The proposed development includes no buffer or setbacks to mitigate this and proposes high-end residential units directly adjacent to our active shopping center that has been operating for over 70 years in this location.
Zoning Violations
Beyond our concerns with the revised proposal, we would also like to remind you and others at the City of Palo Alto, that the owners of the subject site installed a chain link fence on or about November 2021, surrounding their portion of the parking lot. Based on conversations we had with planning staff in 2021, we were told that the installation of this fence was a clear zoning violation and that its installation would require an application by the 70 Encina property owners to modify prior planning approvals, factoring in changes in traffic flow and aesthetics. Since no such application has been filed, we have repeatedly reminded staff of this situation and now after nearly three years of weeds, pavement cracks and overall Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
54 Packet Pg. 269 of 332
blight, this situation remains unchanged, as a result of a lack of zoning enforcement (current condition photos attached). Given how meticulous City staff is in enforcing zoning codes and processes at TCV, it is quite surprising that the City is willing to process this new development application for a site that has a nearly three year old outstanding zoning violation that is blighting such an important community asset.
Please see the recent photos of the site for reference. We respectfully request that you put this application on hold until the property in question is in full compliance with current zoning regulations and the blighted conditions are addressed.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. We truly appreciate being included in the review process for this application and are hopeful that it can be revised to result in a project that is more appropriate for this important and sensitive setting. We have been the careful stewards of TCV since 2005 and would be devastated if this project as proposed were to be built in such a dense and incompatible configuration.
Sincerely,
Dean Rubinson
Director of Development
Ellis Partners LLC of behalf of CEP Town & Country Investors, LLC
Cc: Jim Ellis, Ellis Partners
Melinda Ellis Evers, Ellis Partners
Mitchell Serrato, Ellis Partners
Amy French, City of Palo Alto
Attachments:
Design Review Letter, Randolph Popp Architects - July 3, 2024 Current Photos Exhibit – July 22, 2024
Letter to Palo Alto City Council – September 8, 2022
Letter to Palo Alto Architectural Review Board – December 2, 2022
Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
55 Packet Pg. 270 of 332
P a g e | 1 of 2
3 July 2024
Dean J. Rubinson
Partner, Director of Development
Ellis Partners
111 Sutter Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Re: Proposed Planned Home Zoning Project at 70 Encina Avenue
Dean:
I was excited to understand there was an updated package available for the proposal adjacent to Town & Country Village but after my review, I’m quite disappointed to find much of the constructive criticism the development team received when they presented to ARB on December 07, 2023 has not been addressed. In fact, in some areas, the impact has worsened.
First and foremost, it still feels like more units are being squeezed into this property than can reasonably be accommodated. Board Member Chen mentioned this concern, and while I typically advocate for more density, in this particular case, I tend to agree with her perspective.
A number of critical constraints and limitations have not been resolved as outlined below, and the overall design just feels too strained.
The vehicular entry off of Encina has been widened. However, the interior courtyard space still seems to be too narrow, such that, as Board Member Hirsh pointed out, cars will have difficulty getting into and out of the garages. In particular, the first two stalls immediately adjacent to the entry will likely require multipoint turns to safely enter and exit. While this juggling is going on, other vehicles will not be able to enter or exit the property, potentially causing a queuing issue out on the street. At the opposite end of the drive aisle they have added an open weave CMU screen below a pair of outdoor terraces. Noise from the service drive, particularly in the early morning hours, will most certainly translate to the interior courtyard of the development, which will act like an echo chamber, creating an impact for all of the units, not just those adjacent to the service drive.
Accessory to the above is the concern raised by Board Member Chen that interior-facing bedroom windows are directly aligned. This too is a byproduct of the excessive density they are trying to achieve. The impact is a very challenging privacy conflict. It’s unclear how this could be resolved without a significant retooling of the design.
Another issue which has not been addressed but would require some significant reorganization is that the trash room is still only accessible by doors fronting on Encina. It’s difficult to understand how all of the townhomes will utilize this space efficiently and what the long-term impact of this will be for the most distant units. I personally can’t imagine walking my trash, recycling, and compost that distance on a regular (daily) basis.
Both Board Members Rosenberg and Adcock raised valid concerns about the zero setback positioning of the massing at the 3 non-street frontage sides. Although there has been an attempt made to create some additional visual relief to the massing of the building, ultimately, Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
56 Packet Pg. 271 of 332
P a g e | 2 of 2
the concept remains essentially unchanged. In respect to the street-facing units, Board Member Baltay pointed out the potential for direct access via stoops on Encina. Rather than doing that, the design continues to exist as a ‘wall’ without addressing many of the objective design standards typically expected for the pedestrian-level street-facing portion of the building.
It appears from some added sheets that additional work has been done relative to fire access.
The result of this is the addition of a very intrusive stair configuration and a heavy screening element. I know from earlier conversations that you and I both feel this elevation is a primary component of the building because so much of it is visually accessible from the interior of Town & Country Village. This add-on is yet another element indicative of a density and massing which is greater than what the site can reasonably accommodate. Contextually, it increases the problematic nature of the development, which we know will continue to exist for decades as a singular building amid a large parking area.
Turning to the elevations, materials, and color choices, Board Members Rosenberg and Baltay most vocally indicated they felt not enough deference was being paid to Town & Country Village. Board Member Chen suggested greater mass along Encina and a reduction in height closer to Town & Country Village. I’m ambivalent about the value of changing the massing to elevate height closer to Encina and feel that may not be productive on such a small site. In regards to architectural deference to Town & Country Village, the addition of a dark-colored rain screen is a positive step, but the beige sandstone-colored brick at the base of the building feels like an inappropriate approach regarding materials and color. I do not consider the current design to be successful concerning the important goal communicated by the ARB Members.
In summary, I don’t believe this submittal addresses the concerns raised by the Board or in response to those identified by your team. I cannot see how, at this point, you might indicate your support for the proposal. I know that was the goal for the Council but we are just not there yet.
Sincerely,
Randy Popp
Randolph Popp, Architect
Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
57 Packet Pg. 272 of 332
Current Photos Exhibit - July 22, 2024 Page 1
Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
58 Packet Pg. 273 of 332
Current Photos Exhibit - July 22, 2024 Page 2
Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
59 Packet Pg. 274 of 332
Current Photos Exhibit - July 22, 2024 Page 3
Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
60 Packet Pg. 275 of 332
Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
61 Packet Pg. 276 of 332
Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
62 Packet Pg. 277 of 332
Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
63 Packet Pg. 278 of 332
P a g e | 1 of 4
8 September 2022
Sent via email: [email protected]
City of Palo Alto City Council
Palo Alto City Hall
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Proposed Planned Home Zoning Project at 70 Encina Avenue
Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, and Staff:
In response to the proposal submitted for 70 Encina Avenue, Ellis Partners has retained my services to assist in their understanding of the project and its potential impact on Town & Country Village.
Having practiced in this community for over 32 years including serving on the Architectural Review Board, I believe my insight and evaluation could be beneficial as a part of your review of the application. While I am typically a proponent of increasing the availability of housing, I do not feel the proposal offered for this particular site meets the standards our city has set in several critical areas.
I’ll preface all of this by stating my general appreciation for the projects Hayes Architects has designed. I think they are a valuable local resource and have enhanced our environment through their work time and again. One notable example of their work was the thoughtful and compatible Trader Joe’s addition to Town & Country Village. However, with this project, their client is not Ellis Partners, and the design is not compatible with Town & Country Village.
To support my evaluation of the proposal I have worked with a well-known and widely respected renderer who has developed additional dimensionally accurate views of the building using the information provided in the proposal package. I have attached those images to this letter and, without attempting to alter the building design, believe they represent a range of building heights to help illustrate how a more reasonable two- or three-story proposal might be viewed within the existing context.
As we all know, a new development in Palo Alto is generally obligated to conform to the review standards of the Architectural Review Board and as such, must satisfy findings to be deemed approved. This project falls short in almost every category.
Consistency with ARB Review Standards:
• Promote orderly and harmonious development of the city Our Comprehensive Plan, Municipal Code, and Zoning regulations clearly define what is appropriate regarding orderly and harmonious development within the city. The project is located in the Community Commercial Zoning District which is designed to encourage retail and some commercial uses. Notably, residential use in this area is highly restricted through both Zoning and Comprehensive Plan policy. As can be seen in the attached renderings, a five-story structure, placed in a parking lot, and adjacent to primarily single-story structures, is jarring and out-of-context.
• Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the city Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
64 Packet Pg. 279 of 332
P a g e | 2 of 4
While there might be some convenience to living in this location, the proposed height and massing in this location is entirely inappropriate. While many would argue that we need housing in any format we can achieve it, I would argue that there are other more appropriate locations.
Compromising to allow a PHZ project of this scale at this location sets precedent for ignoring development standards we have agreed are necessary to maintain aesthetic balance across Palo Alto. Indicating encouragement for this type of dramatic change here would result in far reaching impacts that will significantly alter our environment. • Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements Approving a project of this scale and character at this location will result in unintended consequences for this street and Town & Country Village. The likelihood of other projects similar to this being developed in the near future is slim (Ellis Partners has a long-term ground lease) so this would remain an isolated anomaly for the foreseeable future. Based on current Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Policies, which indicate the most desirable use of the site is retail/commercial, the land use change necessary to achieve this type of development at this site would create a condition that is not in harmony with the existing surrounding development or what can be reasonably be anticipated for the future. • Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas It is challenging to understand how an isolated, purely residential project, could be considered compatible with the adjacent properties. If a coordinated effort here was able to allow a significant land area to be developed for residential use, there might be enough benefit to the nearby retail to balance the visual impact it would cause. At that scale, it could be large enough to allow for transitions to the adjacent context in a way this small parcel cannot. The dimensions of this project site within the context of the single-story and parking lot adjacent uses allows for no reasonable transition to a building at the height proposed. The limited number of units possible simply does not outweigh the negative aesthetic impact the proposal creates.
Additionally, the limited setbacks proposed, and overall building layout, will make any future adjacent project even more difficult to accommodate.
• Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other.
As stated above, the scale of this project, exaggerated by the boxy massing, represents no acknowledgment of the adjacent environment and is inconsiderate of the low-slung Hacienda style. It is common practice for projects to terrace, or step back, from edges that border on parcels with lesser height. As this site is bordered by single-story and parking lot adjacent uses, the only possible approach would include a significant reduction in overall height. A more appropriate approach, as suggested in the attached images, might be a revised two- or three- story proposal that could transition from the adjacent single-story context and would then be more consistent with nearby 2-story structures.
Consistency with Findings for Approval
(1) The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides.
As outlined in the letter provided by Land Use Attorney Leigh Prince, this project is inconsistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning regulations. This Finding cannot be made.
Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
65 Packet Pg. 280 of 332
P a g e | 3 of 4
(2) The project has a unified and coherent design, that:
(C) Is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district The project is inconsistent with context-based design criteria for the district within which it is proposed. Notably, the FAR is significantly in excess of what would reasonably be anticipated.
This Finding cannot be made.
(2) The project has a unified and coherent design, that:
(D) Provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass, and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations
The project does not provide a harmonious transition in scale, mass, or character to the adjacent land uses and land-use designations. The project proposes a 5-story 55-foot high square stucco building amidst parking and adjacent to Town & Country Village, which is primarily a single-story Hacienda style collection of structures. As the images I provided show, the contrast between the two is severe and there seems to be no attempt toward transition. This Finding cannot be made. (3) The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area.
While acknowledging this is a preliminary proposal, my evaluation is that the current design does not suggest it will strive to be of the highest aesthetic quality, using high-quality integrated materials, or incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Although the immediate context is eclectic, the predominant style is the low-slung architecture of the Town & Country Village. Departing from that in the manner proposed will not unify or allow for a transition that could satisfy this requirement. This Finding cannot be made.
(5) The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site's functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained.
Due in large part to the 86.5% site coverage proposed the minimal landscape design does not truly enhance the building or its surroundings. It appears to be only modestly appropriate to the site’s function and does not appear to represent a desirable habitat. This Finding cannot be made.
Consistency with Objective Standards
When evaluated in the context of the adopted Objective Design Standards for the CC Zoning District, and consistent with other requirements listed above, it seems important to understand the direction outlined in Section 18.24.050 Building Massing (underlining added for emphasis):
(A) Intent
To create buildings that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area through the consideration of building scale, massing, and bulk. Massing should create a human-scale environment that is of high aesthetic quality and accommodates a variety of uses and design features. Building massing should include elements that:
Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
66 Packet Pg. 281 of 332
P a g e | 4 of 4
- Are consistent in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations - Provide harmonious transitions between adjacent properties The project as proposed does not reflect consideration of this Standard and significant modification would be needed in the form of step-back/terracing and height reduction to conform to the many requirements the Palo Alto regulations describe. Note that these are similar and related to the other obligations described above and as I have repeatedly stated, the 5-story box is in no way compatible or consistent with Town & Country Village.
Critique of the submitted documents
A further critique of the submitted documents yields other problematic concerns.
The lowest level of the building, which is primarily a parking garage, is an entirely solid wall for virtually all of the perimeter. While modestly appropriate along Encina, the remainder of the building, which is viewable from all sides, lacks articulation or character at the pedestrian level.
The rendered representation of the building provided by the applicant, both in elevation and perspective, fails to fully clarify the character of this building relative to its context. I think it is important to note that the 2-foot-tall parapet as shown would not be sufficient to screen typical roof- mounted equipment that would need to be placed there. A more common screen height would be closer to 5-7 feet, pushing the total visual height of the building to somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 feet. That height will be approximately 40 feet more than the Town & Country building it is most adjacent to and similarly in contrast to the single-story buildings on the opposite side of Encina. The multi-story buildings shown in the renderings are misleading in that they are far from the project site at a distance of roughly 300 feet (the length of a football field).
In closing, I believe there are many other housing opportunity sites that might be appropriate for this type of development but find the proposal presented for this site to be impossible to support based on established standards for review and approval.
Sincerely,
Randy Popp
Randolph Popp, Architect
Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
67 Packet Pg. 282 of 332
70 Encina Avenue – Study Illustrations
View A
Key Plan
Five Level
Three Level
Two Level
Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
68 Packet Pg. 283 of 332
70 Encina Avenue – Study Illustrations
View B
Key Plan
Five Level
Three Level
Two Level
Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
69 Packet Pg. 284 of 332
70 Encina Avenue – Study Illustrations
View C
Key Plan
Five Level
Three Level
Two Level
Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
70 Packet Pg. 285 of 332
70 Encina Avenue – Study Illustrations
View D
Key Plan
Five Level
Three Level
Two Level
Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
71 Packet Pg. 286 of 332
70 Encina Avenue – Study Illustrations
View E
Key Plan
Five Level
Three Level
Two Level
Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
72 Packet Pg. 287 of 332
WILLIAM L. McCLURE JOHN L. FLEGEL DAN K. SIEGEL JENNIFER H. FRIEDMAN MINDIE S. ROMANOWSKY LEIGH F. PRINCE DAVID L. ACH GREGORY K. KLINGSPORN NICOLAS A. FLEGEL KRISTINA A. FENTON CARA E. SILVER KIMBERLY J. BRUMMER CAMAS J. STEINMETZ ____________ BRITTNEY L. STANDLEY CHRISTIAN D. PETRANGELO JOSEPH H. FELDMAN JORGENSON, SIEGEL, McCLURE & FLEGEL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1100 ALMA STREET, SUITE 210 MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA 94025-3392 (650) 324-9300 FACSIMILE (650) 324-0227 www.jsmf.com September 7, 2022 OF COUNSEL KENT MITCHELL ____________ RETIRED JOHN D. JORGENSON MARGARET A. SLOAN DIANE S. GREENBERG ____________ DECEASED MARVIN S. SIEGEL (1936 - 2012) JOHN R.COSGROVE (1932 - 2017) Sent via email: [email protected] City of Palo Alto City Council Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Proposed Planned Home Zoning Project at 70 Encina Avenue Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members: Town and Country Village (“Town and Country”) is a specialty retail shopping center that was originally completed in the 1950s. Since acquiring Town and Country, Ellis Partners has been committed to retaining the original character of early western-style architecture with red tile roofs, heavy wood beam and column-supported covered walkways and stately oaks growing throughout. Over the years, Ellis Partners has completed renovations to Town and Country, including the construction of Trader Joe’s. These renovations have preserved the low-slung character of Town and Country, while increasing its appeal as one of Palo Alto’s primary retail destinations. Recently, a Planned Home Zoning (“PHZ”) project was proposed at 70 Encina Avenue (“project site”). The project site was previously used and permitted by the City of Palo Alto (“City”) as a part of Town and Country for parking (although in recent months the owner has fenced off the project site without City approval). The current proposal would rezone the project site from Community Commercial (“CC”) to PHZ to allow the development of a 55-foot high five-story condominium building. This proposed project is not only out of character with the adjacent Town and Country buildings, but it is also inconsistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Approving the proposed project, even at a more palatable height and scale, would require more than rezoning the project site to PHZ, it would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a zoning text amendment. As a result, Ellis Partners opposes the project because as proposed it would detract from this important and iconic pedestrian-oriented retail destination.
Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
73 Packet Pg. 288 of 332
City of Palo Alto City Council Planned Home Zoning Project at 70 Encina September 7, 2022 Page 2 Town and Country Village Includes the Project Site Town and Country is defined as all properties zoned CC and bounded by El Camino Real, Embarcadero Road, Encina Avenue and Southern Pacific right-of-way – this includes the project site. See Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.16.030. Town and Country was originally constructed in phases between 1952 and 1958 including one and two-story buildings, an extensive parking lot, trees and landscaping. From the 1950s to the present (approx. 70 years), the City has considered Town and Country by these boundaries. A recent Planning Commission staff report dated February 10, 2021, included figures showing Town and Country. These figures illustrate how the City and the community at large understand Town and Country – as including the project site. Figures Showing Town and Country Residential is Inconsistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan does not support the rezoning of the project site, which has historically been part of Town and Country, from its current CC zoning to PHZ zoning. Comprehensive Plan Policy B-6.6 provides that Town and County should be retained as an attractive, local-serving retail center. Most importantly, Comprehensive Plan Policy L2.4.4 provides that “Conversion to residential capacity should not be considered in Town and Country Village.” Rezoning the project site to allow a residential condominium building would violate these Comprehensive Plan policies. As a result, the finding needed to approve the proposed project and rezone to PHZ – that the proposed use would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan – cannot be made. Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.36.060. If there is a strong desire to alter the long-standing policy regarding preserving Town and Country for low-density retail, approving a PHZ rezoning to allow housing, even at a more palatable height and scale, would require approving a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the language that housing should not be considered at Town and Country. In addition, a zoning text amendment would be needed to carve out the project site from the definition of Town and Country in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.16.030. Such a significant policy shift should not be undertaken lightly as it may have lasting and precedent setting impacts on Town and Country, potentially undermining this iconic retail center and further eroding the City’s dwindling retail uses. It is Ellis Partners’ firm belief that the City Council cannot make the required finding to rezone, absent a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a zoning text amendment. As it currently stands, the Comprehensive Plan provides that residential capacity should not be considered at this location and Town and Country should be retrained as a local serving retail center.
Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
74 Packet Pg. 289 of 332
City of Palo Alto City Council Planned Home Zoning Project at 70 Encina September 7, 2022 Page 3 Neither Consistent with Nor a Reasonable Modification to Existing Zoning The existing CC zoning for the proposed project site would not allow the development of the proposed project. Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.16.040 provides that in the CC zone residential is permitted, but only as part of a mixed-use development or on sites designated as housing inventory sites. The proposed project site is not listed as a housing inventory site (in fact it was administratively removed from the list of potential sites in this Housing Element cycle). In addition, while adding housing would make Town and Country mixed-use as a whole, the premise of the applicant’s proposal is founded on separating itself from Town and Country. Therefore, to be permitted the project itself would have to be mixed-use and it is not. Further, the City Council’s policy direction regarding the PHZ has been to look for reasonable modifications to the existing zoning. This project proposes a significant departure from the existing zoning. It proposes a project that is substantially different from and not compatible with Town and Country. See Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.38.060 requiring the Council to find the project would be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. 1. Floor Area Ratio - The maximum allowable floor area ratio (“FAR”) is 0.35 for Town and Country. The maximum FAR for mixed-use development for Town and Country is limited to 0.50 provided that no more than 0.15 shall be residential. The project has proposed a FAR of 2.4 for residential only, far in excess of both the underlying zoning and the existing surrounding retail center. To put it into perspective, the proposed FAR is 6.8 times larger than the allowable FAR for retail and 16 times larger than the allowable FAR for residential in a mixed-use project. 2. Site Coverage – The maximum site coverage is 50 percent. The project proposes a site coverage of 86.5% or 36.5% percent more than allowable under the existing zoning or allowed for any of the surrounding Town and Country uses. 3. Height – Although the maximum allowable height is 50 feet in the CC zoning district, the majority of buildings in Town and Country are a blend of one and two stories approximately 18 to 24 feet in height. Thus, 55-feet and five stories is a significant departure from the low-slung character of the retail center. The proposed project would be the first and likely only building of this type and magnitude for the foreseeable future at Town and Country making it incompatible with the surrounding uses. Given the established retail uses, existing zoning regulations and long-term ground lease, Ellis Partners does not anticipate any significant change to Town and Country, and certainly nothing that would be compatible with the height and scale of the proposed project. Furthermore, the City’s Comprehensive Plan programs and policies speak to transitions in scale between developments (Policy L-1.3) and discouraging abrupt changes in scale and density (Policy L-6.7 and Program L6.7.1). The proposed project provides no transition and is an abrupt change in scale from Town and Country buildings and parking which would surround it. Conclusion Ellis Partners appreciates the significant amount of time and resources these pre-screening applications consume and thanks City staff and the Council for their time and attention to this matter. Ellis Partners understands the City’s need to plan for housing; however, housing development of this height and scale is not appropriate at Town and Country and if approved as Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
75 Packet Pg. 290 of 332
City of Palo Alto City Council Planned Home Zoning Project at 70 Encina September 7, 2022 Page 4 proposed would undermine the look and feel of this iconic retail center. Thus, Ellis Partners respectfully requests that the City Council not to support moving this project forward as proposed. Sincerely, Leigh F. Prince Leigh F. Prince cc: Jonathan Lait, Planning Director ([email protected]) Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
76 Packet Pg. 291 of 332
152454300.2
December 2, 2023
Sent via email: [email protected]
City of Palo Alto City Architectural Review Board
Palo Alto City Hall
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Proposed Planned Home Zoning Project at 70 Encina Avenue
Dear Chair Baltay, Vice-Chair Rosenberg, and Members of the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board:
Town & Country Village is appreciative of the reduced scale and concept modifications represented in the submitted design but continues to be concerned about the proposed project at 70 Encina Avenue.
We have been the thoughtful stewards of Town & Country Village as an important community asset for nearly 20 years and throughout our ownership we have been focused on preserving and protecting this unique neighborhood treasure in a manner that is entirely consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and all the City’s design guidelines.
The proposed project, however, does not preserve and protect this community treasure and is wholly inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan Policy L-2.4, Program L2.4.4, states explicitly “Conversion to residential capacity should not be considered in Town and Country Village.” Although the 70 Encina parcels have no buildings on them and have existed for 70 years as parking for the center, this site is clearly listed under the Municipal Code as within the boundary of Town & Country Village. As such, when considering this project, we hope you will focus your attention on weighing the relative value of the zoning code concessions you are being asked to evaluate and the impact of the project on the Town & Country Village as a whole.
We clearly understand there is a housing crisis and appreciate the City’s efforts to mitigate the deficit in Palo Alto by identifying locations for 6,086 potential new housing units (plus an additional 780 units to act as a “buffer”) within the city per the 6th Cycle Housing Element, with the majority (3465) being at moderate or below moderate-income levels. However, it seems inconsistent with the City’s housing goals to allow 10 luxury condominiums to take precedence over the continued preservation of a valued, historical neighborhood center at a location where the Comprehensive Plan specifically prohibits housing.
As a reminder, the Comprehensive Plan, when speaking about the future of Town & Country Village in Policy L-4.12, states that proposed developments should, “recognize and preserve Town and Country Village as an attractive retail center serving Palo Altans and residents of the wider region. Future development at this site should preserve its existing amenities, pedestrian scale, and architectural character.” While we appreciate the applicant’s decision to reduce the scale of the project, which previously towered over the primarily single-story Town & Country Village, we continue to believe that the latest iteration is still lacking consistency within this important and sensitive setting and as proposed, would most certainly not contribute to the preservation of “its existing amenities, pedestrian scale, and architectural character.
Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
77 Packet Pg. 292 of 332
152454300.2
While we understand that the application is proposed as a PHZ/PC, which allows the City some leeway to depart from current zoning standards established for these parcels, it is essential to remember, as stated in the staff report, that “a planned community district is particularly intended for unified, comprehensively planned developments that are of substantial public benefit and which conform with and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.” The proposed project, even though scaled down, is not a unified, comprehensively planned development – it will exist as a small one-off residential development within the Town & Country Village shopping center parking lot. It does not provide substantial public benefit – likely providing a mere two affordable units amongst eight condos likely costing over $1.5 million each. It does not enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan but rather, stands in direct opposition to those policies and programs.
We consider this proposal to be inappropriate in its attempt to use the PHZ/PC process. As proposed it will certainly result in a dramatic degradation of the community treasure that has been carefully protected for decades and that we have been working to preserve since 2005. The City Council, at the September 12, 2022 hearing clearly recognized the risk of this project adversely impacting Town & Country Village. As stated in the Staff Report, “they asked the applicant to work with Town & Country to receive their support of the project, and stated that consideration should be paid to how this development may affect the vitality of Town & County. Council also wanted any project at 70 Encina to provide a better visual connection with Town & Country, such as through the use of materials.”
We encourage you to respond to this application in a manner that aligns with the City Council’s direction to achieve Town & Country support, limits conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, and aligns fully with the intent of the PHZ/PC process. As the proposed project does not yet achieve any of these, we respectfully request that you provide the applicant with such feedback. The proposal you are being asked to evaluate will have a lasting adverse impact if approved in its current form. We appreciate your partnership in maintaining Town & Country’s unique character, scale, and architectural charm for the future.
Below is a more detailed evaluation provided in consultation with Randy Popp, an Architect and former Chair of the ARB, who we have asked to advise us in evaluating this design proposal, its consistency with City design guidelines, and the impact it would have on Town & Country Village. Also provided below is a list of significant operational concerns this proposal raises.
Thank you for your careful consideration,
Dean Rubinson
Director of Development
Ellis Partners LLC
Architectural Review Findings:
Regardless of the concessions granted through the PHZ regulations, the role of ARB is to ensure that all required Architectural Findings (PAMC 18.76.020(d)) must be met by the applicant. We find that it is inconsistent with the following criteria:
Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
78 Packet Pg. 293 of 332
152454300.2
1. The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides.
This project site was not intended to be developed as residential. While current changes in policy may make this project seem desirable, any departure from established plans or codes should provide significant community benefit, far beyond the enrichment of the development team. Furthermore, the proposal should seek to achieve the greatest possible alignment with all other established aspects of zoning regulations and policy.
2. The project has a unified and coherent design, that:
a. Creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community.
A sense of order and desirability of the environment for the general community is not accomplished through the proposed design. The current proposal does not support or enhance the requirements for a desirable retail environment, as further explained in the operational section below.
b. Preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant.
The proposed project does not integrate into the existing historic character of Town & Country Village. Due to its proximity, the proposed project should seek to achieve greater compatibility in its design, massing, and use of materials. The submitted design stands in stark contrast to the historic character of Town & Country and must be substantially modified to meet this Finding.
c. Is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district.
N/A - we are not aware of any context-based design criteria for this site.
d. Provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations.
While the applicant has reduced the scale, the proposed project is still inconsistent with adjacent architectural character and land use. Town & Country Village has a distinct scale and design vocabulary, (roof slope, materials, deep overhangs at comfortable pedestrian walkways, etc.) and we feel the current proposal is incompatible with the historic nature of the center.
e. Enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas.
The design does not enhance living conditions on the site.
The intensive operational needs of a thriving neighborhood center include receiving deliveries, handling trash, well-lit customer parking, and the like. We believe that residents would find these necessary operational demands to be Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
79 Packet Pg. 294 of 332
152454300.2
unpalatable. Until the proposal can achieve mitigation of these existing necessary constraints, the application should be returned for modification.
3. The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials, and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area.
As stated before, we do not find the current design to be compatible with the current historic design, massing, or character of Town & Country Village.
4. The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building's necessary operations (e.g., convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.).
We feel the proposed development will result in a net-negative to the safety and ease of access for pedestrians and bicycle traffic. The added vehicular traffic, loss of parking for retail use, and minimal setbacks combine to create an unmitigated series of impacts.
Additionally, given the tight constraints of the site and the density of the proposed development, there is serious concern for the impact to retail vehicular access at an already constrained site, and certainly represents reduced access for operational needs.
5. The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site's functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained.
The current proposal has the property fully developed leaving little to no room for the required landscaping necessary to achieve compliance with this Finding. The project landscape design does not provide the necessary transition to the adjacent Center design. In addition, please note that the proposed development represents a net loss to the existing tree canopy. Currently, the canopy coverage on the site is approximately 2170 square feet across 8 existing trees, while the proposed development includes 7 replacement trees with limited growth potential for a proposed approximate canopy of 550 square feet.
6. The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning.
We have yet to fully understand how this proposal achieves compliance with this Finding. As stated previously, the bar for approval should be set high due to the concessions being requested for approval of this proposal at this site.
Operational Review Findings:
Given that the proposed project stands in contrast to the City’s planning documents, it is not surprising that if approved it will likely create several significant impacts on the pedestrian, vehicular and other operational aspects of Town & Country Village:
Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
80 Packet Pg. 295 of 332
152454300.2
1) It is incompatible to locate residences within the parking lot of a busy commercial shopping center. Our shopping center receives tenants’ deliveries throughout the day and frequently these are more intense in the early morning hours before the center opens to customers.
Additionally, certain dining tenants operate into the late evening hours which might impact potential new residences within the vicinity. Lastly, we have trash and recycling serviced daily, immediately proximate to the proposed development. While these operations are consistent with City codes and existing approvals, residents will almost certainly find them incompatible with their residential use. We would ask that you carefully consider these concerns in your evaluation of the project to avoid creating a cycle of complaints that cannot be resolved.
2) Given the density of the proposed development, we foresee constraints on parking and pedestrian access. The current proposal allows for no space for potential residents’ visitors, service vendors, or deliveries. With Encina Avenue already fully parked during the day, and with all our parking stalls restricted for our retail and restaurant uses at the Center, we feel the added traffic and parking load on Encina Avenue and the surrounding area would be untenable.
The project should be designed in anticipation of all these needs, as would be required of any other proposal brought forward.
Item 12
Attachment F - Neighbor’s
Correspondence
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
81 Packet Pg. 296 of 332
If you need assistance reviewing the above documents, please contact the Project Planner or call the Planner-on-Duty at 650-617-3117 or email [email protected]
Project Plans
In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to commissioners for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources.
Directions to review Project plans and environmental documents online:
1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects
2. Scroll down to find “70 Encina” and click the address link
3. On this project-specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information
Direct Link to Project Webpage:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/70-Encina-Ave
Item 12
Attachment G - Link to
Project Plans and
Environmental Analysis
Item 12: Staff Report
Pg.
82 Packet Pg. 297 of 332
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: Planning and Development Services
Meeting Date: April 14, 2025
Report #:2403-2796
TITLE
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).
RECOMMENDATION
1. Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing to discuss and adopt an ordinance to add Chapter 9.75 (Fair Chance in Housing) to the Palo Alto Municipal Code to limit the use of criminal history information in rental housing decisions.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Fair Chance Housing policies are intended to address issues related to fair housing, anti- discrimination, and renter’s rights by clarifying how may be used in rental housing decisions.
Local governments in California and elsewhere in the US employ Fair Chance Housing Ordinances to offer some local protections from housing discrimination to renters with criminal history. Fair Chance Housing policies could also benefit other renters that might have inaccurate information in commercial criminal history databases.
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.1 This included the evaluation of a potential Fair Chance Housing Ordinance including any consequences, both intended and unintended.
In response to the City Council’s November 29, 2021 request, staff received policy approach feedback from the Human Relations Commission (HRC) and prepared a draft Fair Chance Housing Ordinance (Attachment A) that specifies how and when criminal history information 1 City Council Meeting Minutes, November 29, 2021:
https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=2611&repo=r-704298fc.
City Council City Manager Report ID # 13786, November 29, 2021:
https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=61794&repo=r-704298fc&searchid=61cd872e-2c1d-47e7- b74b-16cf4a51c7bf.
Item 13
Item 13 Staff Report
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 298 of 332
may be used in rental housing decisions. This report also includes the Council requested analysis of potential implementation consequences, with identification of potential modifications for discussion.
Staff has included an ordinance to enable the Council to act on fair chance housing policy options at the subject meeting. However, staff also notes it has been several years since the City Council as a legislative body has weighed in on the topic and there may be a need for further policy refinement or direction to staff. In this case, decision on the ordinance could be deferred.
BACKGROUND
Palo Alto has held discussions on Fair Chance Housing policy as part of renter protections discussions since 2021, with the HRC continuing to advocate for its consideration in 20232, 3 The City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element and City Council's 2024 priorities also emphasized the timeliness of this work.4 In August 2024, the City Council Housing Ad Hoc Committee members discussed topics such as policy approach options, the establishment of lookback periods for convictions that could be considered as directly related to housing, and underscored Fair Chance Housing as a City Council topic of priority to review.5 The Housing Ad Hoc Committee recommended that the HRC consider Fair Chance Housing policy approaches prior to Council consideration.
HRC Recommendation
The HRC held a public hearing on Fair Chance Housing policy on October 10, 2024.6 The staff report presented the legal context for Fair Chance Housing policy and debuted two policy approach options. The report and ensuing discussion also covered local information, basic challenges with existing commercially available background check databases, information from 2 See past meetings, staff reports, and minutes on the City’s Renter Protection Policy Development Webpage:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Housing-Policies-Projects/Renter- Protection-Policy-Development.
3 HRC Meeting Video, February 9, 2023:
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=11159. 4 City of Palo Alto City Council Priorities 2024: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/2024- council-priorities-objectives-4-30_final.pdf.
City of Palo alto City Council Priorities Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/City-Clerk/City- Council/City-Council-Priorities#:~:text=(show%20below)- ,2024%20Council%20Priorities,Economic%20Development%20%26%20Transition. 5 Although the original City Council motion called for reviewing the draft Fair Chance Housing Ordinance with the Policy & Services Committee, the City later formed the Housing Ad Hoc Committee for housing policy matters. As a result, staff brought the policy to the Ad Hoc Committee before returning to the Human Relations Commission. 6 HRC Meeting Minutes, October 10, 2024: https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=123819&repo=r- 704298fc&searchid=00626116-3c9a-413a-967b-e9ff2978fc29.
Item 13
Item 13 Staff Report
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 299 of 332
social science research, and other policy initiatives that could inform how Palo Alto might design a local Fair Chance Housing Ordinance.7
Members of the public and the HRC provided policy feedback for staff consideration. The HRC supported City Council consideration of Fair Chance Housing polices and limiting the use of criminal history information in Palo Alto rental housing decisions, coupled with providing renters with procedural protections, as outlined in the October 10, 2024 HRC staff report. HRC also considered, but did not recommend, an alternate approach of implementing a blanket prohibition on using criminal history in housing decisions except where required by law. Neither HRC nor staff recommend this approach, for the reasons identified in the HRC staff report, including that it leaves landlords without the option to consider even the most relevant or serious offenses and would be more difficult to enforce than the recommended approach.
HRC’s policy recommendations include the following provisions:
• Consistency with State law that already prohibits landlords from considering criminal history other than “directly related convictions;”
• Limitations on the criminal history information that may be considered, including establishment of a two (2) year “lookback period,” which would allow landlords to consider only offenses for which the renter was sentenced within the last two years; and
• Specific procedural steps that a landlord must implement before taking an adverse action against a renter based on their reviewable criminal history, including:
oGiving an otherwise qualified renter a conditional housing offer before checking the renter’s criminal history;
oAllowing a renter to present evidence of inaccuracy, rehabilitation, or other mitigating factors regarding their criminal history;
oProviding the renter with a copy of their background check and written statement of the reasons for taking adverse action, such as denial of their rental application, based on the renter’s criminal history; and
oOther landlord notice and recordkeeping protocols.
Legal Context
Federal and State fair housing laws prohibit discrimination in housing decisions based on various protected characteristics, such as race, national origin, and disability.8 While having a history of one or more criminal convictions is not a protected characteristic under State or Federal law, landlords may not adopt criminal conviction history review practices that have a 7 HRC staff report, October 10, 2024: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/community- services/human-relations-commission/agendas/2024/10-10-24/10-10-24-hrc-agenda-item-2-attachment.pdf.
HRC Meeting Packet, October 10, 2024: https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=111874&repo=r- 704298fc&searchid=331353b5-6475-4934-a435-046817314f5b. 8 See, e.g., Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.; Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51; California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12900 et seq.
Item 13
Item 13 Staff Report
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 300 of 332
discriminatory effect on members of a protected class unless the practice is necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory purpose, the practice effectively carries out the identified purpose, and there is no feasible equally effective alternative practice that would have a less discriminatory effect.9
Existing State regulations implementing California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) provide requirements for the use of criminal history information in housing decisions to avoid unlawful discrimination.10 Most notably, a landlord may only consider a “directly related conviction,” meaning a criminal conviction that has a direct and specific negative bearing on a substantial, legitimate, and nondiscriminatory purpose of the landlord, such as the safety of other residents, the housing provider’s employees, or the property.11 For example, a misdemeanor conviction for a driving offense would not likely be directly related to an identified interest of the landlord. In contrast, a recent criminal conviction for residential arson could be directly related to the risk that an individual may injure other residents or property.
Further, landlords may not consider other criminal history information, like arrests that did not lead to a conviction, or convictions that have been sealed, dismissed, or expunged.12 However, State law provides that in order to protect persons at risk, a landlord may consider whether a potential renter is listed on the State Registry of Lifetime Sex Offenders operated by the California Department of Justice.13 A local Fair Chance Ordinance would not alter this provision.
State law also encourages (but does not require) landlords who consider criminal history information to adopt certain procedural protections for renters, including:
• Providing written notice of the policy and an opportunity for the renter to present mitigating information;
• Considering the factual accuracy of the criminal history information; and • Delaying seeking out criminal history information until after an individual’s other qualifications are verified.14
Local jurisdictions may adopt Fair Chance Housing policies that are more protective of the rights of renters than existing State requirements, as long as these local regulations do not conflict with State or Federal law.15
Since Palo Alto began discussing a Fair Chance Ordinance, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that a Fair Chance Housing Ordinance that banned all inquiry into a 9 2 CCR § 12266. In addition to prohibiting actions with a discriminatory effect without a legally sufficient justification, state law prohibits intentional discrimination and other types of discriminatory statements and actions. 2 CCR § 12265.
10 2 CCR §§ 12264-12271.
11 2 CCR § 12266.
12 2 CCR § 12269.
13 Cal. Penal Code § 290.46(j)(1).
14 2 CCR § 12266.
15 See 2 CCR § 12271.
Item 13
Item 13 Staff Report
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 301 of 332
prospective renter’s criminal history was an unconstitutional restriction of landlords’ right to free speech under the First Amendment.16 The court reasoned that Seattle’s ordinance, which included a blanket ban on inquiring about a renter’s criminal history information except where required by law, was not “narrowly drawn” to serve the City’s stated interests. Though it did not rule on the constitutionality of any other local ordinance, the court cited with approval local ordinances from around the country that allow landlords to consider some criminal history information under some circumstances.
Commercially Available Criminal History Databases and AI Renter Screening Technology There are some data accuracy challenges with commercially available criminal history databases, as discussed in the October 10, 2024 HRC staff report.17 In summary, commercially available criminal history databases used for renter screening often include inaccurate or incomplete information.18 Further, the HRC meeting discussion also referenced how State criminal codes vary in how they classify crimes; this results in the potential for similar facts and circumstances being classified and recorded differently in criminal history records.19 Staff subsequently identified research indicating that it is becoming more common in general for landlords to use artificial intelligence (AI) in renter screening, including potentially exacerbating the effects of inaccuracies in criminal history background check databases.20
ANALYSIS
Fair Chance Housing Policy Considerations and Purpose
Persons with a criminal history face barriers to securing stable housing. Persons with criminal history are significantly more likely to be unhoused than the general public.21 22 23 According to 16 Yim v. City of Seattle, 63 F.4th 783 (9th Cir. 2023), cert. denied sub nom. Yim v. City of Seattle, Washington, 144 S. Ct. 693 (2024).
17 HRC staff report, October 10, 2024: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/community- services/human-relations-commission/agendas/2024/10-10-24/10-10-24-hrc-agenda-item-2-attachment.pdf. 18 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/problemcriminal-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.
19 Bergman, NOLO Press, Felonies, Misdemeanors, and Infractions: Classifying Crimes, February 28, 2024, Accessed March 18, 2025: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/crimes-felonies-misdemeanors-infractions- classification-33814.html.
20 TechEquity & Wonyoung So, Screened out of Housing, July 2024, Accessed March 11, 2025:
https://techequity.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Screened-out-of-housing-paper-2025-updates.pdf. 21 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/.
22 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. 23 Prison Policy Initiative, Nowhere to Go: Homelessness among formerly incarcerated people; August 2018, Accessed March 12, 2025: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/housing.html.
Item 13
Item 13 Staff Report
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 302 of 332
the last published Santa Clara County Point in Time Count from 2023, 9,903 persons were unhoused in Santa Clara County, including 206 people in Palo Alto.24 Results from the 2024 Santa Clara County Point in Time Count are not yet published as of the date of release of this report. An estimated eight million Californians, or nearly one in five, are living with a past criminal conviction.25, 26
Research has shown that the risk of recidivism tends to decline over time.27 A recent analysis of Californians released from prison in fiscal year 2018-19 showed that a majority of the cohort had no convictions within three years of their release from prison, and that most convictions occurred during the first and second year of the three-year follow-up period.28 In a recent proposed rule, the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) noted that recidivism rates drop significantly after three years for all types of offenses.29 24 Santa Clara County 2023 PIT Report, Accessed March 18, 2025:
https://public.tableau.com/views/PIT2023v2/Exec?:showVizHome=no&amp;embed=true&. 25 Californians for Safety and Justice, Repairing the Road to Redemption in California, May 2018, Accessed March 17, 2025: https://safeandjust.org/interactivereport/repairing-the-road-to-redemption-in- california/#:~:text=1%20in%205%20Californians%20(an,with%20an%20old%20criminal%20conviction; https://safeandjust.org/wp-content/uploads/CSJ_SecondChances-ONLINE-May14.pdf. 26 Skog, Castellanos, Lacoe, and Pickard, California Policy Lab, Who Benefits from Automatic Record Relief in California?, October 2024, Accessed March 12, 2025: https://cdn.prod.website- files.com/6706c50505f0ff8dbeaf5682/67ca5375a6982860d5f1e809_Automatic-Record-Relief-in-California.pdf. 27 See Federal Register, Reducing Barriers to HUD-Assisted Housing A Proposed Rule by the Housing and Urban Development Department, April 10, 2024, Accessed March 11, 2025:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/10/2024-06218/reducing-barriers-to-hud-assisted-housing. 28 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.
29 Federal Register, Reducing Barriers to HUD-Assisted Housing A Proposed Rule by the Housing and Urban Development Department, supra, citing Bureau of Justice Statistics. “Recidivism and Reentry ” available at https://bjs.ojp.gov/topics/recidivism-and-reentry. On January 16, 2025, HUD published [Docket No. FR–6362–N– 02] in the Federal Register, noting that HUD had determined not to pursue the proposed rule. However, this report continues to reference the significant research and analysis done in preparing the proposed rule.
Item 13
Item 13 Staff Report
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 303 of 332
Studies of participants in supportive housing programs suggest that criminal history is not predictive of problematic tenancy.30, 31 Conversely, housing stability is associated with a reduced risk of recidivism for persons with criminal history.32, 33 Research has also found that patterns in crime, policing, and sentencing correlate with persons of some demographic groups being overrepresented in the criminal justice system.34,35,36,37,38,39 As discussed with the HRC, the purpose of a Fair Chance Housing Ordinance limitation on the use of criminal history information in renter selection is to give previously incarcerated persons or other persons with a criminal conviction history a fair opportunity to compete for rental housing, which may support reintegration into the community and improve access to employment, housing stability and services for some individuals.40 The purpose is also to seek 30 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. 31 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. 32 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/. 33 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, March 2015, Accessed March 19, 2025:
https://roominate.com/blogg/fair_chance_housing/crystal_ball.pdf. .
34 Ghandnoosh and Barry, The Sentencing Project, November 2, 2023, Accessed March 18, 2025:
https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/one-in-five-disparities-in-crime-and-policing/. 35 Lofstrom, Hayes, Martin, Premkumar, and Gumbs, Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), Racial Disparities in Law Enforcement Stops, October 2021, Accessed March 18, 2025: https://www.ppic.org/publication/racial- disparities-in-law-enforcement-stops/.
36 Lofstrom, Martin, and Raphael, Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), Proposition 47’s Impact on Racial Disparity in Criminal Justice Outcomes, June 2020, Accessed March 18, 2025:
https://www.ppic.org/publication/proposition-47s-impact-on-racial-disparity-in-criminal-justice-outcomes/. 37 Starr and Rehavi, Racial Disparity in Federal Criminal Sentences, Journal of Political Economy. 122, no. 6 (2014):
1320-54. Accessed March 18, 2025 via the Michigan Law Scholarship Repository:
https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/1414.
38 Judicial Council of California, Criminal Cases According to the Race and Ethnicity of the Defendant, 2018 Report to the California Legislature as Required by Penal Code Section 1170.45, February 14, 2019, Accessed March 18, 2025: https://courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/courts/default/2024-12/lr-2019-jc-disposition-of-criminal-cases- race-ethnicity-pc1170_45.pdf.
39 Judicial Council of California, Criminal Cases According to the Race and Ethnicity of the Defendant, 2024 Report to the California Legislature as Required by Penal Code Section 1170.45, November 15,2024, Accessed March 18, 2025: https://courts.ca.gov/system/files/file/lr-2024-criminal-dispositions-race-ethnicity-117045.pdf. 40 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/.
Item 13
Item 13 Staff Report
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 304 of 332
to reduce the incidence of homelessness for persons with a criminal history and reduce the risk of recidivism through housing stability.41,42, 43
Fair Chance Housing Ordinance Components
The HRC recommended policy approach, as outlined in the Background section of this report, is incorporated into a draft Fair Chance Housing Ordinance (Attachment A) for public input and City Council consideration. The draft Ordinance contains several standard components — Definitions, Applicability and Exemptions, Exceptions, Remedies, and Waiver — as discussed in the October 10, 2024 HRC staff report.44 As a helpful reference, Table 1 demonstrates how the HRC recommended policy approach and other components in the draft Ordinance relates to existing State law.
Table 1: Comparison of State Law with Draft Fair Chance Housing Ordinance State Law Proposed Fair Chance Ordinance
Regulates use of criminal history as a proxy
for discrimination based on protected
characteristics (e.g., race)
Regulates discrimination based on criminal
history as its own harm
Landlords may only consider only “directly
related convictions”
Landlords may consider only “directly related
convictions”
Does not prescribe a lookback period Prohibits consideration of convictions that occurred outside a designated lookback
period
Procedural protections for renters (e.g.,
conditional offer pre-background check,
opportunity to present mitigating
information) are encouraged, but not
required
Procedural protections for renters are
required and outlined in the ordinance
During the October 10, 2024, HRC meeting discussion, additional topics in Table 2 were mentioned for staff and Council consideration.
Table 2: Human Relation Commission Mentioned Additional Topics for Consideration 41 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. 42 Prison Policy Initiative, Nowhere to Go: Homelessness among formerly incarcerated people; August 2018, Accessed March 12, 2025: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/housing.html. 43 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/. 44 HRC staff report, October 10, 2024: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/community- services/human-relations-commission/agendas/2024/10-10-24/10-10-24-hrc-agenda-item-2-attachment.pdf.
Item 13
Item 13 Staff Report
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
8 Packet Pg. 305 of 332
Topic Notes
Ways to make it easier for renters to identify
if they are an aggrieved party under Fair
Chance Housing policies.
Staff proposes to include examples of what
could be considered an “aggrieved party”
and “adverse actions” in the draft Ordinance.
Potential explicit addition of drug and other
offense categories with a history of
discriminatory enforcement to the list of
convictions that cannot be considered in
housing decisions.
Staff does not recommend that the
Ordinance call out specific offenses due to
the infeasibility of determining at a local level
which offenses have a history of
discriminatory enforcement.
Inclusion of enforcement provisions or
remedies beyond the proposed enforcement
by a private right of action; or ways to reduce
the burden or lower the barrier for renters to
pursue remedies.
Staff proposes including the remedy of a
private right of action in the draft Ordinance.
Each of the procedural steps recommended
by the HRC in the draft Ordinance is designed
to establish a clear, written communication
trail, helping preserve a record that could
support a potential lawsuit. Introducing an
additional enforcement or remedy
mechanism, such as a local administrative
grievance procedure, would require
additional resources from the City. These
resources could involve staffing and other
support necessary to develop, administer,
and sustain an ongoing enforcement and
remedy program, or to manage a program
contract. Note that when State law is
violated, renters may also pursue all available
remedies under State law, in addition to
those provided by the local ordinance.
Penalties, such as fines, if it was found that
landlords violated the code repeatedly.
Staff does not recommend specifying
damages under a remedies section because
remedies would be decided by a court.
Lookback Periods
Staff supports the HRC recommendation that allows landlords to consider “directly related convictions” for both misdemeanors and felonies for which the renter was sentenced within the last two years when making housing decisions. This HRC-recommended two-year lookback period is consistent with staff research that more recent Clean Slate and Fair Chance Housing policy efforts recommend use of shorter lookback periods than the lookback periods that might have been implemented previously, such as a seven-year lookback period. HUD issued a Proposed Rule in 2024 that would require HUD-assisted housing providers to establish lookback periods, noting that proposing a longer than three-year lookback period would be Item 13
Item 13 Staff Report
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
9 Packet Pg. 306 of 332
presumptively unreasonable.45 For reference, Attachment B provides a list of recent Fair Chance Housing-related lookback periods by jurisdiction with citations. Note that the October 10, 2024 HRC staff report presented the topic of lookback periods, including mention of an example of utilizing records of misdemeanors or felonies no older than three years for a lookback period. However, HRC specifically included the two year lookback period within their motion.
Analysis of Potential Fair Chance Housing Policy Consequences City Council requested an analysis of potential Fair Chance Housing implementation consequences, both intended and unintended. A detailed analysis is presented in Attachment C and presents how the draft Ordinance (Attachment A) responds.
As outlined in Attachment C and throughout this report, the draft Fair Chance Housing Ordinance aims to provide individuals with criminal histories a fair opportunity to compete for rental housing, while reducing the potential for discrimination by permitting criminal history checks only after a conditional offer has been made. The Ordinance seeks to promote fairness and address the challenges posed by criminal history databases. However, it could also lead to some unintended consequences. For instance, public perceptions of safety may shift, even in the absence of data to support these concerns. Additionally, staff have identified potential issues, including landlord concerns over reduced autonomy in making housing decisions, possible delays in filling vacancies if landlords are not currently following similar procedures, and increased complexity due to the overlap of state and local regulations. In response, the City plans to provide educational resources, clear notifications, and ongoing support through programs like those offered by Project Sentinel. Staff has prepared a draft ordinance based on HRC recommendations and prior direction for City Council consideration. Ultimately, staff recommends adoption of a draft Fair Chance Housing Ordinance based on HRC’s recommended policy approach, staff recommendations, public input, and City Council feedback.
Fair Chance Housing Policy Alternative Policy Considerations City Council might want to consider providing further direction on the following topics.
Criminal History Lookback Period Length
Consistent with the HRC recommendation, the draft Ordinance (Attachment A) proposes a two- year lookback period from the date of application for “directly related convictions” (which includes convictions of both misdemeanors and felonies). This two-year lookback period strikes a balance by allowing criminal history to be considered and providing landlords the opportunity to determine and explain in writing how a “directly related conviction” pertains to a specific renter’s application for housing or renewal while also addressing concerns regarding the accuracy of commercially available criminal history databases, such as through creation of a process by which renters can present mitigating information if needed or applicable to address any information in a criminal history check. While staff supports the HRC recommendation, it 45 Federal Register, Reducing Barriers to HUD-Assisted Housing A Proposed Rule by the Housing and Urban Development Department, April 10, 2024, Accessed March 11, 2025:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/10/2024-06218/reducing-barriers-to-hud-assisted-housing.
Item 13
Item 13 Staff Report
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
10 Packet Pg. 307 of 332
may be that after review of this report (including research cited on recidivism rates over time), Attachment B regarding lookback periods, public input, and discussion, the City Council might arrive at a different lookback period length, such as three years. Council should adopt a lookback period that does not burden landlords’ rights significantly more than is necessary to accomplish its goals.
Property Applicability and Exemptions
City Council might choose to adjust the following applicability exemptions in the draft Ordinance (Attachment A):
▪For renters looking for a roommate;
▪For properties with three (3) or fewer units (including dwellings with accessory dwelling units) only when one or more units is occupied by the owner or property manager.
Implementation
The draft Ordinance (Attachment A) includes an implementation requirement for the City Manager to publish a notice of the Fair Chance Housing requirements and procedures, which landlords would need to make available to renters, such as in application and/or leasing materials. City Council might choose to modify or add more implementation requirements.
Remedies
Consistent with existing rental policies in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), the draft Ordinance (Attachment A) would be enforceable through a private right of action, meaning that a person aggrieved by a violation of the Ordinance may sue the alleged violator in civil court.
Currently there are insufficient resources for staff to take on enforcement, but City Council might still suggest the addition of other remedy or enforcement provisions.
ALTERNATIVES
There are actions that City Council could take alternative to those recommended by staff. These alternatives include:
1. City Council could continue the discussion to a future City Council meeting with specific direction; or
2. City Council could vote to not adopt a Fair Chance Housing Ordinance.
TIMELINE
One of City Council’s stated 2024 objectives was to discuss a possible Fair Chance Housing Ordinance. Following staff analysis and engagement with the HRC, the matter is agendized for policy discussion and possible action. If the ordinance is adopted on first reading on April 14, 2025, a second reading could be scheduled for May 2025 with the ordinance becoming effective 30 days after the second reading.
If policy feedback is received that requires additional staff analysis, staff anticipates conducting this analysis mid-2025.
Item 13
Item 13 Staff Report
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
11 Packet Pg. 308 of 332
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
The policy recommendation in this report does not have a significant fiscal or budgetary impact.
If the City Council takes an alternative action other than the recommended action, staff would need to evaluate the potential fiscal and resources impacts.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The City of Palo Alto is making significant efforts to address homelessness and promote fair access to housing. Pursuing renter protection policy work is consistent with the goals in the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan to provide adequate housing for all. Fair Chance Housing policy and other rental policy topics are considered a means to affirmatively further fair housing within Palo Alto, as well as a means by which to promote certainty, stability, and fairness in the rental market. Fair Chance Housing policy work is consistent with Program 6.6: Fair Housing in the Council adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element.46
As part of the implementation of Housing Element Program 3.2: Monitor Constraints to Housing, the City is required to prepare an analysis in staff reports for initiatives proposing new regulations. This analysis should detail how the regulations may impact housing production, if at all, and recommend solutions to address any adverse impacts.
A Fair Chance Housing Ordinance does not contain any land use regulatory constraints that would influence the cost of construction, reduce housing opportunity sites, or introduce any new development standards or other parameters that could negatively influence the production of housing in the City. Instead, a Fair Chance Housing Ordinance would be applicable to the operational side of rental housing in order to reduce the potential for housing discrimination.
The establishment of rental housing policies may lead to concerns from some apartment home builders regarding regulatory complexity and management flexibility. However, rental housing operational policies and renter protections are commonly discussed or adopted in other jurisdictions within the region. The adoption of similar policies in Palo Alto would align with 46 Program 6.6 Fair Housing outlines Palo Alto’s commitment to providing equitable opportunities to all residents in Palo Alto in order to expand access to housing and increase housing mobility. Program 6.6 commits the City to take actions to overcome patterns of segregation, address disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity, facilitate environmental health place based revitalization of neighborhoods, and foster inclusive communities. The action items in Program 6.6 assist the City in reducing barriers to housing, including but not limited to racial inequities, high housing costs, and public awareness of existing resources. Program 6.6 directs pursuit of affirmatively furthering fair housing in Palo Alto and pursuit of renter protections to prevent anti-displacement, including a proposed Fair Chance Housing Ordinance. City of Palo Alto 2023-2031 Housing Element, Accessed March 18, 2025: https://paloaltohousingelement.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Palo-Alto-Housing- Element.pdf.
Item 13
Item 13 Staff Report
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
12 Packet Pg. 309 of 332
regional practices and may not materially impact how developers assess the city's competitiveness in the housing market.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
While preparing this report, staff sent email notifications to identified stakeholders informing them of Council’s scheduled April 14, 2025 Fair Chance Housing policy discussion and encouraged participation. Staff placed an ad in the Daily Post newspaper on April 4, 2025, 10 days in advance of the hearing.
Public comments were received at the October 10, 2024 HRC meeting. Staff also conducted interviews with Project Sentinel, PAForward, SV@HOME, and the California Apartment Association (CAA). Thus far, feedback from stakeholders and community members has focused on the themes and points listed in Attachment D. Staff anticipates significant public comment at the April 14, 2025 City Council meeting and agendized this meeting to solicit additional feedback and points of view.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Policy discussion and adoption of a Fair Chance Housing Ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that adopting an ordinance limiting landlords’ consideration of criminal history will have a significant effect on the environment.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Draft Fair Chance Housing Ordinance
Attachment B: Comparison of Example Criminal History Lookback Periods Attachment C: Analysis of Potential Fair Chance Policy Consequences Attachment D: Initial Fair Chance Housing Policy Stakeholder and Community Member Feedback Themes
APPROVED BY:
Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Item 13
Item 13 Staff Report
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
13 Packet Pg. 310 of 332
*NOT YET APPROVED*
1 0290167_kb_20250321_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. 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
F. According to the last published Santa Clara County Point in Time Count from 2023, 9,903 persons were unhoused in Santa Clara County, including 206 people in Palo Alto. 3 G. As of 2018, an estimated eight million Californians, or nearly one in five Californians, were living with a past criminal conviction.
4 1 City of Palo Alto 2023-2031 Housing Element, Accessed March 18, 2025:
https://paloaltohousingelement.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Palo-Alto-Housing-Element.pdf. 2 See 2 CCR § 12271.
3 Santa Clara County 2023 PIT Report, Accessed March 18, 2025:
https://public.tableau.com/views/PIT2023v2/Exec?:showVizHome=no&amp;embed=true&. 4 Californians for Safety and Justice, Repairing the Road to Redemption in California, May 2018, Accessed March 17, 2025: https://safeandjust.org/interactivereport/repairing-the-road-to-redemption-in- california/#:~:text=1%20in%205%20Californians%20(an,with%20an%20old%20criminal%20conviction ; https://safeandjust.org/wp-content/uploads/CSJ_SecondChances-ONLINE-May14.pdf.
Item 13
Attachment A - Draft Fair
Chance Housing
Ordinance
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
14 Packet Pg. 311 of 332
*NOT YET APPROVED*
2 0290167_kb_20250321_ms29
H. Persons with a criminal history face barriers to securing stable housing. Persons with criminal history are significantly more likely to be unhoused than the general public.5 6 7 I. Commercially available criminal history databases used for renter screening often include inaccurate or incomplete information.
8 J. Research has shown that the risk of recidivism tends to decline over time.9 A recent analysis of Californians released from prison in fiscal year 2018-19 showed that a majority of the cohort had no convictions within three years of their release from prison, and that most convictions occurred during the first and second year of the three- year follow-up period.
10 K. Studies of participants in supportive housing programs suggest that criminal history is not predictive of problematic tenancy.
11, 12 Conversely, housing stability is associated
with a reduced risk of recidivism for persons with criminal history.13, 14
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/problemcriminal-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 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. 12 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. 13 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/ . 14 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, March 2015, Accessed March 19, 2025:
https://roominate.com/blogg/fair_chance_housing/crystal_ball.pdf .
Item 13
Attachment A - Draft Fair
Chance Housing
Ordinance
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
15 Packet Pg. 312 of 332
*NOT YET APPROVED*
3 0290167_kb_20250321_ms29
L. Structural barriers to accessing stable housing for persons with a history of criminal convictions are detrimental to the health, welfare, and public safety of the City’s residents.
M. Limiting the use of criminal history information in rental housing decisions will give previously incarcerated persons and other persons 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 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 persons or other persons 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 persons 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 is intended to be at least as protective as state law, as amended from time to time. Where this Ordinance differs 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
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/.
Item 13
Attachment A - Draft Fair
Chance Housing
Ordinance
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
16 Packet Pg. 313 of 332
*NOT YET APPROVED*
4 0290167_kb_20250321_ms29
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 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 Item 13
Attachment A - Draft Fair
Chance Housing
Ordinance
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
17 Packet Pg. 314 of 332
*NOT YET APPROVED*
5 0290167_kb_20250321_ms29
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:
(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;
(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) "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. (l) “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.
(m) "Renter" means a person or entity entitled by written or oral agreement to occupy a residential rental unit to the exclusion of others.
Item 13
Attachment A - Draft Fair
Chance Housing
Ordinance
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
18 Packet Pg. 315 of 332
*NOT YET APPROVED*
6 0290167_kb_20250321_ms29
(n) “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, where either the main or an accessory dwelling unit is occupied by one or more Landlords as their principal residence;
(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.
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 base an Adverse Action against an Applicant or a Renter 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;
Item 13
Attachment A - Draft Fair
Chance Housing
Ordinance
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
19 Packet Pg. 316 of 332
*NOT YET APPROVED*
7 0290167_kb_20250321_ms29
(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 two years old, calculated from the date of sentencing;
(f) On a felony Conviction that is more than two years old, calculated from the date of sentencing; or
(g) 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;
(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 (3) 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
Item 13
Attachment A - Draft Fair
Chance Housing
Ordinance
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
20 Packet Pg. 317 of 332
*NOT YET APPROVED*
8 0290167_kb_20250321_ms29
(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) shall notify the Applicant or Renter of the prospective Adverse Action, the specific items forming the basis for the prospective Adverse Action, and the Applicant or Renter’s right to present evidence of inaccuracy or Evidence of Rehabilitation or Other Mitigating Factors.
(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.
Item 13
Attachment A - Draft Fair
Chance Housing
Ordinance
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
21 Packet Pg. 318 of 332
*NOT YET APPROVED*
9 0290167_kb_20250321_ms29
(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 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 Lan dlord 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, provides the Applicant the opportunity to withdraw the r ental 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 A dverse 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 A pplicant's Criminal History that served as a basis for the A dverse Action, and an opportu nity 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 lifetime 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 becoming a lifetime registered sex offender 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 obtains the written consent of the Applicant to obtain such information or gives the Applicant the opportunity to withdraw the application. (d) If any Adverse Action is based in whole or in part on the A pplicant'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 A pplicant's Criminal History that served as a b asis for the A dverse Action, and an opportunity to respond with rebutting or mitigating information prior to the denial of Applicant's application.
Item 13
Attachment A - Draft Fair
Chance Housing
Ordinance
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
22 Packet Pg. 319 of 332
*NOT YET APPROVED*
10 0290167_kb_20250321_ms29
9.75.090 Advertising and notice requirements for Landlords.
(a) Advertising
(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. 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.
Item 13
Attachment A - Draft Fair
Chance Housing
Ordinance
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
23 Packet Pg. 320 of 332
*NOT YET APPROVED*
11 0290167_kb_20250321_ms29
It is the responsibility of a Landlord to ensure that its employees and agents comply with this chapter.
9.75.130 Implementation.
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.
Item 13
Attachment A - Draft Fair
Chance Housing
Ordinance
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
24 Packet Pg. 321 of 332
*NOT YET APPROVED*
12 0290167_kb_20250321_ms29
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 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.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
Item 13
Attachment A - Draft Fair
Chance Housing
Ordinance
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
25 Packet Pg. 322 of 332
*NOT YET APPROVED*
13 0290167_kb_20250321_ms29
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
Item 13
Attachment A - Draft Fair
Chance Housing
Ordinance
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
26 Packet Pg. 323 of 332
Attachment B
Comparison of Example Criminal History Lookback Periods For City Council use in comparison, the following table presents a few examples of lookback periods.
Jurisdiction Lookback
Period
Notes
HUD Proposed Rule 1 3 years (longer
lookback
period
presumed
unreasonable)
Would have required HUD-assisted
housing providers to establish
lookback periods, with anything
longer than 3-years deemed
presumptively unreasonable. A
longer period could be justified with
empirical evidence for certain crimes.
Illinois
(Public Housing Access Bill) 2
6 months for
criminal
activity prior to
a rental
housing
application
Lookback period of 6 months for
criminal activity prior to application,
with exceptions for federal
requirements.
New Jersey
(Fair Chance Housing Act) 3
1 year for 4th
degree
indictable
offenses,
4 years for 2nd
or 3rd degree
offenses,
6 years for 1st
degree
offenses
Shorter or longer lookback periods
for convictions based on offense
severity.
Colorado
(Rental Application Fairness Act) 5
5 years Landlords cannot consider
convictions older than 5 years, with
exceptions for serious crimes (e.g.,
meth-related offenses, sex offender
registry, homicides).
Berkeley, CA 6 - Does not have a lookback period, as
the Ordinance does not allow
inquiries about criminal history
unless required by State or Federal
law.
Oakland, CA 7 - Does not have a lookback period, as
the Ordinance does not allow
inquiries about criminal history
unless required by State or Federal
law.
Item 13
Attachment B -
Comparison of Example
Criminal History Lookback
Periods
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
27 Packet Pg. 324 of 332
Richmond, CA 8 2 years Landlords of affordable housing
cannot consider convictions older
than 2 years from the date of
sentencing.
San Francisco, CA 9 7 years Applicable to affordable housing in San Francisco. Affordable housing
providers cannot consider
convictions older than 7 years old.
Cook County, IL 10 3 years Applicable to persons engaged in “real estate transactions.” Real
estate transactions include the sale,
rental, lease, and sublease renewal
of residential properties. Requires an
individualized assessment if criminal
history within the past 3 years is
considered.
New York City, NY 11 3 years for
misdemeanors;
5 years for
felonies
The 3 or 5 years is measured from
release or sentencing date,
regardless of probation or parole
status. Applicable to all brokers,
licensed salespeople, housing
owners, property managers, and all
individuals with the authority to
approve or deny the rental or sale of
housing, as well as their agents and
employees apart from narrow
exceptions.
Additional California Context for Reference:
California Investigative Consumer
Reporting Agencies Act
(ICRAA) 12
7 years Prohibits consumer reporting
agencies from reporting arrest,
indictment, or conviction records
older than 7 years, with exceptions
for certain crimes (e.g., serious
offenses).
California Clean Slate Act (SB 731) 13 Sealing after
completion of
sentence
Seals certain non-violent criminal
records automatically after sentence
completion and meeting
rehabilitation criteria (usually 1–5
years post-sentence, depending on
the offense).
Sources:
1 Federal Register, Reducing Barriers to HUD-Assisted Housing A Proposed Rule by the Housing and Urban Development Department, April 10, 2024, Accessed March 24, 2025:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/10/2024-06218/reducing-barriers-to-hud- assisted-housing.
Item 13
Attachment B -
Comparison of Example
Criminal History Lookback
Periods
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
28 Packet Pg. 325 of 332
See also Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), FR-6362-N-02 Reducing Barriers to HUD-Assisted Housing; Withdrawal, January 16, 2025, Accessed March 24, 2025:
https://www.regulations.gov/document/HUD-2024-0031-1298. 2 Illinois Public Act 103-0215 (2023), https://ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/101/PDF/101-0659.pdf. 3 Fair Chance in Housing Act, NJ ST 46:8-52 (2021), https://www.njoag.gov/wp- content/uploads/2021/12/Fair-Chance-in-Housing-Act_NJSA-46-8-52-et-seq.pdf. 5 Colorado HB 19-1106 (2020), https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2019a_1106_signed.pdf. 6 City of Berkeley Municipal Code, Chapter 13.106 Prohibiting the Use of Criminal History in Housing Decisions, Accessed March 12, 2025: https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/13.106.
See also City of Berkeley, Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board, Fair Chance Housing FAQ for Rental Property Owners and Managers, Accessed March 12, 2025:
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-
01/Fair%20Chance%20FAQ%20for%20Rental%20Property%20Owners%20and%20Managers.pdf. 7 Oakland Municipal Code Chapter 8.25,
https://library.municode.com/ca/oakland/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT8HESA_CH8.25ROV .DESISHFACHACHOOR.
See also, City of Oakland, Fair Chance Access to Housing Ordinance, Accessed March 12, 2025:
https://www.oaklandca.gov/resources/fair-chance-access-to-housing-ordinance; City of Oakland, Housing and Community Development Department, Ronald V. Dellums and Simarashe Sherry Fair Chance Access to Housing Ordinance NO. 13581 C.M.S Frequently Asked Questions, Accessed March 12, 2025: https://cao-94612.s3.us-west-
2.amazonaws.com/documents/Fair-Chance-FAQ.pdf.
8 City of Richmond, Ordinance No. 20-16 N.S AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RICHMOND REQUIRING PROVIDERS OF PUBLIC OR SUBSIDIZED HOUSING TO ENSURE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR HOUSING APPLICANTS WITH PAST CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS, Accessed March 12, 2025: https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/49090/20-16-NSChapter-7110-Fair- Chance-Access-to-Affordable-Housing.
9 City of San Francisco Police Code, ARTICLE 49: PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERING ARRESTS AND CONVICTIONS AND RELATED INFORMATION IN EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING DECISIONS, Accessed March 12, 2025: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/sf_police/0-0-0-8603.
See also City of San Francisco, Accessed March 12, 2025: https://www.sf.gov/information--affordable- housing-protections-people-criminal-history.
10 Cook County Commission on Human Rights, Just Housing Amendment, Accessed March 24, 2025:
https://www.cookcountyil.gov/content/just-housing-amendment-human-rights-ordinance; https://cook-county.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3893091&GUID=069CAF13-32BF-46D4- AD80-829C9E2B2ED8&Options=Advanced&Search=&FullText=1;
https://library.municode.com/il/cook_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIGEOR_CH42HU RE_ARTIIHURI_S42-38HO.
See also Cook County Commission on Human Rights, Just Housing Amendment Frequently Asked Questions for Landlords, Accessed March 24, 2025:
Item 13
Attachment B -
Comparison of Example
Criminal History Lookback
Periods
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
29 Packet Pg. 326 of 332
https://www.cookcountyil.gov/sites/g/files/ywwepo161/files/documents/2024- 01/jha_faq_for_landlords_updated_1.29.24%20%281%29.pdf.
Cook County Commission on Human Rights, 2024 Just Housing Amendment Evaluation and Report Issued on November 19, 2024, Accessed March 24, 2025:
https://www.cookcountyil.gov/sites/g/files/ywwepo161/files/documents/2025- 01/JHAEvaluation_2024%20%281%29.pdf.
Cook County Commission on Human Rights, Just Housing Amendment Interpretive Rules (added 12/13/19; amended 12/9/21), Accessed March 24, 2025:
https://www.cookcountyil.gov/sites/g/files/ywwepo161/files/documents/2021- 12/Just%20Housing%20Rules%20Effective%20December%209%202021.pdf. 11 New York City Administrative Code, Accessed March 24, 2025:
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:33c0fd72-0aec-4f44-b43a-d2045361f20f.
See also New York Commission on Human Rights, Fair Chance Act in Housing, Accessed March 24, 2025: https://www.nyc.gov/site/cchr/media/fair-chance-housing-campaign.page. 12 CA Civ Code § 1786.18.
13 California Legislative Information, California Clean Slate Act (SB 731) (2021-22), Accessed March 12, 2025: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB731.
See also The Clean Slate Initiative, New Research: Impacts of California’s Clean Slate Law, October 25, 2024, Accessed March 12, 2025: https://www.cleanslateinitiative.org/updates/new-research-impacts- california-clean-
slate#:~:text=California%20passed%20a%20series%20of,based%20process%20for%20potential%20rel ief.
Skog, Castellanos, Lacoe, and Pickard, California Policy Lab, Who Benefits from Automatic Record Relief in California?, October 2024, Accessed March 12, 2025: https://cdn.prod.website- files.com/6706c50505f0ff8dbeaf5682/67ca5375a6982860d5f1e809_Automatic-Record-Relief-in- California.pdf.
Item 13
Attachment B -
Comparison of Example
Criminal History Lookback
Periods
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
30 Packet Pg. 327 of 332
Attachment C
Analysis of Potential Fair Chance Housing Policy Consequences Note: As requested by City Council, staff prepared this Attachment containing staff analysis of potential Fair Chance Housing Ordinance implementation consequences, both intended and unintended. Accordingly, this Attachment reflects staff analysis to date with the acknowledgement that more information is forthcoming from public input and City Council discussion.
An intended consequence of adopting the draft Fair Chance Housing Ordinance (Attachment A) would be to have a codified, consistent, and clear policy regarding the use of criminal history information in housing decisions for all housing providers in Palo Alto. While it could not be directly measured, another intended consequence would be to reduce the potential for housing discrimination against renters with a criminal history. Pursuing renter protection policy work is consistent with the goals in the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan to provide adequate housing for all. Fair Chance Housing policy and other rental policy topics are considered a means to affirmatively further fair housing within Palo Alto, as well as a means by which to promote certainty, stability, and fairness in the rental market. Fair Chance Housing policy work is consistent with Program 6.6: Fair Housing in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.
Given the widespread accessibility of criminal history databases and AI renter screening tools, it is not possible to prevent landlords, or any person, from running a check on another person at any time. However, an intended consequence of adopting the draft Fair Chance Housing Ordinance (Attachment A) is to establish procedural protections, including those involving written communication, that would give applicants and existing renters the opportunity to pursue a private right of action if they believed they were an aggrieved person under the Ordinance.
One of the purposes of local Fair Chance Housing policies is to give persons with criminal history 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. Therefore, an intended consequence of adopting the draft Fair Chance Housing Ordinance (Attachment A) would be that local landlords would no longer be able to initially use criminal history checks as part of making a conditional housing offer. However, a criminal history check could be conducted after an offer is made in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Ordinance. Also, notably, the draft Ordinance would not require or prevent a landlord from running credit checks, income verification, or other standard procedures as part of initial applicant vetting.
From stakeholder interviews, staff learned that Palo Alto landlords often receive numerous applications for rental units. Both landlords and renters are motivated to secure rentals, which could lead to an expedited process. Under the draft Fair Chance Housing Ordinance (Attachment A), the Ordinance would not interfere with a landlord’s ability to collect applications. However, Item 13
Attachment C - Analysis
of Potential Fair Chance
Policy Consequences
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
31 Packet Pg. 328 of 332
it would establish a code violation if a landlord ran a criminal history check before making a conditional offer to an applicant and receiving their consent. Under the draft Ordinance (Attachment A), landlords would still have the ability to decide who to make a conditional offer to amongst applicants. However, if that person had a criminal history, the draft Ordinance might add to the time it takes to rent individual rental units so that the landlord could follow the renter procedural protections. This also gives an applicant or renter with inaccuracies in their record the opportunity to present mitigating information. It is likely that some landlords already implement procedures as encouraged by California’s FEHA, so it is not anticipated that a local Ordinance would significantly increase the time it takes for those landlords to fill vacancies.
Currently, Palo Alto landlords and housing providers utilize their own policies regarding the use of criminal history information in rental housing decisions. The California Apartment Association (CAA) noted from their preliminary inquiries that some Palo Alto landlords decide not to run criminal history checks, whereas others do and generally tend to consider lookback periods between three (3) and five (5) years with others looking at longer time periods. Under the draft Fair Chance Housing Ordinance (Attachment A), a consequence could be the need for adjustments among landlords who currently use criminal history checks as part of their rental procedures, particularly regarding the length of lookback periods. There would be no adjustments needed for landlords that do not currently utilize criminal history checks or for landlords for which the draft Ordinance (Attachment A) would exempt.
Regarding the prevalence of persons with criminal history, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) states that approximately 77 million Americans, or one in every three adults, have a criminal record (which could be an arrest record, criminal charges, or a conviction).1.As a point of comparison, the Brennan Center for Justice cites a similar prevalence noting that the number of Americans with arrest records is similar to the number of persons that have a Bachelor’s Degree.2 In their May 2018 report, Californians for Safety and Justice estimated that eight million Californians, or nearly one in five Californians, were living with a past criminal conviction.3 California Policy Lab also used the estimate of eight (8) million Californians with criminal history in October 2024 as background in their report on automatic record relief in California, which over time could assist with reducing the number of people with records in 1 National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), Criminal Records and Reentry Toolkit, March 31, 2023, Accessed March 11, 2025: https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/criminal-records-and-reentry- toolkit#:~:text=Approximately%2077%20million%20Americans%2C%20or,housing%2C%20and%20higher%20educa tion%20opportunities.
2 Friedman, M., Brennan Center for Justice, Just Facts: As Many Americans Have Criminal Records as College Diplomas,
November 17, 2015, Accessed March 11, 2025: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/just- facts-many-americans-have-criminal-records-college-diplomas. 3 Californians for Safety and Justice, Repairing the Road to Redemption in California, May 2018, Accessed March 17, 2025: https://safeandjust.org/interactivereport/repairing-the-road-to-redemption-in- california/#:~:text=1%20in%205%20Californians%20(an,with%20an%20old%20criminal%20conviction; https://safeandjust.org/wp-content/uploads/CSJ_SecondChances-ONLINE-May14.pdf.
Item 13
Attachment C - Analysis
of Potential Fair Chance
Policy Consequences
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
32 Packet Pg. 329 of 332
criminal history databases. 4 An unintended consequence of adopting a Fair Chance Housing Ordinance could be a shift in perceptions of public safety, whether or not a shift is justified, given the already widespread prevalence of persons with criminal histories. While Ordinance consideration and potential adoption might bring attention to this topic, the draft Fair Chance Housing Ordinance (Attachment A) would include recordkeeping and confidentiality provisions to ensure that landlords maintain the confidentiality of obtained criminal history information to the maximum extent permitted by law.
Since Palo Alto began establishing policy regarding rental housing, some landlords have expressed concerns about maintaining the autonomy to make decisions they believe are best for their property and business. In the context of Fair Chance Housing policy, CAA noted from their preliminary inquiries that the ability to run criminal history checks served as indirect mitigation against potential future unit turnover at rental properties, particularly if other residents felt uncomfortable with a new renter. CAA framed this concern within the context of just cause eviction regulations, which limit the ability to terminate occupancy in the event of such issue. A potential unintended consequence of adopting the draft Fair Chance Housing Ordinance (Attachment A), could be the perception that landlords have less autonomy to make decisions affecting the stability of their property and business. However, the draft Ordinance provides a process by which all prospective renters would have a fair chance to compete for housing. Instead of prohibiting landlord consideration of criminal history altogether unless required by State or Federal law, the approach in the draft Ordinance would allow landlords to consider criminal history information with specific procedural protections for renters. This approach gives landlords the opportunity to decide if a directly related conviction warranted revoking of a conditional housing offer, balancing the interests of landlords while also reducing the potential for renter discrimination.
Landlords encounter a wide variety of regulations applicable to rental units. CAA highlighted that new local policies could complicate compliance for rental property owners and property managers, given the overall complexity of regulations at the State and local level. This complexity could also make it challenging for renters and/or their legal representatives to fully understand their rights. In response, the draft Fair Chance Housing Ordinance (Attachment A) includes a requirement for the City to publish and distribute a notice that informs renters of their rights under the Ordinance. That notice would be required to be provided alongside application materials and with leases. Additionally, the City contracts with Project Sentinel to provide renter and landlord education in fair housing, preparation of a renter’s rights guide, and a mediation program; Fair Chance Housing policy would be incorporated into these ongoing efforts. 4 Skog, Castellanos, Lacoe, and Pickard, California Policy Lab, Who Benefits from Automatic Record Relief in California?, October 2024, Accessed March 12, 2025: https://cdn.prod.website- files.com/6706c50505f0ff8dbeaf5682/67ca5375a6982860d5f1e809_Automatic-Record-Relief-in-California.pdf.
Item 13
Attachment C - Analysis
of Potential Fair Chance
Policy Consequences
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
33 Packet Pg. 330 of 332
Attachment D
Initial Fair Chance Housing Policy Stakeholder and Community Member Feedback Themes Public comments were received at the October 10, 2024 HRC meeting. Staff also conducted interviews with Project Sentinel, PAForward, SV@HOME, and the California Apartment Association. Thus far, feedback from stakeholders and community members have included the themes and points listed in this Attachment.
Theme: Establishment of Local Fair Chance Housing Policies:
•General feedback:
oEstablishment should combine the interests of landlords and renters for public safety as well as the desire to prevent discrimination; and oInitial implementation could inform if any policy adjustments would be warranted later.
•Support:
oEstablishment could help address the history of racial discrimination in policing; and
oEstablishment could support efforts to provide housing for all; •Concerns:
oEstablishment seems like government overreach, generally; oEstablishment might not be necessary to do at the local level; oEstablishment influences landlords’ ability to make their own decisions about how to rent or lease their own property; and
oEstablishment could cause confusion and a patchwork of rights, given the existence of and some overlap with State law.
Theme: Fair Chance Housing Policy-Making Process:
•General feedback:
oPolicy discussions would benefit from learning more from advocates and people who have lived experience of the barriers to accessing housing due to having criminal history;
oPolicy discussions would benefit from learning more about landlord current background procedures and potential implementation concerns, consider sending a voluntary survey to existing Palo Alto landlords;
oPolicy discussions would benefit from learning more from advocates, service providers, renters, and landlords about the logistics of providing and reviewing evidence of inaccuracy, rehabilitation, or other mitigating factors; and oPolicy discussions should consider the current just cause eviction landscape whereby it is difficult to evict a renter later if a public safety issue emerges.
Item 13
Attachment D - Initial Fair
Chance Housing Policy
Stakeholder and
Community Member
Feedback Themes
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
34 Packet Pg. 331 of 332
Theme: Fair Chance Housing Policy Components and Implementation:
•General feedback:
oAn Ordinance could be more understandable regarding renter’s rights and landlord policy procedures when examples are provided, such as providing examples in the definition of “adverse action;”
oIf an Ordinance is clear and reasonable, it is more likely to achieve compliance. oRather than a blanket ban unless required by State or Federal law, there is more of a preference for a policy approach that limits the use of criminal history information coupled with renter procedural protections; oFair chance policy components should use an approach that reduces the burden for renters to pursue their rights;
oIt could be helpful if there was dedicated City staff that could help advise on rental policy questions;
oIt could be helpful if any Ordinance included details about how it would be implemented and enforced; and
oIt could be helpful for any Ordinance to have clear enforcement parameters.
Item 13
Attachment D - Initial Fair
Chance Housing Policy
Stakeholder and
Community Member
Feedback Themes
Item 13: Staff Report
Pg.
35 Packet Pg. 332 of 332