Public Meetings - Berkeley, California

The Berkeley City Council met on Thursday, February 26, 2026, at 6:03 p.m. (Note: The raw transcript states the meeting began on Tuesday, February 24, 2026, but the provided metadata specifies February 26, 2026. This summary uses the metadata date.) The meeting opened with ceremonial proclamations for American Heart Month and in memory of Gianna Ranuzzi, as well as a moment of silence for Ukraine. The council then moved through the consent calendar, an action calendar item on performance metrics, a public hearing on an SB684 implementation ordinance, and a discussion of the 2026 state and federal legislative platform, which was continued to the next meeting. Consent Calendar - The consent calendar was approved unanimously. Councilmembers added discretionary fund donations to item 16 (Waterside Workshops Community Spring Fling) and item 17 (BUSD historical study), and co‑sponsored items 17 and 18. Several councilmembers noted item 19, a resolution urging Minnesota Governor Tim Walz to enact an eviction moratorium, and item 18, a referral to close an on‑site manager exemption loophole for multifamily properties. Public Comments & Testimony - Dr. Stephen Alpert opposed a 20‑story project at 2425 Durant, arguing that developers used state density bonus law to bypass Berkeley’s “hard hat” ordinance requiring health insurance, apprenticeship training, and prevailing wages. He stated that council’s vote was “pro‑development” rather than “pro‑housing.” - Rhonda Grushka served a recall notice to a council member (name not specified) and confirmed she had filed paperwork with the city clerk. - Lola Zerpley, a UC Berkeley student and Southside resident, described being hit by a car at the intersection of Derby and Warring (“Zachary’s Corner”) on February 10, 2026. She reported that 11 accidents have occurred there since 2011, and that the city has not installed a blinking pedestrian light or repainted faded crosswalks. She demanded immediate safety changes. - James Arnold criticized the opening of a campus burger restaurant on Hay Street, urging the city to support vegetarian alternatives and regulate animal killing. - Maria Sol raised concerns about housing affordability and management companies (e.g., at Alcatraz and Sacramento) leaving elevators down for a month, trapping residents in wheelchairs. - Carol (last name not given) asked how AB 339 might affect the budget regarding contractor unions. - Rebecca Grove (Waterside Workshops) thanked the council for supporting the spring fling and announced a cycling club and tsunami preparedness event. - Steve Cromer and another speaker supported the performance metrics report, urging transparency and outcome‑based budgeting. - Brianna Morales (Housing Action Coalition) urged adoption of the SB684 ordinance to create a clear pathway for small‑lot subdivisions and ownership housing. - Sarah Bell (Housing Advisory Commission) presented detailed edits to the legislative platform, including support for tenant protections, universal design, condominium defect reform, and repeal of Article 34 of the California Constitution. Discussion Items - Performance Metrics (Item 25): Auditor Jenny Wong presented a special report on outcome‑based budgeting. The report recommends streamlining performance reporting, aligning measures with strategic goals, and exploring outcome‑based budgeting. Councilmember Blackaby led a discussion on starting with one or two metrics per department. City Manager Paul noted departments are already working on up to five outcome measures. No vote was taken; the item was informational. - SB684 Implementation (Item 20): Staff presented an ordinance to create a ministerial small‑lot subdivision path for qualifying projects (up to 10 units) and a streamlined local parcel map option. Councilmember Kessarwani moved to amend minimum lot sizes in the hillside overlay zone from 1,200 sq ft to 600 sq ft, and to reduce usable open space from 200 sq ft per unit to 150 sq ft. After discussion, the ordinance passed with those amendments. Roll call: 8–0 (Councilmember O’Keefe abstained due to a personal discomfort; Councilmember Castroani absent). - Legislative Platform (Item 21): Lobbyist Niccolò De Luca gave an update on state and federal legislative trends. Councilmembers offered numerous amendments (e.g., support for autonomous vehicle regulation, condominium construction defect liability reform, wildfire insurance, mental health funding). The mayor proposed sending advocacy letters on these priorities without prior council approval. After receiving many edits, the council decided to continue the item to the next meeting (March 10, 2026) to compile a clean version. Key Outcomes - Consent Calendar: Approved unanimously. - SB684 Ordinance: Adopted on first reading with amendments (minimum lot size 600 sq ft in hillside overlay zone for vacant parcels; open space reduced to 150 sq ft). Vote: 8–0–1 (O’Keefe abstained). - Legislative Platform: Continued to March 10, 2026, to incorporate all proposed amendments and ensure clarity. The mayor’s request to send advocacy letters without prior council approval was accepted. - Performance Metrics Report: Discussed; no formal action taken. The city manager and auditor will continue work on outcome measures. - Ceremonial Items: American Heart Month proclaimed; Gianna Ranuzzi honored; moment of silence for Ukraine. - Auditor Update: The city auditor reported progress on restaurant inspections audit recommendations, with two fully implemented and four partly implemented. The online inspection data is expected back by summer 2026, and window placards are being studied.

This special work session of the Berkeley City Council was convened to receive a presentation and discuss the Community Health Improvement Plan (CHIP), also called the "Berkeley Wellness Blueprint." The plan, developed over the past year with community engagement, identifies four priority health areas—housing, environmental health, behavioral health, and community safety—and sets two overarching goals: closing life expectancy disparities and increasing community power and partnership. The meeting included a staff presentation, a video, a demonstration of a forthcoming public health dashboard, public comments, and council discussion. Public Comments & Testimony - Andy Katz, chair of the Community Health Commission (speaking as an individual), expressed that while the CHIP brings new insights and aligns with a "health in all policies" approach, it falls short of addressing the strategic plan needs for the public health division, particularly in prevention of chronic and infectious diseases, peer-to-peer education, and direct services like public health nursing. He urged the city to also advance a results-based accountability framework and questioned how CHIP implementation will be successful across pillars not traditionally handled by HHCS. - Baptiste, a Community Health Commissioner, seconded the previous comments and stated that the city now has "both the data and the mandate to act." He noted that the life expectancy gap of 13 years (91 in Berkeley Hills vs. 78 in South and West Berkeley) is a predictable result of housing instability, environmental injustice, behavioral health gaps, and unequal investment. He urged the city council and city manager to formally align budget, interdepartmental work plans, and performance metrics with the CHIP’s two central goals, targeting resources to neighborhoods with the worst outcomes. - Matt, a member of the community steering committee (speaking via Zoom), explained that many chronic diseases are interwoven, and addressing upstream factors like housing and diabetes prevention can impact mortality from conditions like Alzheimer’s. He emphasized that the CHIP’s focus on primordial prevention is essential. Discussion Items - Presentation by Director Scott Gilman and Deputy Director Tanya Bustamante: The overview described the CHIP’s purpose, guiding principles (balance ambition with feasibility, cultivate cross-sector work, emphasize prevention, establish a long-term cycle), and development process involving a consulting firm (JSI), key informant interviews, focus groups, and a community survey with over 320 responses. The community steering committee of 10 members distilled six key findings into two broad goals and four priority areas. - Dashboard Demonstration: A sneak peek of a public-facing dashboard (to go live in fall 2026) was shown, featuring data on life expectancy by race and geography. Key statistics highlighted: Berkeley’s overall life expectancy outpaces Alameda County and the state; however, a 13-year gap exists between the Berkeley Hills (91 years) and South/West Berkeley (78 years). Drug overdoses and self-harm rose to the 6th leading cause of death in 2022–2024, up from 8th place previously. - Councilmember Questions & Comments: - Councilmember Verta asked about specific sub-objectives under community safety (e.g., walkability), why certain areas (like upper downtown) have lower life expectancy, how focus groups were selected, how CHIP will target interventions to affected communities, and the vision for cross-departmental collaboration. Staff responded that the high-level objectives will evolve, focus groups were conducted with priority populations (e.g., transitional age youth, African American and Latino residents), and that an interdepartmental process will be developed with annual updates to council beginning January/February 2027. - Councilmember Bartlett appreciated the work and asked about dashboard alignment with budget, alignment with Medi-Cal/Medicaid requirements, and decision-making structure for identifying specific solutions. Staff confirmed that the community health commission will be part of oversight, and that the state now requires alignment between behavioral health and public health plans, with small funding from behavioral health to convene the work. - Councilmember Blackaby praised the focus on measurable outcomes and asked how the team balanced ambition with feasibility, when the next version of the implementation plan would be available, and how confident they are in moving the needle. Staff replied that the four priorities rose from the community, that the implementation pause until after the budget process is intended to ensure fiscal stewardship, and that they aim to have initial solutions by January 2027. Staff expressed confidence in community support. - Mayor Ishii asked about the difference between the 2018 health status report and the 2025 community health assessment, why chronic disease data and strategies weren’t included in the CHIP’s priority areas, and noted that 60% of African American and Latinx households in Berkeley pay more than 30% of income for rent. Staff clarified that the CHIP focuses on the top four community-identified priorities, but chronic disease data will be available on the dashboard, and the health assessment includes both quantitative and qualitative data. - Councilmember Humbert thanked staff and the steering committee, called the 13-year life expectancy gap a "stark and necessary finding," and emphasized the need for an accountability framework despite budget constraints. He asked staff to return with a concrete, minimal accountability framework reflecting current resource reality. - Councilmember Tregum highlighted the importance of actionable implementation, the challenge of backfilling lost grant funding (e.g., for tree planting), and suggested using state legislative priorities to communicate funding needs. - Vice Mayor Luna Parra thanked staff and community members. Key Outcomes - The council received the presentation and discussion; no formal vote was taken on the CHIP itself. - Staff committed to providing annual updates to council, the first expected around January/February 2027. - Councilmember Humbert requested that Director Gilman and HHCS return with a concrete accountability framework for the CHIP, even a minimal one. - Staff indicated that implementation actions will be developed with focus groups and stakeholders from December 2025 through July 2026, with a pause for the budget process, and that specific, measurable objectives will be shared by early 2027. - The 10 members of the community steering committee were publicly recognized and awarded certificates of appreciation. - The meeting adjourned with a motion, second, and unanimous approval.

The meeting began with a special work session on the Community Health Improvement Plan (CHIP), followed by the regular City Council meeting. Key discussions included the CHIP presentation, performance metrics audit, SB 684 subdivision ordinance amendments, and the 2026 state/federal legislative platform. Several public comments were heard on various topics. Consent Calendar - Approved unanimously: Items 16 (Waterside Workshops Spring Fling), 17 (BUSD historical study), 18 (on-site manager exemption loophole referral), 19 (resolution urging Minnesota eviction moratorium), and other routine items. Councilmember discretionary fund allocations were adjusted for items 16 and 17. Public Comments & Testimony - Community Health Improvement Plan (CHIP): Andy Katz (Community Health Commission chair) expressed concern that CHIP focuses on high-level pillars (housing, environmental health, behavioral health, community safety) but falls short of addressing chronic disease and infectious disease prevention. Talz Baptiste (community health commissioner) urged budget and performance alignment with CHIP goals, emphasizing the 13-year life expectancy gap between Berkeley Hills (91 years) and South/West Berkeley (78 years). Matt (steering committee member) noted that social determinants like housing affect chronic disease outcomes. - Performance Metrics Audit: Steve Cromer and Matthew (public speakers) strongly supported adopting performance metrics, emphasizing outcomes and cost efficiency, and benchmarking against peer cities. - SB 684 Subdivision Ordinance: Brianna Morales (Housing Action Coalition) supported the ordinance, stating it creates a practical pathway for small-scale ownership housing. Clio (public comment) noted that SB 684 was replaced by AB 1123, and urged holding off on the local alternative path. Debbie Sanderson asked to adopt only the state-compliant sections and revisit the local path. - Non-Agenda: Speakers addressed the 20-story Durant project appeal denial, a recall notice, pedestrian safety at Derby & Warring (speaker Lola Zerkley was hit by a car), animal rights, housing issues at specific properties, and nuclear war concerns. Discussion Items Community Health Improvement Plan (CHIP) Work Session Director Scott Gilman and Deputy Director Tanya Bustamante presented the CHIP, developed over a year with community steering committee input. The plan identifies four priority areas: housing, environmental health, behavioral health, and community safety. Key data showed a 13-year life expectancy gap by neighborhood, and drug overdoses/suicide rising to the 6th leading cause of death. A public dashboard will go live in fall 2026. Implementation will involve advisory groups for each pillar, with a preparation phase through July 2026 due to budget constraints. Councilmembers questioned focus group selection, cross-departmental coordination, alignment with Medi-Cal, and measurable outcomes. Director Gilman emphasized community engagement and transparent reporting. Performance Metrics Audit (Item 25 moved from Information to Action) Auditor Jenny Wong presented a special report on performance measurement, recommending departments identify one or two outcome metrics per department (e.g., 911 response times, park satisfaction). Councilmember Blackaby proposed setting measurable goals aligned with city priorities. City Manager Paul noted departments are already developing five outcome measures each. Discussion focused on starting small, using existing data, and avoiding overburdening staff. No vote was taken; the item was discussed and acknowledged. SB 684 Subdivision Ordinance (Item 20) Associate Planner Branka Tatarich presented amendments to Titles 21 and 23 to implement SB 684, establishing a ministerial pathway for small-lot subdivisions (up to 10 units) and a local parcel map path for projects not qualifying under SB 684. The ordinance includes a parent parcel rule and objective zoning standards. Councilmember Casserwani moved two amendments: reducing minimum lot size for vacant single-family parcels in the Hillside Overlay Zone from 1,200 to 600 sq ft, and reducing usable open space requirement from 200 to 150 sq ft per unit. After clarifying questions about fire hazard zones and density, the motion passed 7-1-1 (Councilmember O'Keefe abstained). 2026 State/Federal Legislative Platform (Item 21) Mayor Ishii presented the draft platform, with additions proposed by Vice Mayor Lunapara, Councilmember Humbert, Taplin, Blackaby, Tracub, and Bartlett covering health, housing, wildfire, energy, and more. Lobbyist Nicolo De Luca gave an overview of Sacramento and DC trends. The housing advisory commission also submitted written recommendations. Due to the volume of amendments and need for clarity, the item was continued to March 10, 2026. Key Outcomes - Consent Calendar approved unanimously. - SB 684 Subdivision Ordinance adopted on first reading (7-1-1), with amendments to minimum lot size (600 sq ft for vacant single-family parcels) and open space (150 sq ft/unit), including revised materials from staff. - 2026 Legislative Platform continued to March 10, 2026, with all proposed additions to be compiled and published ahead of the next meeting. - CHIP was presented and received; no formal vote required. Staff will return with progress updates in 2027. - Performance Metrics audit was discussed; council and city manager committed to developing outcome measures for each department, with an annual reporting framework.

The Berkeley City Council held a special meeting on February 23, 2026, starting at 6:04 PM, to consider two appeals of Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) decisions. Both appeals challenged the granting of concessions under the state density bonus law that would exempt projects from local labor standards (the Hard Hats Ordinance and Southside Plan prevailing wage requirements). The council heard presentations, public testimony, and deliberated on each item separately. Public Comments & Testimony - 2425 Durant Avenue (Item 2): Numerous union members, residents, and labor representatives spoke against the concessions, arguing that waiving health care, apprenticeship, and prevailing wage requirements undermines worker safety and the intent of local ordinances. Some speakers urged the council to uphold the Hard Hats Ordinance. A developer representative argued that the project would provide needed housing and that the concessions are legally required under state law. One UC Berkeley student supported the project citing the housing crisis. - 2029 University Avenue (Items 3A/3B): Similar testimony was given, with speakers emphasizing the importance of health care and training for construction workers. A commenter questioned the credibility of the applicant's cost estimates for apprenticeship contributions. Another speaker noted that no project in Berkeley has been stalled by Hard Hats, contrary to developer claims. Discussion Item 1: 2425 Durant Avenue Appeal (ZP 2024-0162) The project proposes to demolish three existing buildings (19 units) and construct a 20-story, 169-unit residential building with 32 below-market-rate units. The appellant (Building and Construction Trades Council of Alameda County and Northern California Carpenters Regional Council) argued that concessions for apprenticeship, health care, and prevailing wage are not appropriate under the density bonus law and do not result in identifiable cost reductions. The applicant presented estimated cost savings of $16.56 million from the three concessions. Staff recommended denying the appeal, citing state law that requires liberal interpretation in favor of housing production and that the city cannot make findings of specific adverse impact on public health or safety. Councilmembers questioned the methodology behind cost estimates and the legal basis for denying concessions. Several councilmembers expressed sympathy for workers but concluded that state law compels approval. Key Outcomes for 2425 Durant Avenue - Motion: To deny the appeal and affirm the ZAB decision to approve the use permit (with correction to condition 65). - Vote: 5 yes (Councilmembers Kessarwani, Blackaby, Lunapara, Humbert, Mayor Ishi), 4 abstain (Taplin, Bartlett, Trega, O'Keefe). Motion carried. - Next Steps: The project will proceed with the requested concessions. Discussion Item 2: 2029 University Avenue Appeal (ZP 2024-0181 and ZP 2024-0182) The site at 2029 University Avenue proposes two alternative schemes: a 240-unit multifamily building or a 160-unit student housing building, both 23 stories. The applicant requested concessions to waive apprenticeship, health care, and bird-safe glass requirements, citing $4.732 million in cost savings. The appellant again argued that the cost estimates are unsubstantiated and that the concessions would harm public health and safety. Staff reiterated that the concessions are permissible under state law. Council questions focused on the bird-safe glass cost and the apprenticeship methodology. Deliberations paralleled the first item, with many councilmembers citing legal constraints. Key Outcomes for 2029 University Avenue - Motion: To deny the appeal and affirm the ZAB decision to approve both use permits. - Vote: 4 yes (Councilmembers Kessarwani, Lunapara, Humbert, Mayor Ishi), 5 abstain (Taplin, Bartlett, Trega, O'Keefe, Blackaby). Motion failed. - Effect: With no council action, the ZAB decision stands, and the project permits are approved without the council overturning the concessions.

The Berkeley City Council met on Tuesday, February 10, 2026, at approximately 7:00 PM. The meeting included ceremonial proclamations, a report from the mayor on the U.S. Conference of Mayors, consent calendar approvals, and a public hearing on an appeal of a zoning decision for a mixed-use development at 2109 Virginia Street. The council ultimately voted to deny the appeal and affirm the Zoning Adjustments Board’s approval of the project. Ceremonial Items - Proclamation for Tom Broham and Barry Warren: Recognized for their historic role in establishing Berkeley’s first-in-the-nation same-sex domestic partnership policy in 1984. Both spoke briefly. - Adjournment in Memory of Todd Walker: Honored for his work as a community peace ambassador and violence interrupter, including contributing to Berkeley’s 2025 milestone of a 100% reduction in gun violence. His family and colleagues were in attendance. - Mayor’s Travel Report: Mayor Ishii reported on her January 2026 trip to the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Mayor’s Innovation Project in Washington, D.C. Key topics included housing (bipartisan Road to Housing bill), opposition to ICE/CBP enforcement in cities, security concerns for elected officials, wildfire preparedness (Berkeley’s Embers program), and meetings with California congressional delegation staff. Consent Calendar - Item 3 – Amendments to Title 21 (separate sale of ADUs): Councilmembers Tragop and Casserwani recused themselves. The item was voted on separately and passed unanimously (7-0). - Balance of Consent Calendar: Approved unanimously (9-0). Notable items included: - Item 1: Bicycle registration and licensing update (a public commenter requested this be pulled for discussion; council did not do so). - Item 9: Application for up to $1.25 million in state Pro-Housing Incentive Program funds to support housing trust fund and homeless services. Public Comments & Testimony - Non-Agenda Comments (first half): - Steve Tracy argued the city’s health department is redundant and could save $12 million per year. - Gina Rieger opposed corridor upzoning (Elmwood, Solano, North Shattuck), calling eight-story buildings a “disgrace.” - Dr. Stephen Alpert cited a London School of Economics study arguing inequality, not regulation, drives housing costs. - Carol Morosevic supported switching from taxi scripts to GoGoGrandparent but requested optional Lyft/Uber booking due to higher costs. - Pam Jacob, a senior resident, said cuts to taxi scripts have severely limited her medical appointments. - Zoom speakers raised concerns about city staff responsiveness, police accountability, and proposed changes to public hearing procedures. - Comments on Consent/Information Items: - A speaker criticized speculation and gentrification from recent housing measures. - Irania De La Mora urged council to define “affordable” with specific prices (e.g., $1,900) and to create more jobs. - Maria thanked the mayor for the D.C. trip but expressed worry about high development without affordable units, bike safety, and community courtesy. - Bryce Nasbit (Zoom) urged pulling the bicycle registration item for discussion, supporting a modern bike-index system. - Public Hearing on Item 14 (2109 Virginia Street): Over 20 speakers, including: - Appellants and supporters: Vijay Shunikrishnan (North Shattuck Alliance) argued the project is out of character, failed to document concessions/waivers, and sits on a toxic site requiring full environmental review. - James Hendry (appellant) detailed that the site’s 1987 remediation was outdated and that new contaminants (benzene, chloroform, lead) require proper remediation, not just a vapor barrier. - Many neighbors opposed the building’s height, scale, parking impacts, loss of sunlight, and disruption to the “quaint” North Shattuck character. Several accused the council of favoring developers over residents. - A few speakers supported the project, citing the need for housing, especially for families and seniors, and the provision of 110 units including affordable units. - Non-Agenda Comments (end of meeting): - Tony criticized upzoning corridors, arguing that current zoning already yields 7-8 story buildings with density bonus affordable units, and upzoning would reduce affordability requirements. - Others reiterated concerns about corruption, high rents, and lack of community input. Discussion Items - Item 14 – ZAB Appeal for 2109 Virginia Street: - Staff presented: The half-acre site (former dry cleaner) is zoned commercial and residential. The project proposes 110 dwelling units (9 very low-income, 9 moderate-income), ground-floor commercial, 109 parking spaces, 64 bicycle spaces, and 7,000 sq ft open space. It qualifies for a 100% density bonus under AB 1287, adding 55 units over the base of 55. Two concessions (waiver of public art fee and underground parking relocation) and several waivers (height, setback, lot coverage, parking) were requested. Staff found the project compliant with all objective standards and the Housing Element EIR. The appeal raised seven issues; staff responded that the city lacked discretion to impose additional conditions under SB 330 and the Housing Accountability Act. - Appellant arguments: The project is out of scale; concessions were not properly documented; environmental review was insufficient given the site’s toxic history; parking and traffic impacts are unaddressed; and the city failed to make findings under the Neighborhood Commercial Preservation Ordinance. - Applicant arguments: Developer Patrick Kennedy and attorney Mark Loper emphasized the project targets empty-nesters and older Berkeleyans, will generate significant tax revenue, and complies with state density bonus law. They argued the waiver for extra parking is allowed under state law and does not require cost justification. The site’s remediation was overseen by DTSC, and the CEQA analysis is tiered from the Housing Element EIR. - Council questions: - O’Keefe asked about the value of the public art fee concession (estimated at $800,000–$1 million) and whether the developer would consider a partial contribution (developer declined for now). - Blackaby clarified council’s limited discretion: only to deny if there is a “specific adverse impact to health and safety.” He noted the high bar. - Casserwani explained that the 100% density bonus is driven by AB 1287, which incentivizes moderate-income units, and that the city has rarely built such units. - Tragop asked about findings under the Neighborhood Commercial Preservation Ordinance; staff confirmed non-detriment findings were made. - Council deliberation: All members who spoke (Lunapara, Tragop, Humbert, Bartlett, O’Keefe, Blackaby, Casserwani) expressed sympathy for neighbors but concluded they lacked legal grounds to deny the appeal. Several noted the project includes genuinely affordable units (9 very low-income at 30–50% AMI, affordable to minimum wage earners). Bartlett and O’Keefe highlighted that the site is on a transit corridor and that Berkeley must build more housing to address scarcity and equity. Blackaby expressed caution about further upzoning on the same corridor. Key Outcomes - Consent Calendar Approved (with Item 3 voted separately 7-0, remainder 9-0). - Item 14 (2109 Virginia Street): Council voted 8-0 (one recusal? Actually all present voted? Roll call showed all 9 voted yes to deny the appeal and affirm ZAB decision). The motion to deny the appeal passed unanimously (9-0). The project is approved. - Referrals: None directly from this meeting, but the mayor requested a security audit of city buildings and recommended council members do the same at their homes. - Next Steps: The developer must meet building permit conditions, including ongoing toxics management review.

The Berkeley City Council held a special meeting on Tuesday, February 10, 2026, at 5:02 PM to receive and adopt the prioritized list of City Council referrals for 2026, generated using reweighted range voting (RRV). The meeting included a presentation from the City Clerk, public comment from three speakers, discussion among councilmembers, and a unanimous vote to adopt the list. Public Comments & Testimony - Jeff Lomax (Our Within Our Means Berkeley) criticized the council for tax increases and borrowing, stating that residents have absorbed 10–25% increases in property taxes through measures championed by the council, and that the city has made no meaningful structural changes to reduce the $30 million deficit. He opposed fiscal policies including permanent borrowing authority, calling them a "death by a thousand cuts" for middle- and fixed-income residents and small businesses. (He later noted he might be speaking on the wrong item and was directed to the regular meeting at 6 PM.) - An unscheduled speaker commented on priority 4 regarding rezoning of Gilman Street from San Pablo to I-80 for manufacturing and research and development, urging caution about the effect on the cultural character of that district tied to UC Berkeley. - Paul Matthew (19-year Berkeley resident, UC retiree) commended the structured prioritization process but raised two concerns about item 4 (fiscal policies and bond issuance): (1) any analysis on bond issuance should carefully examine impacts on property taxes and financial strain on homeowners—he noted his property taxes (fixed assessments) rose 27% while his pension increased only 2%; (2) lifecycle operating and maintenance costs for capital projects funded by bonds should be included in the analysis. Discussion Items - Presentation on RRV Results: City Clerk Mark Newmanville presented the results of the second part of the referral prioritization process. On January 27, the council removed 14 referrals, leaving 39. These 39 were ranked using the reweighted range voting algorithm based on councilmember scores (0–5). Three referrals (all public works) tied for the top priority; the tie was kept to accurately reflect the algorithm’s intent. The final ranked list (Exhibit A) shows public works has 19 of 39 referrals and half of the top 20. The city manager and department heads have discretion to assign workload, but each department is expected to at least determine resource needs for its top-ranked referral. - Council Discussion: Councilmember Humbert thanked the city clerk and manager’s office, and acknowledged former Councilmember Lori Droste for initiating the process. She noted the budget situation will limit work even on high-priority items but called the exercise valuable for setting priorities. She observed a consensus around infrastructure, shared streets, and pedestrian/bicycle safety, and expressed hope that grants and future revenue increases will help tackle all high-priority items. Key Outcomes - Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lunapara moved to adopt the staff recommendation (approve the prioritized list of referrals), seconded by another member. The roll call vote was: Councilmembers Taplin (yes), Tregub (yes), O’Keefe (yes), Lunapara (yes), Humbert (yes), and Mayor Ishii (yes). Councilmembers Casarwani and Bartlett were absent. The motion carried unanimously. - Adjournment: The special meeting adjourned at approximately 5:25 PM. The regular council meeting began at 6 PM.

Note: The transcript for this meeting indicates the date as January 27, 2026, but the official meeting date provided for this summary is January 28, 2026. The Berkeley City Council held a special meeting on January 28, 2026, to conduct the annual reweighted range voting (RRV) process for prioritizing long-term council referrals. The council reviewed a list of 53 active referrals, considered items marked for removal, and voted on amendments to add or restore certain referrals. A final prioritized list is expected to be presented at a special meeting on February 10, 2026. Consent Calendar - No consent calendar items were presented. Public Comments & Testimony - Public comment was opened and closed with no speakers in person or online. Discussion Items - RRV Process Overview: City Clerk Mark Newmanville presented the reweighted range voting process, explaining that each council member rates referrals on a scale of 0 to 5, with the highest-scored referral becoming the top priority. Scores are reweighted to ensure equal influence across members. The annual process helps staff prioritize long-term work items. - Removal List Discussion: Councilmember Humbert proposed adding 10 referrals that received low scores (total score less than 5, no single score above 3) but were not originally marked for removal. Councilmember Kesarwani moved to remove all eight items on the removal list except the West Berkeley residential preferential parking referral (04053), and to add the 10 low-scoring items to the removal list. The motion was seconded. - Amendments: During discussion, council members proposed adjustments: - Councilmember Blackaby requested keeping the 2028 affordable housing bond measure (4240) on the list because it was marked low only due to timing, not lack of support. This was accepted. - Councilmember Humbert suggested removing TOPA/COPA (04197) but withdrew after Councilmember Tregum objected. - Councilmember Tregum requested restoring two referrals: the no-right-on-red budget referral (4059) and the police accountability board legal memorandum referral (0422). Councilmember Humbert agreed, reluctantly approving the second. These two were restored from the removal list. - Tie Scores: The city clerk noted that current raw scores include ties, and he will consult the RRV program originator to resolve ties in the algorithm. - Budget Referrals: Councilmember Taplin asked about budget referrals on the list; staff clarified that policy referrals with budget components are included, while pure budget referrals are tracked separately. Key Outcomes - Motion Carried Unanimously (9-0): The council voted to: - Remove all eight originally marked referrals except the West Berkeley RPP item (04053). - Add nine of the ten low-scoring referrals to the removal list (excluding the 2028 affordable housing bond measure, which remains). - Restore two referrals (no-right-on-red and police accountability board memo) to the active list. - Direct staff to run the RRV algorithm using the updated referral list and return the prioritized results at the special meeting on February 10, 2026. - Next Steps: The final prioritized list will be presented on February 10, 2026.

The Berkeley City Council met at 2:15 PM on January 27, 2026, with all nine members present. The meeting featured an urgency resolution denouncing ICE operations, ceremonial adjournments in memory of community members, and a major ordinance revision on police equipment reporting. The council also moved forward with a budget referral to study car-free Telegraph Avenue and approved routine items. Key votes included unanimous adoption of the consent calendar (including the ICE urgency item) and a 6-2 vote to adopt a substitute motion revising the police equipment and community safety ordinance. Consent Calendar - Urgency Resolution (Item 31): Added to consent by a 2/3 vote. The resolution demands an end to ICE and CBP surges, immediate DHS leadership changes, and guardrails for future DHS funding. It also calls for abolishing ICE and reforming DHS. The council pledged solidarity with Minnesota communities and directed copies to federal representatives. - Other Consent Items: Included approval of an option agreement with TSA Holding Group (with city manager assurances on labor peace agreement), a contract for the Santa Fe track bed park conversion, a contract renewal with Urban Ore (noting worker contracts settled), a referral to poll residents on a sales tax increase, and item 22 (car-free Telegraph budget referral) moved to consent. All items passed unanimously. Public Comments & Testimony - Non-Agenda Public Comment: Several residents spoke about police accountability, flock cameras, and community safety. Former councilmember Cheryl Davila urged the council to take action against ICE and criticized the city's preparation. Other commenters addressed concerns about surveillance, police procedures, and the need for transparency. - Consent Calendar Public Comment: Many speakers supported the car-free Telegraph item, citing safety, sustainability, and business benefits. Speakers also urged action to protect immigrant communities and called for canceling the flock contract as a concrete step against ICE. Witnesses from Urban Ore and labor groups expressed appreciation for contract renewal. - Item 21 (Police Equipment): Public commenters urged a longer (60-day) review period for the Police Accountability Board (PAB), emphasizing the need for thorough oversight. Several noted that the PAB is understaffed and that 30 days may be insufficient. The PAB chair indicated 30 days could work if material is submitted early enough and meetings align, but advocated for 45–60 days to allow collaboration. Discussion Items - Item 21 – Recession and Replacement of Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance: Councilmember Humbert and O'Keefe proposed consolidating BPD military equipment reporting into one annual report, aligning with state law (AB 481) and reducing duplication. Councilmember Blackaby offered a supplemental amendment retaining additional local requirements (deployment reporting, PAB role, pepper spray provisions) and adjusting review timelines. After debate, a substitute motion passed (6-2) that sets a 45-day PAB review period (30 days for time-sensitive grants), retains the private right of action (capped at $15,000), and incorporates other technical edits from staff and the city clerk. - Notable points: The chief noted that the annual report is backward-looking and much data is already on the transparency hub. The PAB chair explained that 30 days can be tight due to meeting schedules and staffing. The final ordinance streamlines reporting but keeps geographic location and equipment categories explicit. Key Outcomes - Urgency ICE Resolution: Adopted unanimously as part of the consent calendar. The city also signed onto an amicus brief supporting Minnesota in federal court. - Item 18 (RPP on Cedar St): Approved unanimously. - Item 19 (Marina Fee Increases): Approved unanimously. - Item 21 (Police Equipment Ordinance): Passed as amended by the substitute motion (6-2, with Councilmembers Kessarwani and Taplin dissenting). The ordinance will be effective 30 days after second reading. It consolidates reporting to one annual report, mandates PAB review within 45 days (30 for grant-related items), and retains local transparency requirements. - Next Steps: The car-free Telegraph item (item 22) was referred to the budget process, with funding from restricted sources (LRDP, Measure FF). The council will consider the police equipment ordinance on second reading at a future meeting.

The Berkeley City Council met on January 21, 2026, at 6:30 PM for its first regular meeting after the winter recess. The meeting included ceremonial recognition of the city's poet laureates, public comment on non-agenda matters, approval of a consent calendar, and action on four items: separate sale of ADUs, vital records fees, recreation and camp fees, and zoning amendments for by-right housing and design review. The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:56 PM. Ceremonial Items - The council recognized outgoing Poet Laureate Aya de Leon (2024–2025) and welcomed incoming Poet Laureate Hanan Mazri. Aya de Leon passed a laurel of olive branches to Hanan Mazri, who recited a poem titled "Green." The city's first poet laureate, Rafael Jesus Gonzalez, was also acknowledged. Public Comments & Testimony - Non-agenda public comments (in-person and remote): - Betsy Morris (East Bay Gray Panthers) reported on a Sacramento trip supporting AB 1157 to lower the cap and reduce homelessness among seniors and disabled individuals. - Steve Tracy asked about the city's budget status, noting a $27 million deficit and questioning repayment to pension and workers' compensation funds. - Kelly and Diana, Telegraph Avenue vendors, requested reinstatement of the code limiting vending to handmade goods, arguing that new business licenses allow vendors to compete unfairly with merchants. - Andre Special (Cannabis Buyers Club of Berkeley) urged the council to bring back the cannabis commission, eliminate the city cannabis tax, allow consumption at dispensaries, and restrict deliveries to licensed Berkeley entities. - Cheryl Davila (former council member) criticized the council for not addressing the genocide in Palestine and urged keeping the tear gas ban in place. - Mariah Yates (District 1) thanked the council for removing a proposal to repeal the tear gas ban and noted her email on the topic was missing from the agenda correspondence. - Madeline Roberts Rich called for reviving the downtown Berkeley cinema on Shattuck Avenue. - Public comment on consent items: - Several speakers supported the KPFA building's landmark designation (Carol Wolfley, Candace Schott, Colleen Mast, Antonio Ortiz). - Karen spoke in favor of item 13 (emerging nonprofit affordable housing developers) and item 19 (tiny homes on wheels), but raised concerns about the throne bathroom's 10-minute warning for people with disabilities. - Betsy Morrison and others supported tiny homes on wheels, emphasizing cost-effectiveness and the need for clear guidelines. - Ben Gerhardstein (Walk Bike Berkeley) supported the transportation design standards item (item 18). - Della Luna urged more oversight for emerging nonprofit affordable housing developers. - A caller opposed item 8 (alcohol sales on Telegraph), citing student safety. - Public comment on action items: - Item 21 (ADU separate sale): Multiple speakers supported the supplemental tenant protections proposed by Vice Mayor Lunapara, including rent board commissioners, Cal Berkeley Democrats, and Cal Habitat for Humanity members. Some property owner representatives opposed the supplemental, arguing it would disincentivize ADU production and contradict Measure Q. - Item 22 (vital records fees): Carol Wolfley linked the fees to leptospirosis concerns and sanitation. - Item 23 (recreation fees): Alan Abchez (Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Commission chair) requested the council not approve the fee schedule, arguing Berkeley undercharges compared to surrounding jurisdictions and needs more park funding. - Item 24 (zoning amendments): Cleo noted that one opportunity site (1049 Gilman Street) is a Dollar Tree, an affordable store for low-income residents. Kelly Hammergren supported retaining design review for program 32 projects. Brianna Morales (Housing Action Coalition) supported the ordinance as a balanced approach. - Public comment on non-agenda matters (end of meeting): - Carol Wolfley praised Officer Edwin Jakala for his compassionate response to a cognitively impaired man in a wheelchair. - A caller urged the city to fix issues with a business lease and criticized the current administration. - Alfred Twu invited attendees to the Connect Bay Area ballot measure kickoff. - Daniel Brownson urged Berkeley to terminate its contract with Flock Safety, citing ties to the Trump administration and risks to immigrant communities. - Janice Ching and Jeff Lomax criticized the practice of introducing supplementals after public comment is closed, as occurred on item 24. Consent Calendar - The consent calendar was approved unanimously (8-0, with Councilmember Bartlett absent but later recorded a yes vote). Key items included: - Item 6: Expansion of the Throne Lab portable toilet pilot program. - Item 8: Second reading allowing retail sale of alcohol in the Telegraph Avenue Commercial District. - Item 9: Removal of unnecessary bicycle licensing requirements. - Item 13: City engagement with emerging nonprofit affordable housing developers. - Item 17: $150–$250 donations from council discretionary accounts to Caminos al Éxito, a bilingual conference for students and parents. - Item 18: Referral to develop comprehensive transportation design standards. - Item 19: Referral to allow tiny homes on wheels as permissible ADUs. - Item 20: Establishment of a city council employee recognition program. - Several council members expressed support for specific items, including the KPFA building landmark designation (noted during public comment). Discussion Items - Item 21 – Amendments to Title 21 to allow separate sale of ADUs (AB 1033): - Staff presented the ordinance to allow ADU condominium conversions on eligible lots, with a ministerial process, safety inspections, and tenant protections for covered rentals. - Vice Mayor Lunapara presented a supplemental adding tenant protections: 90-day right of first refusal for all ADU tenants, a five-year prohibition on conversion after no-fault evictions, and an option to pay an affordable housing mitigation fee or agree to rent control. - Councilmember Humbert moved the staff version with an amendment reducing the right of first refusal from one year to 90 days for covered tenants only. - After debate, Vice Mayor Lunapara's substitute motion (staff version plus 90-day right of first refusal for all tenants) failed 4-4? Actually vote: Taplin no, Bartlett yes, O'Keefe yes, Blackaby no, Lunapara yes, Humbert no, Mayor Ishii yes. That's 4 yes, 3 no? Wait, count: yes: Bartlett, O'Keefe, Lunapara, Mayor Ishii (4); no: Taplin, Blackaby, Humbert (3). So motion failed 4-3. Then the main motion by Humbert (staff version with 90-day right of first refusal for covered tenants) passed 6-1 (Lunapara opposed; Kessarwani and Trago recused). - Councilmember Kessarwani and Trago recused due to conflicts of interest. - Item 22 – Public Health Vital Statistics Vital Records Fees: - Approved unanimously after a brief public hearing. Councilmember Humbert noted the fee increases are minimal over a lifetime. - Item 23 – Changes to Selected Recreation and Camps Facilities and Program Fees: - Approved unanimously. Councilmembers acknowledged the need for fee increases due to budget constraints but emphasized affordability and accessibility. Councilmember Taplin requested staff bring options for fee levels during budget deliberations. - Item 24 – Amendments to Title 23 Zoning for By-Right Approval of Qualifying Housing Projects and Design Review Revisions: - Staff presented the ordinance to implement Housing Element Program 32, allowing by-right approval for projects with at least 20% affordable units on 14 identified opportunity sites, and to revise design review for program 32 and middle housing projects in the MUR district. - Councilmember Kessarwani proposed an amendment to exempt middle housing projects in the MUR district from design review, treating them like other middle housing projects. The amendment passed unanimously. - The amended ordinance was approved unanimously. Key Outcomes - Consent Calendar: Approved 8-0 (with one absent member later recorded as yes). - Item 21 (ADU separate sale): Approved 6-1 (Lunapara opposed; Kessarwani and Trago recused) with Councilmember Humbert's motion: staff version plus 90-day right of first refusal for covered tenants only. The supplemental tenant protections were not adopted. - Item 22 (vital records fees): Approved unanimously. - Item 23 (recreation fees): Approved unanimously. Staff will bring fee level options during budget deliberations. - Item 24 (zoning amendments): Approved unanimously with Councilmember Kessarwani's amendment to exempt MUR middle housing projects from design review. - Next steps: The city manager will relay commendation to Officer Edwin Jakala. The council will consider surveillance issues at a future meeting.