Berkeley City Council Meeting – January 20, 2026

The Berkeley City Council held its first regular meeting after the winter recess on January 20, 2026, at 6:00 pm. The meeting began with a land acknowledgement, ceremonial passing of the poet laureate, and public comment on non-agenda matters. The council then approved a consent calendar with routine items and debated significant policy changes, including the separate sale of ADUs as condos, by-right housing approvals, and revised recreation fees.

Consent Calendar

• Item 6 – Expanded the Twell and lab portable toilet pilot program (adopted unanimously).
• Item 8 – Allowed retail sale of alcohol in the Telegraph Avenue Commercial District (adopted unanimously).
• Item 9 – Removed unnecessary bike licensing and registration requirements (adopted unanimously).
• Item 13 – Directed staff to engage with emerging nonprofit affordable housing developers to address racial and gender disparities highlighted in the Mason Tilma report (adopted unanimously).
• Item 17 – Approved $250 in council discretionary funds for the Caminos al Éxito bilingual college readiness conference (adopted unanimously, with multiple council donations).
• Item 18 – Referral to the city manager to develop comprehensive transportation design standards (adopted unanimously).
• Item 19 – Referral to allow tiny homes on wheels as permissible accessory dwelling units (adopted unanimously).
• Item 20 – Established a City Council Employee Recognition Program to recognize one employee per month (adopted unanimously).

All consent items were approved by a unanimous roll‑call vote (8–0).

Public Comments & Testimony

Non‑agenda public comment (in‑person and remote):

• Betsy Morris (East Bay Gray Panthers) expressed support for AB 1157 to lower the cap on homelessness risk for seniors and disabled residents.
• Steve Tracy questioned the city's budget status, asking if the $27 million deficit from the prior year had been repaid to pension and workers' compensation funds.
• Kelly and Diana (Telegraph Avenue vendors) requested reinstatement of the code restricting vendors to selling handmade goods, stating that current business licenses allow vendors to compete unfairly with brick‑and‑mortar stores.
• Willie G / Cannabis Buyers Club operator urged council to eliminate the city cannabis tax, allow consumption at dispensaries, and restrict delivery to licensed Berkeley entities, noting that San Francisco ended its 5% tax and allows only in‑city delivery.
• Former Councilmember Cheryl Davila called for maintaining the tear‑gas ban and criticized the council for not addressing the Gaza crisis.
• Mariah Yates (District 1) thanked council for removing a proposal to repeal the tear‑gas ban from the agenda.
• Caller (phone # ending 211) warned of fascism and urged protection of immigrants.
• Madeline Roberts Rich advocated for reviving the downtown Berkeley cinema on Shattuck Avenue.

Public comment on consent items:

• Carol Worthley, Candace Shot, Colleen Nast, and Antonio Ortiz (KPFA) supported the Landmark Commission's decision to designate the KPFA building as a historic landmark.
• Multiple speakers supported the tiny‑homes‑on‑wheels referral and urged careful guidelines.
• Ben Gerhardstein (Walk Bike Berkeley) supported the transportation design standards but urged field testing and maintaining delivery of existing projects.
• Della Luna warned that some emerging nonprofit developers lack follow‑through and that the city must verify competence before funding.
• A caller opposed item 8, citing risks of alcohol sales on Telegraph Avenue near the university.

Public comment on Action Item 21 (ADU condos):

• Rent Board Chair Alpert supported the supplemental tenant protections as a balanced compromise.
• Several students from Cal Habitat for Humanity and Cal Berkeley Democrats urged adoption of tenant protections, noting that ADU tenants are vulnerable and that displacement can lead to homelessness.
• Andy Kelly (Rent Board Commissioner) supported the supplemental, stating it does not disincentivize new ADU production.
• Chris Gold Branson (Berkeley Property Owners Association) opposed the supplemental, arguing it contradicts voter‑approved Measure Q.
• Tony Mester opposed the supplemental, asserting it would reduce ADU construction.

Public comment on Action Item 24 (zoning/design review):

• Kelly Hammergren supported retaining design review, saying it improves project outcomes.
• Brianna Morales (Housing Action Coalition) supported the ordinance as a follow‑through on the housing element.

Discussion Items

1. Action Item 21 – Separate Sale of ADUs (AB 1033) Staff presented an ordinance to allow condominium conversion of ADUs. Vice Mayor Lunapara introduced a supplemental adding tenant protections: 90‑day right of first refusal for all tenants, a five‑year prohibition on conversion after no‑fault evictions, restrictions on owner‑move‑in evictions, and an option to pay the affordable housing mitigation fee or accept rent control. Councilmember Humbert offered an amendment to the staff version limiting the right of first refusal to 90 days (for covered units only).

During council debate, members expressed concerns about balancing homeownership opportunities with tenant displacement. Councilmember Taplin asked about Measure Q exemptions, and staff clarified that the supplemental does not conflict with state law. The affordable housing mitigation fee was estimated at $221,538 for a 750‑sq‑ft ADU, based on a staff example. Councilmember Backaby emphasized the primary goal of creating for‑sale inventory under $1 million. Councilmember O’Keefe supported the staff version to maintain structural consistency with existing law. After a substitute motion by Vice Mayor Lunapara failed (4–3), the main motion by Councilmember Humbert (staff version with 90‑day right of first refusal for covered units) passed 6–1.

2. Action Item 24 – By‑Right Housing and Design Review Staff presented amendments to allow by‑right approval of qualifying housing projects on previous housing element opportunity sites and to revise design review for middle housing in the MUR (mixed‑use residential) zone. The planning commission had recommended one non‑binding design review meeting for MUR projects of 5+ units. Councilmember Kessarwani successfully moved to exempt MUR middle‑housing projects from design review entirely, to treat all residential zones equally. The motion passed unanimously (8–0).

Key Outcomes

• Consent Calendar: Adopted unanimously (8–0).
• Action Item 21 (ADU Condos): Approved with Councilmember Humbert’s amendment (90‑day right of first refusal for covered units). Roll‑call: 6‑1 (Lunapara opposed).
• Action Item 22 (Vital Records Fees): Approved unanimously (8‑0).
• Action Item 23 (Recreation & Camp Fees): Approved unanimously (8‑0) after council noted the need for a balance between affordability and revenue; staff will provide additional fee options during budget season.
• Action Item 24 (Zoning/Design Review): Approved with Councilmember Kessarwani’s amendment removing design review for MUR middle‑housing projects; vote unanimous (8‑0).

Next Steps:

• Staff will implement the ADU condo ordinance with the adopted tenant protections.
• A report on recreation fee options will be brought back during budget deliberations.
• The zoning ordinance will be updated to reflect the design review exemption for MUR middle‑housing projects.