Meeting Overview

The Berkeley City Council met on Tuesday, February 10, 2026, with Mayor Adena Ishii and all eight councilmembers present. The meeting opened with a land acknowledgement, proclamations honoring Tom Broem & Barry Warren and remembering Edward Todd Walker, and a Mayor’s report on a recent U.S. Conference of Mayors / Mayors Innovation Project trip that emphasized housing, immigration enforcement impacts, wildfire preparedness (the “Embers” program), and official safety. The City Manager made no remarks. Public commenters raised issues including budget priorities, transparency and meeting accessibility, neighborhood impacts of upzoning, housing affordability, taxi/transportation program cuts affecting seniors, and calls for bike registration and improved bike theft recovery reporting.

Main Agenda Items

• Consent Calendar: The council approved the consent calendar unanimously after two members recused themselves from one item. Notable among approved items, staff were authorized to pursue up to $1.25 million from the State’s Pro‑Housing Incentive Program to support housing trust and homeless services. A member of the public asked that a bicycle registration consent item be pulled for refinements (dealer reporting, use of BikeIndex).
• Public Comment Highlights: Speakers pressed for concrete affordability metrics, raised contamination and remediation concerns at development sites, urged stronger police oversight and departmental responsiveness, and detailed transportation problems for seniors (loss of TaxiScript trips and suggestions around GoGo Grandparent and ride-hailing). Pedestrian safety concerns were raised related to vehicle ingress/egress at busy Shattuck/Virginia intersections.
• Action Item — 2109 Virginia Street (Appeal of ZAB Approval): Staff presented an appeal of an eight‑story, 110‑unit mixed‑use project using the state density‑bonus (project vested under SB 330). The proposal includes 18 below‑market units (9 very low, 9 moderate), ~109 vehicle parking spaces (applicant requested waivers to exceed Berkeley’s nearby‑transit off‑street residential cap of 55 spaces), 64 bicycle parking spaces, and ~7,000 sq ft open space. Staff recommended affirming the Zoning Adjustments Board approval and emphasized limited local discretion under SB 330 and the Housing Accountability Act when projects meet objective standards.
  • Appellants (North Shattuck Alliance and neighbors) raised claims about inadequate site‑specific environmental review of a former dry‑cleaner site, insufficient documentation justifying concessions/waivers, spillover parking and pedestrian/traffic safety risks from the proposed garage entrance, potential construction impacts, loss of neighborhood character, and requests for stronger affordability and labor standards.
  • Staff and applicant responded that prior remediation records, Phase I/II studies and state/regional closure letters are in the record, that construction and operational mitigation conditions apply, and that the project is subject to permit‑stage toxics review; staff noted the project is ineligible for nearby residential permit parking and emphasized transit access and unbundled parking as spillover mitigation.
  • Council questioned public art fee value, the basis for waivers, parking rationale, and applicability of the local “Hard Hats” labor requirement (found not applicable due to vesting date). Public testimony detailed concerns about contamination, scale, affordability, RPP ineligibility, pedestrian safety, and transparency of the concessions process.

Decisions Made

• Consent calendar items were adopted (item 3 approved after two recusals; the remaining consent items approved unanimously).
• Mayor Ishii directed the City Manager and Police Chief to conduct a security audit of the council building and recommended councilmembers consider home security audits.
• After closing the hearing, the Council voted unanimously to deny the appeal and affirm the Zoning Adjustments Board’s approval of Use Permit ZP2024‑0066 for 2109 Virginia Street, with councilmembers citing state law limits on local discretion and the high legal standard for denial. Council requested follow‑up actions including improved outreach/transparency, further discussion of state housing law impacts, and continued attention to arts funding, labor standards where feasible, and mitigation of neighborhood impacts.