Meeting Overview

The Special City Council meeting on February 23, 2026 convened with Mayor Adena Ishii and Councilmembers Kesarwani (D1), Taplin (D2), Tregub (D4), O’Keefe (D5), Blackaby (D6), Lunaparra (D7, Vice Mayor), and Humbert (D8) present. Councilmember Bartlett (D3) was absent. In closed session the Council created an ad hoc subcommittee (Mayor Ishii, Vice Mayor Lunaparra, Councilmember Humbert) to assist in recruiting a Permanent Director of Police Accountability.

The evening’s primary agenda items were appeals of Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) approvals for major housing projects that had invoked California’s Density Bonus Law to request concessions from local labor and development standards — most prominently the “Hard Hats” local labor ordinance.

Main Agenda Items

• 2425 Durant Avenue (Use Permit ZP2024‑0162)
• Project: demolition of three two‑story buildings (19 units) and construction of a 20‑story, ~149,000 sq ft residential building with 169 units (approx. 249 bedrooms), including 32 Below‑Market‑Rate units and ground‑floor lobby, mail and bike parking.
• Requested concessions/waivers: applicant sought density bonus benefits and exemptions from local labor standards (apprenticeship, healthcare, prevailing wage per the Southside Plan) plus waivers for standards including tree removal, usable open space, FAR, height, setbacks, and bike parking requirements.
• Staff recommendation: conduct the public hearing, deny the appeal, and approve the use permit with a read correction and renumbering for Condition 65 (clarifying rooftop/elevator equipment cannot be added to exceed approved roof height without further review).
• Legal/administrative context: staff and city attorney advised the Density Bonus Law broadly permits concessions and that the City may require documentation showing identifiable, actual cost reductions but cannot require proof that concessions are necessary for project feasibility under state law.
• Parties and testimony: appellants (building trades/unions) argued the density bonus was being used to evade Hard Hats and said the applicant failed to substantiate claimed cost savings. The applicant asserted the concessions are lawful under state law and presented contractor‑based cost savings estimates (applicant estimated about $16.56M for Durant). Public comment largely urged denying concessions to preserve worker healthcare, apprenticeship, and safety; a smaller contingent emphasized housing supply and litigation risk.

• Status: the minutes excerpt ends during Council Q&A. Staff requested the Condition 65 correction be reflected in any action. No final Council vote on Durant is recorded in the provided minutes.

• 2029 University Avenue (Use Permits ZP2024‑0181 & ZP2024‑0182) — referenced in discussion

• Project summaries: two scheme variants (multifamily and student‑oriented) for a 23‑story building; parking/bike provisions included 29 off‑street vehicle spaces and 167 long‑term bike parking spaces in one scheme.

• Similar legal dispute over concessions from Hard Hats and other local standards; staff recommended denying appeals and approving permits, finding no substantial evidence to deny concessions under state law.

• Public comment again emphasized labor protections; council discussion recapitulated the legal standards and evidentiary disputes over cost estimates and objective public health/safety impacts.

Decisions Made

• For 2425 Durant Avenue: staff recommended denying the appeal and approving the use permit with a correction to Condition 65, but no final Council vote is recorded in the provided minutes; the matter remained under Council consideration at the end of the excerpt.
• For 2029 University Avenue (and related ZAB appeals reported later in the record): a motion to deny the appeal and overturn ZAB approvals failed when a majority of the Council abstained; as a result, the ZAB approvals remained in effect.
  
• Administrative: Council read into the record a correction to Condition 65 for those files and directed that correction be reflected in any action. Councilmembers repeatedly requested better documentation for concession cost claims and called for state legislative changes and additional local studies to address the tension between housing production and local labor standards.