The decision in the case between plaintiffs Make UC A Good Neighbor and the UC Regents, authored by Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero, found that none of the opposition group’s claims has merit.

Good Neighbors argued that an environmental review of the university’s purposed project failed to adequately analyze noise impacts from future residents or alternative sites for the proposal. Last year, First District Appellate Court Justices agreed, and the state supreme court opted to hear an appeal of that decision.

Since then, state lawmakers have approved Assembly Bill 1307, a law stating that noise generated by future occupants of a project cannot be considered a significant impact on the environment under the California Environmental Quality Act. The change in law voided Good Neighbor’s argument, the court ruled Thursday.

“We are pleased and relieved that the Supreme Court’s decision enables the campus to resume construction at People’s Park,” UC Berkeley wrote in a statement regarding the decision. “The housing components of the project are desperately needed by our students and unhoused people, and the entire community will benefit from the fact that more than 60% of the 2.8-acre site will be revitalized as open park space.”

Meanwhile, Harvey Smith with People’s Park Historic District Advocacy Group, one of two plaintiffs in the case, said the decision is disappointing, but not surprising. Once state legislators intervened to change CEQA guidelines in favor of the UC’s plans — an effort Smith described as a “backroom deal” — they knew their win would be reversed, Smith said.

“We knew it was a David-and-Goliath struggle, but we were hopeful,” Smith said. “When we went into the court of appeals we played by the rules. Since the UC didn’t like the outcome, they changed the rules.”

Smith said the group’s attorneys are considering possible but limited avenues for continuing their fight.

The university approved plans to build housing for 1,100 university students and 125 homeless residents within two six- and 12-story dorm buildings on the site off of Telegraph Avenue in 2021, pushing forward a vision it has been pursuing since seizing the land by eminent domain and bulldozing single-family homes on the property in 1968.

That goal has been met with protests ever since. Members of the public took over the muddy lot, planting plants, sod, trees and unofficially dubbing it People’s Park in 1969. The space quickly became a hub for activism and political protests and was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in May of 2022.

“It’s symbolic of the Civil Rights Movement, the Free Speech Movement, the Anti-war Movement. You have to question, if you have an asset like that why destroy it? It’s an asset, it brings people to Berkeley,” Smith said.

More recently, it was the site of a large homeless encampment during the pandemic, which was cleared and demolished in August of 2022.

University officials say they are honoring the legacy of the park by retaining more than 60% of the site for open space. The plan also calls for setting aside 125 apartments of permanent supportive housing for formerly unhoused people.

But activists who want the park preserved remained unconvinced, and tensions boiled over in January when the university deployed hundreds of law enforcement officers to clear out protesters who’d been occupying the space. At least six protesters were arrested for trespassing or refusing to follow dispersal orders.

Subsequently, a massive barrier of 160 cargo boxes was placed on the perimeter of the park, and it has remained in place as the university awaited the state Supreme Court’s decision. Now, with a ruling in its favor, the university plans to refocus on the construction timeline.

“We are grateful for the strong and ongoing support this project has received from the majority of Berkeley students, community members, advocates for the unhoused, the city’s elected leaders, the state Legislature, and the governor,” the university said in its statement. “The campus is committed to addressing the high cost and low supply of housing close to campus that undermines students’ ability to thrive, succeed, and fully partake in all that the university has to offer.”

Nearly a decade after opening, the owners of R&B Cellars and the Riggers Loft wine bar, Barbara and Kevin Brown, are now in a legal fight with the landlord — the city of Richmond — to keep the popular wine collective from closing.

Last month, the city filed legal paperwork to take back possession of the property at the Richmond Port, claiming the Browns owe hundreds of thousands of dollars in back rent and blew past agreed-upon deadlines to pay up.

The Browns, meanwhile, dispute how much they owe and filed their own lawsuit against Richmond last October, after the city issued them a letter threatening eviction if certain demands weren’t met.

The city was seeking $392,248.57 in unpaid rent that includes late fees and interest, while the Browns assert they are obligated to pay only $228,000. City Attorney Dave Aleshire did not respond to requests for comment, but in last month’s filing, the city said the Browns still owe “$285,845 in delinquent rent, plus late charges and interest.”

“Given the large amount of delinquent rent which dates back to 2019, the (city) has sustained a significant financial loss, which will be compounded the longer RLWC continues to occupy the premises,” the filing says.

The Browns claim they have been blindsided by demands from the city. The couple had been discussing an updated repayment plan with the city, which they said fell through after new councilmembers were elected in 2022.

“While we had been trying to work out some way of having a conversation with them, it soon became pretty evident that that’s not how this was going to work,” Kevin Brown said in an interview.

A promising start

Owning the tap room was Barbara Brown’s dream.

The couple had started R&B Cellars in Alameda but were looking for a new, permanent location in 2014 when they began conversations with Jim Matzorkis, the longtime Port of Richmond executive director, according to legal filings and an interview with the Browns.

Matzorkis allegedly proposed the couple open its wine collective in one of the city’s historic World War II warehouses — a dilapidated, 22,000-square-foot structure in need of some major repairs. But, according to the Browns, Matzorkis said he knew investors who would be willing to pay $500,000 each through the federal EB-5 visa program that allows foreign nationals to qualify for a U.S. visa if they invest half a million in a project that creates at least 10 jobs.

The Browns jumped on the offer. But three of the four investors needed to fund $2 million worth of improvements backed out, and the couple was forced to sell their Alameda home to cover the rest of the $1.5 million needed to complete the project, they said. Matzorkis died in 2021.

“When we first started, Richmond, the city government, was welcoming and inviting and supportive,” Kevin Brown said.

Riggers Loft Wine Company officially opened for business in 2016, with a 20-year lease agreement signed the previous year setting rent at $8,400. As a collective tap room, the space offers visitors tastes from a variety of winemakers, including their own in-house creations. Thanks to its large open floor plan and bay views, the space quickly became a go-to for community events, weddings and private gatherings.

Debt grows to concerning amount

Then the COVID-19 pandemic hit, and state and local emergency orders were issued.

Riggers Loft had to close, but the owners thought the shuttering would be temporary. Concerned about keeping their business afloat, the Browns said they negotiated a deal with the city that would allow them to pay a quarter of their monthly rent, with the promise that the rest would be repaid within six months of the emergency orders being lifted.

But as the months turned into years, the amount of back rent the Browns owed grew to a concerning amount. In 2022, the Browns began paying their full monthly rent, which rose to $10,300, they said.

But according to the city’s April unlawful detainer filed in Contra Costa Superior Court, the Browns’ history of rent troubles date back to before the pandemic, when the two parties agreed on a payment plan for unpaid rent in 2018 and 2019. When Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered the economic shutdown on March 2, 2020, Riggers was already $18,338 in arrears, according to court documents.

A changing waterfront?

The Browns assert the city is trying to push them out to make space for new endeavors on the city’s waterfront such as offshore wind farming. They cited comments made by both Vice Mayor Claudia Jimenez and Mayor Eduardo Martinez during a June 6 meeting on the matter in their complaint.

“Nobody was looking at the $2 million plus that we’d put into this place, all of the exposure that we had gotten for Richmond,” Kevin Brown said. “They basically said, ‘We don’t care. We want that space, and we want it for this, and we have a mechanism by which we can do it.’”

Management of the city’s bayfront land has been controversial. City officials have most recently faced scrutiny over a 2004 lease agreement with Orton Development that allows the firm to pay $1 annually to operate the Craneway Pavilion, a former Ford plant that was turned into a vehicle assembly site during World War II.

Much of the structure’s 45,000-square-foot indoor space is now covered in pickleball courts, a use the State Lands Commission said in a second letter issued in April is not in compliance with a public trust agreement requiring the area to be used for overnight accommodations, restaurants and cafes, water-related industry, museums regarding waterfront history, visitor-serving retail, boating and ferry service.

A recent audit into port management found that the port lacks adequate oversight and planning due to insufficient staffing and procedures resulting in poor maintenance, a lack of financial management, missing lease documentation and deficient monitoring for compliance with lease agreements.

At an April City Council meeting where the audit was presented, Vice Mayor Jimenez said she was “really glad this report is revealing all these issues we have.”

“It’s not just pointing fingers, but it’s just to realize that we need to have better oversight, and we need to take care of the port as an asset and not give it away to people to make money,” she said.

Discovery is soon due in the Brown’s lawsuit and court-ordered mediation was scheduled to begin this summer. The city, meanwhile, is seeking a court judgment for immediate possession of the Canal Boulevard property, for the $285,845.25, in back rent, plus late charges and interest and a declaration that Riggers “has no interest under the lease.”

Nearly a decade after opening, the owners of R&B Cellars and the Riggers Loft wine bar, Barbara and Kevin Brown, are now in a legal fight with the landlord — the city of Richmond — to keep the popular wine collective from closing.

Last month, the city filed legal paperwork to take back possession of the property at the Richmond Port, claiming the Browns owe hundreds of thousands of dollars in back rent and blew past agreed-upon deadlines to pay up.

The Browns, meanwhile, dispute how much they owe and filed their own lawsuit against Richmond last October, after the city issued them a letter threatening eviction if certain demands weren’t met.

The city was seeking $392,248.57 in unpaid rent that includes late fees and interest, while the Browns assert they are obligated to pay only $228,000. City Attorney Dave Aleshire did not respond to requests for comment, but in last month’s filing, the city said the Browns still owe “$285,845 in delinquent rent, plus late charges and interest.”

“Given the large amount of delinquent rent which dates back to 2019, the (city) has sustained a significant financial loss, which will be compounded the longer RLWC continues to occupy the premises,” the filing says.

The Browns claim they have been blindsided by demands from the city. The couple had been discussing an updated repayment plan with the city, which they said fell through after new councilmembers were elected in 2022.

“While we had been trying to work out some way of having a conversation with them, it soon became pretty evident that that’s not how this was going to work,” Kevin Brown said in an interview.

A promising start

Owning the tap room was Barbara Brown’s dream.

The couple had started R&B Cellars in Alameda but were looking for a new, permanent location in 2014 when they began conversations with Jim Matzorkis, the longtime Port of Richmond executive director, according to legal filings and an interview with the Browns.

Matzorkis allegedly proposed the couple open its wine collective in one of the city’s historic World War II warehouses — a dilapidated, 22,000-square-foot structure in need of some major repairs. But, according to the Browns, Matzorkis said he knew investors who would be willing to pay $500,000 each through the federal EB-5 visa program that allows foreign nationals to qualify for a U.S. visa if they invest half a million in a project that creates at least 10 jobs.

The Browns jumped on the offer. But three of the four investors needed to fund $2 million worth of improvements backed out, and the couple was forced to sell their Alameda home to cover the rest of the $1.5 million needed to complete the project, they said. Matzorkis died in 2021.

“When we first started, Richmond, the city government, was welcoming and inviting and supportive,” Kevin Brown said.

Riggers Loft Wine Company officially opened for business in 2016, with a 20-year lease agreement signed the previous year setting rent at $8,400. As a collective tap room, the space offers visitors tastes from a variety of winemakers, including their own in-house creations. Thanks to its large open floor plan and bay views, the space quickly became a go-to for community events, weddings and private gatherings.

Debt grows to concerning amount

Then the COVID-19 pandemic hit, and state and local emergency orders were issued.

Riggers Loft had to close, but the owners thought the shuttering would be temporary. Concerned about keeping their business afloat, the Browns said they negotiated a deal with the city that would allow them to pay a quarter of their monthly rent, with the promise that the rest would be repaid within six months of the emergency orders being lifted.

But as the months turned into years, the amount of back rent the Browns owed grew to a concerning amount. In 2022, the Browns began paying their full monthly rent, which rose to $10,300, they said.

But according to the city’s April unlawful detainer filed in Contra Costa Superior Court, the Browns’ history of rent troubles date back to before the pandemic, when the two parties agreed on a payment plan for unpaid rent in 2018 and 2019. When Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered the economic shutdown on March 2, 2020, Riggers was already $18,338 in arrears, according to court documents.

A changing waterfront?

The Browns assert the city is trying to push them out to make space for new endeavors on the city’s waterfront such as offshore wind farming. They cited comments made by both Vice Mayor Claudia Jimenez and Mayor Eduardo Martinez during a June 6 meeting on the matter in their complaint.

“Nobody was looking at the $2 million plus that we’d put into this place, all of the exposure that we had gotten for Richmond,” Kevin Brown said. “They basically said, ‘We don’t care. We want that space, and we want it for this, and we have a mechanism by which we can do it.’”

Management of the city’s bayfront land has been controversial. City officials have most recently faced scrutiny over a 2004 lease agreement with Orton Development that allows the firm to pay $1 annually to operate the Craneway Pavilion, a former Ford plant that was turned into a vehicle assembly site during World War II.

Much of the structure’s 45,000-square-foot indoor space is now covered in pickleball courts, a use the State Lands Commission said in a second letter issued in April is not in compliance with a public trust agreement requiring the area to be used for overnight accommodations, restaurants and cafes, water-related industry, museums regarding waterfront history, visitor-serving retail, boating and ferry service.

A recent audit into port management found that the port lacks adequate oversight and planning due to insufficient staffing and procedures resulting in poor maintenance, a lack of financial management, missing lease documentation and deficient monitoring for compliance with lease agreements.

At an April City Council meeting where the audit was presented, Vice Mayor Jimenez said she was “really glad this report is revealing all these issues we have.”

“It’s not just pointing fingers, but it’s just to realize that we need to have better oversight, and we need to take care of the port as an asset and not give it away to people to make money,” she said.

Discovery is soon due in the Brown’s lawsuit and court-ordered mediation was scheduled to begin this summer. The city, meanwhile, is seeking a court judgment for immediate possession of the Canal Boulevard property, for the $285,845.25, in back rent, plus late charges and interest and a declaration that Riggers “has no interest under the lease.”

Hernando debuted Jenuine Fitness, operating out of 510 Training Co. at 1085 Broadway Ave., in 2019, offering both individual personal training sessions and group bootcamp classes.

The vision?

“Empower, inspire, motivate all of those around us. That’s our motto,” Hernando said.

Five years — and a global pandemic — later, Jenuine Fitness, a woman- and Filipina-owned business, has continued to welcome new and familiar faces to its classes designed for all abilities Monday through Saturday. This interview has been edited for clarity.

Q: When did you first begin your personal fitness journey?

A: I’ve always worked out but didn’t really go to the gym with a plan. It wasn’t until I turned 30 years old, when I really wanted to make a change. I had two young kids at the time, and I wanted to be healthy and strong for them so that I can live a long life and watch them grow and their kids grow.

Q: What was it about fitness that hooked you?

A: I loved the way it made me feel. I felt myself getting stronger and didn’t think I was able to do the things I did, like lift heavy, or do strict pull-ups, or run fast without getting tired. It changed my mood for the better and I had a lot more energy throughout the day because I worked out. Of course, the physical changes were icing on the cake. My muscles started to grow everywhere. I was made fun of as a teenager for being “too skinny,” so it was very rewarding to see that my body was changing because of all my hard work.

Q: Were there things about the fitness environment that put you off?

A: Not that I can think of.

Q: What inspired you to open your own gym? Did you ever have doubts about being able to see the project through?

A: I was given the opportunity by 510 Training Company to start my very own bootcamp program. From there, I ran with it and went above and beyond anyone’s expectations. Of course, I had doubts like will I be able to keep my members? Will my program be challenging or fun enough for people to want to join or come back if they’ve tried it?

Q: What are the hardest and best aspects of owning and operating your own gym?

A: The hardest part — the long hours away from my husband and kids. Being able to make time for myself.

But the best aspects are building a community and being surrounded by a supportive community. Seeing the members physically change and the confidence they build over time. Hearing members say that Jenuine Fitness is their favorite place because it gives them mental therapy. Watching my members get stronger and better with their form.Having the best supportive coaches. They each have their own individual coaching style and can modify and cater to all types of ages and limitations — injuries, lack of mobility or range of motion. And, creating programs to challenge my members.

Q: What are five tips you’d recommend to someone on their own fitness journey?

A: Set realistic goals. Don’t compare yourself to others. Focus on progress, not perfection. Be patient. Stay consistent.

Name: Jennifer Hernando

Age: 43

Position: Founder, owner of Jenuine Fitness

Credentials: National Academy of Sports Medicine, Certified Personal Trainer

Residence: Hercules

Five things about Jennifer:

— She’s Bay Area born, having grown up in San Francisco.

— She became a mother at 24 and now has one adult daughter and a teenage son.

— She has an identical twin sister.

— When working out alone, she likes to listen to ’80s and ’90s slow jams and R&B.

— When not in the gym, she likes to travel, hike, go to concerts and music festivals, try new restaurants, learn new things and spend time with her dogs.

It all started when Petaluma became the first city in the country to ban new gas stations in 2021. But the activists who originally launched that first effort had no idea it would turn into a movement — in fact, JoAnn McEachin, a Petaluma resident who helped start the group NoGasHere a decade ago, says she had no intention of becoming an activist at the time, and she wasn’t even opposed to new gas stations in general.

Her issue was with a 16-pump gas station that had been proposed by the supermarket chain Safeway in 2013. Petaluma, a North Bay city of 60,000 residents, already had 16 gas stations, but her specific issue was with its location — the grocer was looking to build on the corner of McDowell Boulevard and Maria Drive, just across the street from a campus that housed an elementary school, a child development center and a preschool.

McEachin believed being down wind from the roughly 2,000 vehicles it was estimated would drive in and out of the station per day would put the children at risk of poor air quality. She connected with a group of other concerned residents — many of them local moms — who rallied together to form NoGasHere, bringing skills from their day jobs as lawyers, marketing professionals, teachers and administrative assistants to their cause.

“(Safeway) pissed off a lot of women,” said McEachin. “It makes my blood boil when I think about it.”

Despite their efforts, the group failed to stop the gas station plan from moving forward after a crucial 2018 City Council vote. Former Petaluma Councilmember D’Lynda Fischer said the council’s hands were tied — Safeway’s proposal had adhered to all necessary laws for approval.

“Although many of us didn’t want to vote for the gas station, and agreed it shouldn’t go there, there was nothing about our laws that said they couldn’t,” Fischer said.

The fight didn’t stop, though. A small group of NoGasHere members, renamed Save Petaluma, appealed the council’s decision, taking Safeway and the city to court to force the company to conduct a more expansive environmental review. After a tough two-year legal battle, Save Petaluma won and Safeway pulled its plans. The site is now being developed into a health care facility.

In 2021, Petaluma’s City Council declared a climate emergency and changed its zoning laws to prohibit the creation of new gas stations.

Fischer, who played a leading role in both of those policy proposals, said she was grateful Save Petaluma filed its appeal. For McEachin and her group, the win was a terrific feeling.

“I’m super happy we were able to fight back, and it enabled others to say, ‘Hey wait, we’ve got to do that, too,’” McEachin said.

Other Sonoma County communities took notice, starting with the tiny city of Cotati, where Jenny Blaker and Woody Hastings were fighting multiple gas station proposals in the rural part of the county. Besides emissions from vehicles, they were also concerned about toxic leakage from underground fuel tanks, which can poison local soil and groundwater. The Environmental Protection Agency reports that there are currently about 58,000 contaminated sites nationwide from such leakage. In 2022, Safeway agreed to pay $8 million after the state attorney general’s office accused the company of breaking gasoline-leak prevention laws at its 71 California gas stations, including 18 in the Bay Area.

Blaker and Hastings’ group Coalition Opposing New Gas Stations, or CONGAS, defeated one proposal but quickly learned of three others. Recognizing the tedious work that would be required to halt individual gas station development proposals, they instead began pushing for land use changes, using Petaluma’s ordinance as a model.

“We had a sense of urgency because it seemed to us at the time that, ‘Gee, there’s a lot of new gas station proposals. We have to stop this,’” Hastings said.

The movement spread through Sonoma County, with similar restrictions eventually covering Rohnert Park, Sebastopol, Cotati, Novato, Windsor, unincorporated areas and the county’s largest city, Santa Rosa.

Cloverdale, Healdsburg and Sonoma are the last three cities in Sonoma County without similar gas bans in place. Cloverdale leaders considered adopting a ban in 2022 but voted to table the issue.

Meanwhile, cities in Napa County also followed Petaluma’s lead. In January, St. Helena joined Calistoga, Yountville, American Canyon and Napa — which has a temporary ban — in making Napa County the first in the country to have a prohibition on new gas stations in all of its municipalities. Marin County’s Fairfax and San Anselmo have also approved similar measures.

Opponents of the gas-ban policies — like the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance, an organization representing 300 gas station companies and haulers in California — assert the bans could cause price spikes; that they disproportionately harm small, minority-owned businesses; and that they ignore the benefits of tax revenue generated from the industry.

“Beyond risking significant job loss and impacting small businesses, especially those largely owned by minorities and immigrants, a ban neglects the intricate economic interconnections within California,” read a letter from the group published in January in response to Sacramento adding a new gas station ban policy to its 2040 General Plan.

Pinole Mayor Pro Tem Cameron Sasai, who worked on the policy in partnership with Councilmember Devin Murphy, said Petaluma was definitely a model for Pinole’s ban.

“Seeing what Petaluma did, the gas station ban, to me, was an obvious next step for our community to end our reliance on fossil fuels,” Sasai said. “l’m proud that our city is leading the way in the East Bay.”

Cotati’s Hastings — an energy and environmental policy analyst, strategic planner, and community organizer of more than 30 years who currently works with statewide nonprofit The Climate Center — said gas stations, while an essential business for millions of drivers now, are already plentiful in most communities, and will eventually become obsolete.

He said the steady spread of gas station bans across the Bay Area is proof that a grassroots political movement can still be built, sustained and grown in an uncertain landscape of national politics.

“A lot of times, it’s the powerful entrenched forces that have the resources to crush whatever efforts we might make to get something done,” Hastings said. “It’s important to remember sometimes we win.”

The Richmond City Council voted 6-0 on April 30 to add new restrictions to the city’s investment policy that call for divesting from a list of companies and their subsidiaries due to their support of Israel’s military. Ten companies are on the list: Airbnb, Microsoft, Intel, IBM, Dell, Cisco, Motorola Solutions, First Solar Inc., Wix.com and Caterpillar Inc.

The October ceasefire resolution by the city council came shortly after Hamas killed 1,200 Israelis and took another 250 as hostages in a surprise attack on Oct. 7. Israel soon after began its counter-attack, which has since killed more than 34,500 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.

“More than anything, fundamentally, it’s about us and our humanity. This is to affirm we do not want to be accomplices to these crimes,” said Councilmember Soheila Bana, who sponsored the resolution with Mayor Eduardo Martinez and Councilmember Gayle McLaughlin. “We stand in solidarity with those whose human rights have been violated, whose sanctity of life has been disregarded and whose pursuit of freedom has been denied.”

The policy recommendation, prepared by Shiva Mishek, chief of staff for Mayor Martinez, also calls for divesting from companies involved with developing and manufacturing weapons, border and mass surveillance industries, mass incarceration and detention industries, or those that benefit from prison labor.

Councilmember Cesar Zepeda abstained from the vote after raising questions about why the policy speaks only to military decisions by Israel, and not other countries like China or Russia.

Mishek said staff would be open to expanding the policy but she also cautioned against adding more language to the policy without further research.

The city appeared to try to get ahead of a legal wrench when seeking to answer calls to divest from Israel — Assembly Bill 2844, known as the Anti-Boycott, Divest, Sanction bill. Passed in 2016, the law prohibits public agencies that receive $100,000 or more in state funding from divesting from foreign nations, specifically calling out Israel in the legal text, because doing so would be discrimination. Entities that do divest risk losing state dollars.

Before the council vote, Mishek acknowledged the term BDS — a call for public and private entities to boycott goods either made or connected to Israel in some way, divest financial holdings from the nation and for governments to use sanctions — is a “sensitive” one, but argued the proposed policy is a specific investment and divestment item.

Deputy City Attorney Shannon Moore also recommended the council include language specifying the policy would be a “constitutionally protected protest of the policies of the current government of the state of Israel regarding the people of Palestine and the war in Gaza.”

“It shall not allow, and this is key, any discriminatory actions against any persons on the basis of religion, creed, ethnicity, national origin or any unlawful basis,” Moore added.

How the policy is implemented will also depend on cooperation from the state. The city is one of more than 2,300 local governments and special districts investing through the state’s Local Agency Investment Fund, one of three arms of the Pooled Money Investment Account which oversees the investments of billions of taxpayer dollars.

The city can inform LAIF of it’s investment restrictions, but cannot mandate that those restrictions be met, Mishek said. Annual reports from LAIF have indicated other investment limitations have been met but if the state is unwilling or unable to adhere to the new policy, the city may have to decide to find a new investment manager, Mishek added.

“There will have to be some changes made, for sure,” Mishek said in an interview after the meeting, sharing optimism about city staff’s ability to “work this out” with LAIF.

The council’s affirmative vote was met with rowdy applause by those who attended the meeting. Dozens of people used their two minutes of public comment to call for the council to approve the measure and to thank the body for being the first to advocate for Palestinian people in October.

“I think most realize at this point that a ceasefire is no longer sufficient. Even a permanent ceasefire would not properly ensure the safety of Palestinians from the rabidly fascist regime in Israel,” said speaker Vincent Yannello. “Divestment was the death knell of the apartheid state of South Africa. The strategy is crucially important in the fight against Apartheid South Africa’s successor, Israel.”

While an overwhelming number of speakers were in favor of the measure, not all public comments were supportive of divestment. A few public commentors implored the council not to adopt the policy, asserting it was hurtful and harmful to Jewish residents, unfairly targeted the world’s only Jewish state, further divided the community and was based on inaccurate assertions about the current conflict.

“This has been a display of intolerance, bias, misinformation and naive oversimplification,” said speaker Miriam Fusi over teleconference. “Over half of the population of Israel is comprised of Jews indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa. Most of them were forced out by the only country they knew … and the only country to take them was Israel.”

Vice Mayor Claudia Jimenez, in an interview after the meeting, acknowledged the concerns raised and called Hamas’ attack on Oct. 7 “horrible”. But Jimenez also pushed back on those who say the issue is outside of city business. She argued the city has a responsibly to acknowledge the suffering of Palestinians locally and abroad, and to not benefit from Israel’s military action.

“We recognize your pain and suffering, and that doesn’t mean we can’t be explicit,” Jimenez said. “Hamas’ attack was horrible, but the collective punishment has to stop.”

An off-duty reserve police sergeant who was working a security shift at the mall pointed out the three suspects to San Jose Police officers who were called to the mall about 8:08 p.m. Monday, police said in a news release Thursday. The individuals were found with more than $1,000 of merchandise on them; a search of their car resulted in another $12,000 of merchandise being discovered, authorities said.

Two suspects were booked at the Santa Clara County Main Jail and a juvenile suspect was booked into Juvenile Hall; all three were booked on suspicion of felony organized retail theft, officials said. The department’s Organized Retail Theft Detail was conducting a follow-up investigation and actively seeking to identify other victims.

Anyone with information about this case or others is asked to contact Detective Beretta of the San José Police Financial Crimes Unit via email at 3677@sanjoseca.gov or by calling 408-277-4521. Anonymous tips can be submitted using the P3TIPS mobile app, the tip line at 408-947-STOP, or at siliconvalleycrimestoppers.org.

The Pinole City Council last week unanimously approved a temporary moratorium on new fuel stations that also limits expansion of existing ones as part of an effort to reduce the city’s greenhouse gas emissions to at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

The April 2 vote made the Contra Costa County city the first in the East Bay to take on the issue.

“In an emergency, we need to take bold action,” said Mayor Pro Tem Cameron Sasai, who developed the proposal in partnership with Councilmember Devin Murphy.

Emissions from passenger and commercial vehicles account for about 41 percent of the community’s greenhouse gas emissions, according to an inventory update prepared by Rincon Consultants. By prohibiting the development of new gas stations and limiting the expansion of existing ones, the city hopes to eventually phase out gas stations altogether and encourage residents to transition to electric vehicles or those that use other alternative fuels.

Councilmembers made it clear this was merely a stop-gap measure to allow staff more time to draft a permanent ordinance.

Petaluma made international news in 2021 when it became the first city in the country to ban new gas stations. The movement spread through Sonoma County, with similar restrictions eventually covering Calistoga, Rohnert Park, Sebastopol, Cotati, Novato, Windsor, unincorporated areas and the county’s largest city, Santa Rosa.

Simultaneously, cities in Napa County began passing gas station bans. In January, St. Helena joined Calistoga, Yountville, American Canyon and Napa — which has a temporary ban — in making Napa County the first in the country to have a prohibition on new gas stations in all of its municipalities. Marin County’s Fairfax and San Anselmo have also approved similar measures.

Sacramento announced in February that it will consider an ordinance to ban the construction of new gas stations.

In Pinole, zoning already limits where service stations can be located to the western part of the city. Seven service stations are currently in operation, with an eighth under redevelopment. A development application for the eighth station was approved before work on the moratorium began, but no other requests are being considered, nor would they be allowed.

“Human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. There’s significant risk to human health, safety and welfare caused by climate change including air pollution, extreme weather events, increased food insecurity and rising sea levels,” said Pinole Community Development Director Lilly Whalen during the April 2 meeting. “Reducing GHG emissions to improve environmental and human health will a require massive transition away from internal combustion engines to zero-emission vehicles.”

Sasai said that he hopes the bans will continue to gain traction and that Pinole’s ordinance “serves as a model for other cities in our region to follow suit.”

The temporary ban will need to be routinely extended but allows staff to research and draft a more permanent policy over the next few years, City Attorney Eric Casher said.

In 2021, the Pinole City Council adopted a resolution declaring a Climate Emergency, which laid the groundwork for the city’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan and the moratorium on gas stations.

“It’s been a long time coming,” Murphy said. “I’m looking forward to seeing the impact of this and certainly hope it promotes public health as we intend for it to do.”

“Today the City of Berkeley made history, and we did it by honoring the first people to live on this land,” Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguín said in a press release announcing the deal Tuesday. “This is a historic step toward righting past wrongs and embracing a future that honors the diverse history of the entire region.”

A parking lot at 1900 Fourth St. at University Avenue currently sits on what officials say is the last undeveloped portion of one of the first human settlements on the San Francisco Bay shore. Established more than 5,700 years ago, the site was once home to the Ohlone tribe before being taken over by Spanish conquistadors and American settlers.

Thanks to a $27 million deal — $25.5 million paid by the Sogorea Te’ Land Trust and the remaining $1.5 million from the city — that land will be turned over to the trust, an indigenous women-led organization that plans to develop a cultural center and commemorative park at the site.

“The City of Berkeley and the Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation joined together to right a historic wrong, resulting in the rematriation of our oldest Shellmound and Village site to its original people,” said Corrina Gould, tribal chair of the Lisjan Nation, in the press release. “This is not only the most challenging urban sacred site victory in California’s history, it’s also among the most culturally significant for the Lisjan people.”

The $27 million will be paid to Ruegg & Ellsworth, a development firm the city has been in a years-long legal battle with over the site. After taking over partial ownership of 1900 Fourth St. in 2000, Ruegg & Ellsworth attempted to sell the land to Blake Griggs Properties, a Danville-based company looking to build a 260-unit housing project, with about half of those units listed at affordable rates.

Years of debate between activists and the developer followed. Blake Griggs Properties eventually requested an expedited ministerial review for its housing proposal in 2018 but was denied because the site had been designated as historical in 2000.

Instead of submitting plans through the standard process, the firm sued, according to the city. Dana Ellsworth, Ruegg & Ellsworth president and CEO, said the company was forced to sue for damages after the city’s lack of support for housing caused Blake and Griggs Properties to back out of buying the land, costing Ruegg & Ellsworth more than $18 million.

The city’s decision to deny the permit was initially upheld by the Alameda County Superior Court in October 2019 but reversed by the California Court of Appeal in April 2021. A bid to have the California Supreme Court consider the case was denied, and state legislation prohibiting expedited reviews for projects on tribal cultural sites was not made retroactive, forcing the city to issue the firm zoning approval that October.

No project was built though, and the site was again listed for sale. Ellsworth noted that her firm never intended to build on the property — they lacked the design plans and building permits necessary to move forward with construction — but the conflict made it difficult to find a new buyer.

While disappointed in the loss of housing, Ellsworth said she’s happy to see the legal battle come to a close.

“We wish them the best. There’s no hard feelings,” she said. “We’re very pro-Berkeley. We love it here. We’re happy with the $27 million, and we’re happy it’s over. We’re not interested in being in any lawsuits and don’t like fighting with city of Berkeley. Both families (making up the firm) have been here for generations.”

The parties met on March 8 for a day of mediated settlement negotiations. That meeting came about a month before the parties were due back in court for what Ellsworth described as a mini-trial in which the city could have been on the hook for at least $15 million in damages.

Instead, the firm will receive it’s payout in exchange for relinquishing ownership of the land. The Berkeley City Council on Tuesday approved an ordinance accepting and then transferring title of the land to Sogorea Te’ Land Trust.

“It’s rare for a city to fight as long and hard as we did to return land to its original people, but fighting for this site was a moral imperative I could never turn away from. The principled actions our city has taken give new life to Berkeley’s values of equity, respect and redress,” said Berkeley Councilmember Sophie Hahn in the press release. “This historic agreement ensures a future that honors more than 5,000 years of Ohlone life in what we now call Berkeley.”