Thank you.

I call to order the special meeting of the Berkeley City Council.

Today is Tuesday, January 27, 2026.

Clerk, can you please call the roll?

Okay.

Councilmember Kessarwani is currently absent.

Councilmember Taplin is currently absent.

Councilmember Bartlett is currently absent.

Councilmember Tregum.

O'Keefe.

Blackaby.

Here.

Humbert.

I am present.

Well, I guess Mayor's okay.

Here.

And Mayor Ishi.

And Councilmember Taplin is also present.

Okay.

I'm going to move over there.

Thank you.

We have one item on our special agenda today.

It's the 2026 City Council referral prioritization process using reweighted range voting RRV.

And I'm going to pass it off to staff to present this item.

Okay.

Thank you, Vice Mayor.

My name is Mark Newmanville.

I'm the city clerk for the city of Berkeley.

And I'm going to bring up a short presentation on the RRV prioritization process.

And bear with me just one moment.

Okay.

RRV City Council.

Referral prioritization process.

Doing two jobs at once, sorry.

Okay.

So today's presentation.

We'll have a brief review of what re-weighted range voting is and how the RRV process works.

We can then discuss a little bit about the items marked for removal.

And I'll summarize also what actions are up for the city council to take at today's meeting.

So, how does reweighted range voting work?

There's a list of referrals.

Each council member rates every referral on a scale of zero to five, zero being the least amount of support, and five being the most amount of support.

There's no limit to repeat scores or how many or how few referrals a council member assigns a score to.

After the meeting today, the scores are all tallied up for all the referrals, and the referral with the highest total score becomes the first priority.

Then for all of the remaining referrals on the list, the scores are reweighted based on a formula.

And that's affected by how much influence each council member has used up to that point.

And this guarantees sort of an equal influence over the long run and gives more voice to minority opinions.

That's the how the system was designed to work, and that's that's how it works.

So our current process from start to finish is the council adopts a referral on the city council agenda.

Then that referral is categorized by the city manager, either long term, short-term, or urgent.

The long-term referrals are added to the RRB list to be prioritized by the council.

The short-term referrals, work is started on those right away.

Annually, the city council assigns the scores to the long-term referrals on the RRV list, the process that we're doing right now.

And staff generally starts to address the referrals in the order of council priority.

Of course, some departments are overrepresented in the results, so the city manager and those departments have some discretion as to how many referrals they can take on all at once.

Completed referrals are reported back to the city council through an item on the agenda, or also often through an off agenda memo.

So the data that we have in the item itself.

Is the raw scores assigned to each referral by the mayor and all the council members?

Where no rating was assigned, the default score is zero.

And the list in the agenda packet is sorted by meeting date from the most recent date back to the oldest date.

In attachment two are the referrals that were marked for referral, marked for removal during the scoring process.

So during the scoring process, any council member could mark any referral for removal to sort of nominate it to be removed from the list, and then that list of nominated referrals is brought here before a city council for the council to decide which ones should be removed.

A couple of notes, just some summary notes.

In the in the packet, the list of referrals, there are 53 items on the referral list.

So the action for this meeting is to review the list of the referrals marked for removal.

Here in open session, the council can add more items to be removed or also take items off of the removal list.

You don't have to vote on them individually, though you can if there's some uh disagreement.

And then uh the council will also direct staff to run the RRV algorithm, and I will do so after this meeting uh this week, and then the final prioritized list will be presented back to the city council uh at a special meeting on February 10th.

So that concludes the presentation.

Of course, if there's any questions, happy to answer those.

Thank you so much.

Are there any comments or questions for staff on this item?

We'll start with Councilmember Humbert.

Microphone.

Thank you, madam acting mayor.

Um, just a quick question that 10 referrals not marked for removal, but which got really low scores and no single score higher than a three.

Um, can we vote on removing those here today?

Yes, yes, certain the count the council could add new items uh to the list of those to be removed and also take items off of the list to be removed as well.

So, thank you.

That's all I have.

Councilmember Taplin.

Are there any other questions for staff?

Just questions for right now.

I have a quick question.

Um, what happens if there are multiple referrals that are tied in first in raw scores?

That's a good question.

That's never happened.

It has happened.

Has happened.

Oh, okay.

Uh it's happening now, I mean.

Oh, it's happening now.

Well, um I suppose we'd have to figure out some way to break the tie.

Um, because I'm not sure how the algorithm would respond to a tie vote.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um okay, if there are no more questions, um let's do public comment.

I don't see any public commenters in person.

Are there is there anyone online?

Uh there's nobody online who's raised their hand to speak.

No.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um council colleagues, are there any comments on this item?

Councilmember Humbert, you're um, I'm sorry.

Oh, okay.

Council Member Blackaby.

Yeah, thanks.

Um acting mayor.

Um, I think my main comment, kind of responding to Councilmember Humbert's question, um, in terms of items removal, I support I think removing most of the items, believe all the items marked for removal.

And I think there were some items, for example, that I scored a zero, it looked like everybody's scored a zero, partially for the reason that we're not yet in the window when those like you know, there's a 2028 ballot measure consideration or looking back in three years after middle housing's been in effect.

So if we do go a little further than reviewing the items that aren't already marked for removal, I just cautions to be careful that we don't inadvertently remove some of those that I think some of us just put zeros on because we're not yet in the window to review them.

So that's my only comment.

Thank you.

Councilmember Taplin.

Yes, thank you.

Um, Madam Acting Mayor.

Um I had a sort of process question for the city manager.

Um one of the items, the uh vision zero response uh referral includes the direction to incorporate um Oak Dots neighborhood travel calming um guidelines into the city uh bike plan.

Given that the bike plan update is underway, I was wondering if you could confirm whether that particular direction has already been acted on.

Um I'd actually like uh director Davis to weigh in on that.

Uh it they haven't been to my knowledge, but I but I'm not 100% sure.

And I would say if they if they oh he's here.

So why don't I just let Director Davis speak to that and then I can add more.

Okay.

Uh so council member tapman, um those um have been included in the existing draft.

So the draft 2025 plan is currently under its final um review, and those recommendations uh from Oakland and those standards have been included and incorporated along with all of the other stakeholder and community feedback received.

So once that final plan is brought forward to council, I think um at that point in time, there'll be additional opportunity to comment on uh the draft plan and if there's any final recommendations or direction council has at that point in time.

So but short answer, yes, they've been in incorporated.

Wonderful.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Um let's do Councilmember Humbert and then Kesserwani and then we'll do Mayor Ishi, who's online.

Councilmember Humbert.

Well, maybe I'll defer to Council Member Cassarwani because she may be addressing one of the items on the the um the list for removal that she and Councilmember Taplin sponsored that I had a question about.

I don't know.

Oh yes, I yes, I am.

Okay, Councilmember Cassarwani.

Um thank you very much uh Madam Acting Mayor.

I um I did want to say that I was um fine with removing all of the items that were tagged for removal except for one, and that is the the one it has the the code 04053.

This is about giving uh residents who live in West Berkeley within two blocks of commercial corridors the opportunity to opt into the residential preferential parking program right now.

You know, I don't know if everyone is aware.

There's an RPP eligibility map, and it's mostly eastern neighborhoods, and when you go into West Berkeley, even if you want to have RPP on your block, um according to the map, you know, many many streets and blocks and neighborhoods are not eligible.

And so this is something our public works department um had brought to the council, and um I I I know the p we have a lot of referrals to public works, and so it makes it difficult, but I think this is uh an equity issue, and it's um it's a way for people to sort of uh be able to have some agency with parking on their block.

So I would ask that that one be restored.

But I'll I'm eager to listen to hear from my colleagues on um other items that maybe were not tagged for removal that we would want to remove based on low scores, and um any other items that we would want to bring back from the removal list.

But that was the one I wanted to advocate for.

And did I answer your question, Councilmember Humbert?

Yes, you did, and in fact, I I join you in in wanting to keep that on.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Let's do go to uh Mayor Ishii and then Councilmember Trago.

Yes, I just wanted to make sure that we had a good understanding of the ten that are um were not marked for removal, but had lower than three, was it?

I just want to make sure we all know which ones those are.

Was it three?

Is that right?

Mr.

City Clerk.

Uh there were actually ten total that fit that criteria.

I'm sorry, and you s and but you said that had scores below three or something like that.

I just want to make sure I understood.

They had uh the the total score was less than five, so four or less, and no single score from a council member that was higher than three.

So that yes, because I might recommend that we uh that folks review the list to make sure that there isn't anything on there that they may be put as the three um that they would still want to keep.

And I'm happy to review those uh with the council as well.

Mm-hmm.

Although I I do think that it's a great idea to remove um some items that that you know we haven't moved forward on in many many years.

Thank you, Mayor.

Yeah, I think it would be helpful to go over those.

Let's go to Councilmore Trago and then and then go over those.

Yeah, thank you.

Um so first of all, and I'll I'll fess up.

I I might have been the one to recommend the RPP one for removal, but I um uh I I've appreciate the explanation and I would uh support on doing that recommendation now that I have a better understanding of what this is because I was thinking of it globally as the RPP program itself uh being up for review to ensure that it is a funded um program, not operating under a deficit.

Um so that that makes sense, and then my uh I I wanted to associate myself with uh others' desire to better understand what these other um ten um are for example um that there was an item I think um ending three nine nine four um expansion of paid parking and I think we're actually discussing that um later today during the regular agenda um and then there was one more I think parking in the marina and uh I would like to better understand what is already um being uh done uh by staff right now or may have already been considered by council.

Thank you, council member.

Uh Mr.

City Clerk, do you think do you have the list of those you were mentioning?

Yes, and and then I think we can also sort of follow along in the um in the agenda packet as well.

So I'll share the screen.

Okay, so in the agenda packet, um the um the list of referrals that were scored starts you know on page three of the item.

Um and I'll just match that up with the list here.

So there's two demands here, both have the um the companion report, affordable housing for artists, and the probably the easiest thing to do is go by the meeting date because that's how the list is sorted.

So this was the December 2nd, 2025 meeting date.

You have demand that ends in 4242 and 4240.

So the first one, the one that ends in 4242.

This is companion report, affordable housing for artists.

The recommendation is to implement strategies from the Berkeley Social Housing Study.

Um this referral received a total score of three.

There was one council member who scored that at three, the rest were zeros.

So I don't know if you want me to go through the list or if you want to address them one at a time.

I think it'd be helpful to go through the list.

Thank you.

The next is the companion report, affordable housing for artists.

This recommendation is to place an affordable housing bond measure on the 2028 ballot.

Um that's from the same meeting December 2nd, 2025.

Uh this item.

Uh this referral had one council member who scored it at two, and the rest were zero.

Um the next one is the demand on some.

It's from uh September 30th, 2025, and that is number 422.

Um this is to refer the item to the um city attorney with direction paramet memorandum to city staff and city council addressing applicable um legal documents related due process pending investigations and other related matters.

Um, this is regarding um the police accountability board.

Um this item received a two from one council member, a one from another council member, and all zeros from the rest for a total score of three.

Next is a referral from November 21st 2023.

And uh this is the demand that ends in 4135.

Let me just scroll to keep up.

Um, and this one is regarding south side zoning amendments, um, and this is to refer to the city manager to develop requirements for new residential construction that all bedrooms contain windows, consider window requirements for habitable space.

Um this one uh again is from 1121 2023.

This has a total score of four.

One council member gave it a three, another one gave it a one.

The next referral is from July 11th, 2023, and this is number 411.

Uh this is to conduct a study on the city's history of discriminatory actions and housing policies and programs.

This item received a score of two from a single council member, and the rest were zeros.

Next one is from June 27th, 2023, number 4110, adopting a temporary exemption from the collection of taxes under BMC 9.04136, the tax rate for non-medical and medical cannabis businesses.

Um this item received a score of two from two different council members for a total score of four.

Next is a referral from June 6th, 2023.

Um to refer to the city manager to provide a council, the city council report on the bird safe building requirements, no sooner than three years after effective date of the ordinance that adopted the bird safe requirements.

For a total score of one.

Next is uh referral from November 3rd 2022.

This is um referral to conduct an automatic traffic calming review for the area immediately surrounding the project at 1201 to 1205 San Pablo Avenue.

Um, and this one received a score of two from a single council member, and the rest were zeros.

Um next, there's another referral from this same meeting.

This one is 4059 budget referral, no right on red signs, and this was to refer the city mandatory to build policy recommendations for consider for consideration that would expand limitations on right turns on red.

Um this one received a score of two from a council, one council member and a score of one from another council member for a total score of three.

Um the last one on this list is from May 30th, 2017, in the before times.

Uh, to scroll down quite oh, let's see.

This is the one ending in 418.

Um this one, the recommendation is uh refer a city density bonus policy for the Telegraph Avenue Commercial District to the Planning Commission to generate in loo fees that could be used to build housing for the homeless and extremely low residents.

Oh, I'm sorry, and extremely low income residents.

Um this one received a score of one from a single council member and all zeros from the rest.

So that's the list of of the ten that that were identified as scoring low that were not placed on the removal list uh when the council did its scoring, but are for your consideration at this time.

Great.

Thank you so much, Mr.

City Clerk.

Are there any council comments?

Councilmember Cassarwani.

You know, for the thank you um uh Mr.

City Clerk for that for that list.

You know, for the purposes of moving things along, I was um going to make a motion.

We can modify it, but um, so I'd like to make a motion to remove all the items on the removal list except the one related to RPP for West Berkeley, and to add all the items, the 10 items that you just listed, uh Mr.

City Clerk.

Um so that would be the the new list for removal.

Uh but uh, you know, interested to hear from my colleagues if we want to preserve anything or add further for removal.

Uh so that's the motion.

Do you need a second?

I'm second.

Okay, thank you.

And and I and if I may, I wanted to explain the thing about the traffic calming at 1201 to 1205 San Pablo Avenue.

That is a there was a div housing development proposal for that empty parcel.

If you are on San Pablo Avenue, I think it's a Christmas tree lot at times, you know, over the holidays, but the project is stalled.

So there's no construction going on.

So I think given that, you know, so we have sort of like a lot of items that are sort of weird like that, like something about a bond next year, something for traffic calming for a project that's stalled.

So, you know, I I think that um, I mean, we may want to be cautious on those because they may there may be a need to do those things.

Um, but I think at this point, you know, I think these projects are stalled for quite a while, and someone can always bring back a a traffic calming referral.

So I so that that was the explanation for that.

Um, but I'm I'm fine to to add it to the removal list.

Yes, and and certainly any item that's removed from this list um today can be reintroduced um in a modified format or when it's more timely or anything like that.

This just would remove it off the list for now.

Yeah.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Let's go to Councilmember Trago.

Yeah, thank you.

Um so some of these are um probably we've moved on.

Um, I had a question about the board safe building requirements for 106.

This looks like the the only remaining part of the referral appears to be to bring something back no sooner than three years after the effective date of an ordinance.

Um, which I guess this would be the year that it would be three years after the implementation date.

Um, and that doesn't really sound like a referral to me in the traditional sense.

That's just something, like it is on the referral list, but I'm wondering if there's some alternative mechanism that this were which this could be tracked.

I think that's a question for for city staff.

It is Mr.

City Manager.

So your question is how might we track that if it got removed from this list?

Is that what you're saying?

Yeah, um, and I believe this was one of several where I had a question.

I think um some of them were like consider placing a bond in 2028.

Well, we can just have that discussion in 2028, but something where maybe X number of years after something was passed, just asking for some kind of effectiveness report.

Um, uh, do these currently get tracked in some way, or is is this the only way to keep track of them?

Director Clark, I don't know if you have a an opinion on this one.

Yeah, I mean, I recall this um this action being attached to the adoption of the bird safe glass ordinance that essentially asked staff to reevaluate the policy after three years.

Um and as you noted, we're we're getting up to that three-year anniversary.

I see this as a this would be a policy project.

I don't think it would be a huge policy project, but it would be a policy project.

It would require staff time from our land use policy team to research and evaluate the policy, talk with the planning commission.

I think we'd likely want to look at, you know, talk to the development community, do an analysis of how the availability of bird safe class has changed and analyze how it's impacting project feasibility, and then so that we could advise planning commission and city council on any potential changes to the policy.

If the referrals taken off the list, we wouldn't pursue that project.

We would just let the existing policy um go on unless we have some reason to initiate work on it or whether it's referred again in the future.

Okay, great.

Thank thank you so much.

So I I uh generally feel comfortable with that motion.

Um I do want to hear some of them were specific to uh other council districts that are not mine.

So um I I would support if um a colleague wants to fight for something, um, but generally I'm comfortable with the motion on the table.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Um let's go to Mayor Ishii and then Councilmember Taplin and then Councilmember Blackby.

Yeah, I I totally agree with folks that there are times uh there are some items here that might be more appropriate at a at a different time.

And so uh of course, you know, I think that we need to have an affordable housing bond for 2028 and also we don't need to leave that on the RV right now.

That's something that I know we will be following up with far before the election itself.

Um and then the other thing I wanted to just mention that I'm okay with leaving it on the list to remove it right now, but the no right on red signs one, the 4059.

I just wanted to say that I still think that that makes sense to look into how we could implement something like that in our city.

Um but I agree that that for right now, given our current situation, then it may not make sense to have that continue to stay on the RV, and we can come back to it later.

So thanks everyone, and uh thanks for your work to help clean up our list.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, Councilmember Taplin.

Uh thank you.

Uh I I just have a short question.

Uh the South Report says that the list would not include budget referrals, but a number of the items um included our budget referrals.

And I was wondering, is that because some of the some of them are like budget referral slash policy direction?

Yeah, typically usually, you know, a budget referral is just a budget referral, and that goes on the budget referral list.

Uh for the for items, you know, that have a, you know, a policy, a proposed policy or some new pro program or project, and then include the budget referral uh within the item.

You know, we we've put those on this list for the council to decide if they want to do the new policy and program first and then and then it would the then the budget referral would would follow.

But as you know, there's lots of just straight budget referrals that are submitted throughout the year, and those go on a a list that the that the budget office keeps and is considered during the budget review process.

Uh thank you very much.

And then uh thinking ahead, um, do we foresee um that there might be a scenario where an item is is prioritized, but but does not have the necessary budgetary allocation for it to move forward.

I mean, I could speak to that a little bit.

Part of the reason why we move this process up in the year is to make is to get a list of prioritized referrals for you to consider when we go through the budget process.

Wonderful, thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Councilmember Blackby and then Councilmember Humbert.

Just for clarification on the motion.

Um, so uh would 4203 or 4054 be on the new remove list.

Just want to make sure 4203 4203 was the middle housing three year study.

I don't think that was included.

Great.

And then 4054 was uh autonomous vehicles.

I don't know.

I don't have that one.

Great, okay.

I just want to make sure okay.

So those remain.

Then the only the only suggestion I had was it was maybe to go ahead and keep the 2028 Affordable Housing Bond investigation, which is a 2028 item to keep that on the list just so we don't lose it.

Um again, because I intentionally marked it low because I it wasn't we didn't have to take action on it now.

So that was my only thought.

It was just you know um keep it on the list for future ranking because uh we're not kind of in the window for uh evaluating it yet, and just didn't want to lose that for the future.

I know it's not a big deal, but that was just kind of my so is it is that a formal request to report.

Okay, I'm fine with that.

Let's keep um the 2028 affordable housing bond item.

It's still a zero, it doesn't get ranked right now, but it's on the list for future ranking.

Okay, so that so that means we're gonna only gonna remove nine of the ten that the city clerk uh just read off.

Um and councilmember humbert agrees.

Okay, sounds good.

Thank you.

Okay, that's it.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Councilmember Humbert.

Um yeah, I'd like to add an item to the list.

Looking at page 10 of 31, and it's item 04197, which is Topacopa.

Um, it's got all zeros, one five, uh, but the rain remainder are zeros, and you know it's something maybe we come back to in the future, but it requires funding uh significant funding for any kind of a TOPA or COPA program to function, and given our current budget um situation, I there's no funding for it.

Um, and I would recommend I I would want to add as a friendly amendment that we remove that as well, all zeros but one five, so it it's got a total score of five.

So um well, I I I kind of want to check in with Councilmember Tregu because he he feels very differently.

So I I because I feel like this should be a unanimous process.

I'm sorry, I can't support that, but I I appreciate the suggestion.

Okay, okay, so Councilmember Hummer, are you still okay seconding my motion?

Yeah, I am I'll I'll withdraw that friendly amendment.

Yeah, I I think um I it's not gonna be ranked highly, right?

Based on where it's at, so I think we can leave it.

Okay, um thank you.

All right.

Um I had a couple comments to make.

Um I worry that if we remove items that we agree on from the list, even if they're ranked low, that they'll kind of be lost in the ether.

Um and so there's there's one that I would really like to bring back from um as a friendly amendment, which is the no right on red budget referral.

I think that that should stay on the list even if it's ranked low, so that's a really on our list of priorities.

Giving things up.

I think here um, thanks, Julie.

Sorry, um, okay.

I also want to do that's a friendly amendment.

Yeah, I have one I have one more.

Um the referring to the city attorney to prepare a memorandum addressing um the PAB ODPA um discussions, I think that that's still um important to keep on there even if it wasn't ranked highly, so that it's it's still tracked.

Those are the two main ones that I would like to keep.

I also, yeah, those are the those are the two.

Um okay, um, um Madam Acting Mayor, I just I just want to go back and just check that ODPA item.

Okay, so it's 0422, correct?

So this is correct, yeah.

Okay.

Does anyone have any further context for for this referral?

So it was sent September of 2025.

I be believe that was with um Councilmember Blackaby's referral that was connected.

Okay.

It was um this is the P A B O D attorney to prepare a memo to city staff and council addressing the applicable legal doctrines related to due process pending investigations and other related matters.

I'm just I'm just trying to refresh of what it is we're wanting here, what issue we're trying to address.

It was on it was on a previous um PAB item.

Okay.

Um, and I think it had it was on the um bike bike um bike unit investigation.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, that's fine.

Let's let's um if Councilmember Hubbard is amenable, I think we can restore these two.

No right on red will be restored, and this referral related to PAB and OGPA 0422, Mr.

City Clerk, that one will also be restored.

Yeah, I'm I'm fine with the first one and grudgingly okay with the second one.

Yeah.

Um and I also I agree with Councilmember Trickup on um Copa Topa.

I also don't want that to be lost in the ether, even if it's not possible to happen right now.

Okay, so and and then we yeah, so that is that was never on the 10, and it's not going to be so okay.

I think we have um a reasonable proposal now.

Okay, great.

If there are no more comments, um could we call the roll?

Okay, so again, this is two on the initial list of eight.

Removing all of those minus the RPP for West Berkeley, that will stay.

And on the additional list of ten, um, we are keeping 4240 affordable housing bond 4059.

Right turn on red and 4222 police accountability board.

And then this uh motion if you'd like, could also direct the city staff to run the algorithm and return with the results on February 10th.

Yes, that's part of the motion.

Great, thank you.

And then just before we vote, Madam Vice Mayor, um, with regards to the tie scores, I might have to consult the originator of the RRV program to determine how best uh to address that.

I'm sure we can find a way um within the system to to make that work.

Sounds good.

Thank you so much.

Okay, so on the motion, uh Councilmember Kessarwani?

Yes, Taplin?

Yes, Bartlett, yes, Tregum, aye.

O'Keefe?

Yes, Blackabee, yes, Vice Mayor Lunapara, yes, Councilmember Humbert, yes, and Mayor Ishii.

Yes.

Okay, motion carries.

Thank you so much.

Um I will adjourn the meeting and we'll be back for a regular.

Oh, is there something in this?

Motion to adjourn.

Motion.

Okay, thank you.

Um, is there a motion to adjourn the meeting?

Well, thank you.

So we're gonna.

Second.

Okay.

Uh to adjourn the meeting, Councilmember Castarwani.

Yes.

Taplin.

Yes.

Bartlett.

Yes.

Tragum.

Aye.

O'Keefe.

Yes.

Lackaby.

Yes.

Vice Mayor Lunapara?

Yes.

Councilmember Humbert?

Yes.

And Mayor Ishi.

Yes.

Okay, we're adjourned.

Great.

We'll be back for a regular city council meeting at 6 p.m.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Enjoy your break, everyone.