Transcription
July 28, 2026 · 7:00 PM
Document Information
- Whisper version
- 2
- Generated
- July 29, 2026
- Archive URI
- berkeley_479d032b-e37a-401f-afc8-b2e5e8c6c382.ogg
Segment 1
Okay, hello everyone. If you can hear me, clap once. If you can hear me, clap twice. If you can hear me, clap three times. Very good. Thank you so much, everyone. I am going to call to order the Berkeley City Council meeting. Today is Tuesday, July 28, 2026. It is 6.03 p.m. Can we start off with a roll, please, clerk? Okay. Council Member Kesarwani is currently absent. Taplin. Present. Bartlett is currently absent. Shregum. Present. O'Keefe. I'm here. Blackaby. Here. Lunapara. Here. Humber. Present. And Mayor Ishii. Here. Okay. Quorum is present. Okay. All right. I know there are a lot of folks in here, and if it's your first time in a while or it's your first time to a meeting, this is a reminder that if you have a conversation, please take it outside so that we can hear everything that's going on. There will be no booing and hissing. I understand there are a lot of strong feelings, and we have a lot of young folks that are going to be here this evening, and so I really want us to set a good example for them. So I ask folks to be respectful as they're giving their comments, and keep in mind there are many things on the agenda this evening, so we have much to get through before we even get to our action items. So I will – we have no ceremonial matters this evening, so I will pass it over to our city manager to see if he has any comments. I don't have any comments tonight. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Okay. Very good. And is Mr. Alpert here? Yes. Do you want to come up, Mr. Alpert? So before we go to public comment on non-agenda matters, I'm inviting Dr. Alpert to the podium to redo his public comment from May 19th. Mr. City Clerk, if you could please put two minutes on the clock – or I guess Denise, if you wouldn't mind putting two minutes on the clock, please. Thank you. I'm Dr. Stephen Alpert. Berkeley residents have reason to be disappointed by the actions of this committee, its commissions, and council. Sorry. Folks, please. There's a lot of whispering. Council members have demonstrated pro-developer bias. Local residents and business owners were not consulted about the plans to upzone North Shattuck, Solano, or College Avenues. In fact, the council met first with developers. On February 24, this council overturned Berkeley's labor standards passed in 2023, which required developers and large projects to provide contractors with fair pay, health insurance, and funds for apprenticeship training. During a planning commission meeting last fall, over 40 attendees expressed concerns that the proposed upzoning building heights were excessive. Every commission member then stated increased heights were not a problem. Foremost, this council supports the false narrative that building market rate housing will literally produce affordable units. Real world data contradict this. A recent study by Buchholz demonstrated that even under overly optimistic conditions, an RAA, it takes over 20 years for newly built market rate housing to filter down and become affordable, whereas with historical data, it takes over 100 years. Evidently, these findings were troublesome to Council Member Humbert, who tried to discredit Buchholz to show him a composite screenshot from his website. Please note the highlighted last sentence with two underlying links. As written, it clearly implies that Buchholz has received serious and swift methodological criticism from other economists, but neither link addresses the study. Council members also say that building market rate apartments will invariably drive rents down. Housing data from nearby Emeryville refute this and the YIMBY supply-side etiology they champion. As reported in Emeryville Tatler, Emeryville went the YIMBY way. Now it has the most expensive rent in the East Bay. Building more was supposed to bring cheaper rent. What happened? Our council's fervor to build market rate housing may produce a similar outcome without addressing housing affordability. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so we will now take public comment on non-agenda matters. There are multiple seats up in the front, and if you have a seat next to you, if you could make sure to wave your hand so folks can see. There are folks, I just want to make sure everyone has a seat who wants one, especially if you are holding a small child and need a seat. There's some seats up front. Okay. All right, so if you have public comments on non-agenda matters, we have the list right here, folks. Okay, so we will have five in-person speakers for items not on the agenda, and then we will go to the first five hands raised on the Zoom. Each speaker will have one minute each. I'll take the names for the five in-person speakers, and you can come up in any order. And again, this is just for public comments for items that are not on tonight's agenda. So if your card was picked, but you are speaking on an item on the agenda, just let us know, and I'll pick a new card. Okay, the five non-agenda speakers for in-person are Kara Hauser, Juliet Leftwich, Dennis Stanton, Maria Sol, and Derek Gabbasi. You can come forward in any order. Hi. Good evening. My name is Juliet Leftwich. I'm a long-term Berkeley resident and an attorney. I served on the Berkeley Police Accountability Board and Police Review Commission for seven years. I'm speaking out tonight to express my strong objection to the incredibly aggressive new parking meter rules that were adopted by council in June. Under those rules, meters will operate until 8 o'clock and all day on Sundays. Fines will increase from $43 to $64, and new meters will be installed throughout the city, including on Hopkins Street. These rules were adopted hastily, without public input or input from small businesses, many of which are already struggling to survive. There was also no consideration of the impact on churches throughout our city. Oakland and San Francisco adopted similarly egregious parking meter rules and reversed course in response to public outcry. Our hope is that you will be equally responsive to your constituents. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else whose name was called? Thank you. Hi. John Koehner, Downtown Berkeley Association. I am so pleased to introduce— Whose time are you? What? Kara Houser. We're together. He's with me, Kara. Kara Houser. Kara starts on Monday. We're going to have two months of overlap. I retire September 30th. Kara. Hello. I just want to say hello, and I'm delighted to be here and join working with the city. I'm very happy to meet each of you who I haven't met yet, and thank you. Thank you so much. Welcome. And John, we will follow up with you later. So thank you for your service. Good evening. My name is Derek Abasi, and I'm part of a neighborhood coalition alerting this council that the developer at 1130 Oxford Street is abusing state housing laws to escape public discretionary review. Streamlined buy-right approvals are meant for small-scale, missing-middle projects that follow the letter and spirit of the law. Instead, this developer is using aggressive, bad-faith tactics to claim the city is powerless. But these laws have strict criteria. To bypass SB 1123's hard 10-unit cap and build 32 luxury homes, the developer is illegally piecemealing a lot into eight separate parcels. Furthermore, SB 1123 applies exclusively to vacant lots unless existing buildings are abandoned and uninhabitable. Legally, the buildings are neither. It also sits directly within the known landslide and high fire hazard zone and the hillside overlay. And it won't even address the housing crisis as intended, as a result will be $2 million homes with zero affordable housing. The city still retains oversight. Do not treat this as a done deal. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry, could you slide out of here? No, that's okay. It's a good thing I can almost run. I just want to mention that I'm really happy that y'all are going to get to take a little break. I'm going to miss you, but I'm very glad you might get to rest and play and do what serves you. But I want to also remind you most sincerely that most of us won't get to, which is why we're all here. Because all sorts of things matter to each and every one of us. And again, I am trying to emphasize that if we stop and breathe and remember it's not just me, it's we, we got to figure out a way to get along. Because we can't help some people and hurt others. We can do better. So I hope, again, you have a fine time. Thank you. Thanks, Maria. Okay, we'll go to the first five hands raised on Zoom. Again, this is for non-agenda public comments. First is Sharon. I think if I'm on agenda item 27, is this my time to speak or is it later? It's later, actually. We are only addressing things that are not on the agenda at this time. I'll wait until then. Thank you. Next is, this is call-in user. Should be able to unmute for non-agenda public comments. Can you hear me? Yes. My name is Gordon Anderson and I live in Modoc County. I hate homeless people. They are vermin. They are destroying our communities and destroying our small businesses. I have to go out of business because of homeless people. They're all vermin and they're all niggers trying to. Yeah. Okay. Next. Apologies, everyone. When comments are going, there are only certain times where we're able to cut them off. I apologize for that person's speech. Next is Makai Freeman. Makai, we.
Segment 2
I will call for Brent Blackaby's video feed to be minimized until he is speaking. Thank you very much. I'd be happy to minimize my video. Thank you. Thank you. I think that was our final of agenda public comments. All right, we will move on to our consent calendar, but first there is an urgent item that we need to vote on. I will pass it over to Council Member Luna Parra to introduce it. Thank you. This is an item showing our support and solidarity with the workers at the Graduate Hotel in District 7, which they will be voting to unionize with Unite Here Local 2 this Friday. So it's a resolution in support. Second. I guess I'll make a motion to accept this into the record. Thank you. And a second from Council Member Tregub. As part of the consent calendar. Yes, thank you. Any comments or questions before we vote? Okay, go ahead, Mr. City Clerk. To accept the urgent item to the consent calendar, Council Member Kesarwani. Yes. Taplin. Yes. Bartlett. Yes. Tregub. Aye. O'Keefe. Yes. Blackaby. Yes. Luna Parra. Yes. Humbert. Yes. And Mayor Ishii. Yes. Okay, motion carries. Okay, very good. Council Member Tregub, did you want to also make some comments as well before we start? Yes, thank you. I would like to see if we can move item 28, which is a referral to the city manager to update definitions in the CDMU district and review restrictions related to the establishment of adult oriented businesses in the Berkeley Municipal Code to consent for the purpose of sending it back to the Land Use Housing and Economic Development Committee. Thank you. So, Mr. City Clerk, could you just speak to it? Yes, so if there's no objection, that item can be moved to consent. Thank you. For the purposes of moving it to land use committee. Yes, that would be the action that would be recorded. No, so there are no objections. Okay, all right, then it will be so. Thank you. All right, anything else? I have comments on the consent calendar. I guess this would be the time. Great, thank you. Sorry, and folks, because we know we're going to have quite a long agenda, if I could ask that our folks keep their comments to a minimum, that would be great. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. First of all, I would like to appreciate my colleagues' collaboration on the urgency item that we just moved to consent, the resolution supporting the rights of workers at the Graduate Hotel, as well as to the mayor for item 21, which is the rescission of the greenhouse gas endangerment finding and motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards under the Clean Air Act to allow us to join AMICUS brief in opposition to that rescission. And also wanted to appreciate Council Member Bartlett's authorship of item 22, relinquishment of council office budget funds to support the citywide Berkeley School Supply Distribution and Resource Fair, and excited to sponsor all three of those items. I would like to ask that we withdraw item 23 from the consent calendar and from this agenda. Item 23 is the relinquishment of council office budget funds to the Downtown Berkeley Association in support of the Social Service Outreach Coordination position until further notice. Thank you to Council Member Humbert for sponsoring item 25. I would like to donate $150 from my discretionary funds. And last but not least, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my co-authors, to city staff, and to the many stakeholders who helped shape item 24, which is our Renaissance item, revitalizing enterprise and neighborhoods through activation, investment, safety, streamlining, accessibility, networking, collaboration, and equity, part one, performance standards for commercial district activation and blight mitigation. This is the first of several items we intend to bring to the council to help continue to make our downtown and all commercial spaces, both those specifically named in the referral and any that were not, even more vibrant and attractive for residents and visitors. I can't wait to receive our staff's recommendations back to the council for final adoption. And thanks again to everyone who so generously devoted their time and knowledge to this item. Thank you very much. Moving on to Council Member Humbert. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll try to be brief here. Item 23, no, that's dropped. I'm talking about item 22, the relinquishment of council office budget funds to support the citywide Berkeley School Supply Distribution and Resource Fair. I'd like to donate $150. Thank you. I think it's Council Member Bartlett for authoring that. And then brief comments about item 25, which is the Russell Street Halloween festivities 2026 through 2029, relinquishment of council office budget funds to General Fund and the grant of such funds. And I authored that. I know we have a long meeting ahead of us, so I will be, thank you, Eric Panzer, boo-reef. I just wanted to thank the Claremont Elmwood Neighborhood Association and all the neighbors who volunteer for this fang-tastic event each year and make it possible. I will always go to bat for neighborhood events like this that are the lifeblood of our community. And I'm pleased to be able to do this monster-sized funding item so that neighbors can keep working their magic for at least another four years. Thank you. Thank you for those very punny comments. I'm gonna go online to Council Member Blackaby, please. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll also be brief. I wanted to thank Council Member Luna Parra for bringing the urgent item on the Graduate Hotel Labor Support and for allowing me to join as a co-sponsor. I was also proud to join with Council Member Luna Parra and Council Member Buretraga on Friday to walk the picket line with workers supporting their fight to form a union. As we all know, Burke is a proud union town and we strongly stand with workers and fight for their right to self-organize. So thank you, Council Member Luna Parra for bringing the item. On item three, I just wanted to thank Council Member Taplin for making his nomination of Anae Sharma to join the Police Accountability Board. With this nomination, we have a full Police Accountability Board with an alternate. That may be the first time in history that we've actually had a full compliment plus alternate. So I just wanted to thank everyone, the mayor and all colleagues for getting the board back on full footing. On the couple of Council relinquishment items, item 22, thanks to Council Member Bartlett for bringing this. Our office would like to relinquish $200 towards the citywide Berkeley School Supply Distribution and Resource Fair. And on item 25, I don't have as many puns as Council Member Humbert, I don't have any, but we'd like to contribute $250 towards that. And with that, I'm done. Thank you. Mayor, just a brief announcement. There's a green Toyota Celica convertible that's parked outside here and it's leaking quite a bit of oil off the curb area. So an engine company is coming to investigate that. So if that's your car, please check in with the fire department staff at the front gate and just for everybody else, don't be alarmed. That's what the fire engine is here to look at. Thank you. Hi, my name is Rosalba Rodriguez. I've been working for two years at the Graduate Hotel. Me and my coworkers are organizing the union because of the excessive work that happens at that hotel. I've had to clean 18 to 22 rooms. I have proof right here. We're tired of this and we're getting together because we deserve the union and we need your help and your support. Thank you very much. Thank you. Hi, my name is Marisela Castro. I've been working at the Graduate Hotel for the past 20 years. I'm also joining the union because there's an excessive load of work at the hotel. Me and my coworkers, we deserve better and that is why we're forming the union and we would love your support. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, good afternoon. My name is Marisela Castro. I've been working at the Graduate Hotel for 18 years. I'm also joining the union because there's a lot of work that we're doing and we're coming here for the union for all my coworkers. There's a better future and a good well-being for all. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, my name is Marisela Castro. I've been working at the Graduate Hotel for the past 20 years. I'm also joining the union because there's a lot of work that we're doing and we're coming here for the union for all my coworkers. There's a better future and a good well-being for all. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, my name is Marisela Castro. I've been working at the Graduate Hotel for the past 20 years. I'm also joining the union because there's a lot of work that we're doing and we're coming here for the union for all my coworkers. There's a better future and a good well-being for all. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, my name is Marisela Castro. I've been working at the Graduate Hotel because there's an excessive load of work at the hotel. Me and my coworkers, we deserve better and that is why we're forming the union and we would love your support. Thank you. Hi, my name is Angelica Salinas Chicas. I'm here because I am asking for your support in our fight for our union. We deserve better respect and also we're deserving better treatment in the hotel and that is why I'm here standing with my coworkers. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. the share of Berkeley Food Network. As many of us know, affordability is a crisis facing so many community members, especially here in Berkeley, but we are so excited to be awarded this contract, to be working with the city to.
Segment 3
No tiempo de lonchar y un poquito tiempo de descansar. Y pues me gusta ese trabajo, lo que pasa el que está encargado sobre eso me puso un papel, yo no sabía y tuve que firmar y me dio oportunidad de algo, pero no es tanto, de algo que no hice. Y entonces me iba a despedir, pero le dije por favor que me dé oportunidad porque yo quiero ese trabajo. Gracias a Dios, yo luché por ese trabajo, gracias a Dios que encontré y estoy muy feliz en ese trabajo. No más que yo veo el gerente no tiene poquito de paciencia y la que está encargado sobre eso. Pero espero que los compañeros llevan bien conmigo porque a veces hay problemas y yo a veces cuando no me gusta esa hoja el gerente me puso muy desesperada, muy preocupada porque la verdad no quiero que me despidan porque estoy muy orgulloso de empezar ahí. Esa es mi palabra, espero que sí le dije bien porque no sé, creo que es todo. Muchísimas gracias. Thank you. I'll give you some time to maybe summarize if you can't since technically you're over time. I'm not sure what's happening with the sound, I'm sorry about that. Alright, my name is Florentina Salas, I've been working at the Graduate Hotel for the past six months. The reason why I'm fighting is because at work it's very excessive work. I was recently given a warning for not completing some work because I was not able to finish within the amount of time. I felt that that was really disrespectful and that is one of the reasons why I'm fighting for the union. I really enjoy working there and I want to continue working there but it is really the things I need to change in the hotel is the workload. Thank you. Anyone else have public comment on consent calendar information items only? Muchas gracias. Muchas gracias por venir. Okay, so now go to speakers on.. Oh, one more. Consent? Okay. I know we have so much to do but this is the general consent calendar now. What does relinquish mean when you were.. We're happy to talk about that later. We don't usually do the back and forth so if you have questions you can ask them later. I just want to remind us that there's earthquakes everywhere, fire is everywhere and we need to consider safety and response times. I'm really in support of the child resources and the police accountability and Berkeley Food Network. Oh my God, please. People are hungry. And anything to do with youth services, dogs and playgrounds. So, yeah, and then I don't understand what's going on with the social service outreach coordinator and I understand that this is an over-response but I'm really wanting us to choose wisely what we invest in. Thank you. Thanks, Maria. And relinquishment just means we're giving it from our different accounts. So, all right. Okay, so now we'll go to public comments on the consent calendar for those with their hands raised on Zoom. And the first is a caller with a phone number ending in 211. Hi, so I have a very important comment about consent item three, police accountability board. Berkeley always, through the ages, has one of the best police departments in the whole country. Second, I'd like to bring a memory of a great chief of police of Berkeley that has Dash Butler. He, we had a theft in our scientific store of embezzlement actually over a million dollars. It was great because it was written from the criminals from jail. And he appointed two policemen in front of our house in Euclid. We paid $6,000 a month which went to the city of Berkeley, not to the policemen. And we really have to look forward to saying, the other thing I'd like to remind you, please everybody walking downtown Berkeley, see how many stores are closed. You are sending all of the business to Oakland and Emeryville. Let's work together. And please give me a call, 510-848-5000. 52 years old, phone number. Thank you. I will call again. Thank you. Okay. Next is Benito. Yeah, hi, good evening. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, very good. Well, hi, good evening. My name is Benito Delgado Olson. I'm the ED of supplybank.org. Really just calling in to say thank you to all of the council members who contributed to the 16th annual resource fair and school supply distribution scheduled for August 8th at San Pablo Park. For 16 years, what began as a pilot at the former South Berkeley YMCA now serves about 1,300 BUSD students annually. And we really appreciate Council Member Bartlett as well as the mayor and Council Member Treygib and all the council members who have contributed and helped us seek funds to keep this important event going for the Berkeley community. I'm also happy to share that before all of your contributions this evening, we're at about $28,000, and our goal is $30,000. So I'm very confident that this program and event will move forward. So just thank you all so much again. Thank you so much. Okay, next is former Council Member Cheryl Davila. Wait a second. I jumped around. Hold on. Wait, all right, let's go. Hold on a second, James. We'll come to you next. Former Council Member Cheryl Davila. Yeah, so there's a lot of things on the consent calendar. I guess the Food Network is a good thing. And honestly, I don't even know what's on the consent calendar because I really didn't look at it. But I'm hoping you all do the right thing. And it's just today I was listening to my friend talk about her trip back from Palestine, and things are just so egregious over there. And you all are just sitting there not doing anything about all the things that you could be doing at this world and this country by passing a resolution in support of getting rid of apartheid in Palestine and freeing Palestine. But you're into surveillance and control and domination. But I'm praying that you all change and things change for everyone in the city of Berkeley. Thank you. Thanks, Cheryl. Next is James White. I want to say that I think the comments were pretty racist that the general woman was talking about. And as a white man, take offense to her black and brown comments. I think that's pretty distasteful. Excuse me, do you have a comment on item number 26? We're taking public comment for item 26. Yes, I do. And please don't interrupt me. I'm going to make my point, but you can't interrupt when people are making a point. The reason why we have this problem with the housing anyway is because the boomers printed money for 20 or 30 years. We should be looking fundamentally why our housing is unaffordable for our youth. And it's not a black and brown thing. It's a generational thing. The boomers sold us out to the Jews. And since then, we've been basically eating crap while we go to war for them over and over again. Again, folks, I'm very sorry for these comments. I apologize. Okay, next is Seth. Hello, people of Berkeley. I'm sorry for the disgraceful act of our previous speaker. I think it's really important that we start looking towards a rent-to-own model. We need some high-rises built here in Berkeley. We need 15-, 20-, 30-story high-rises with rent-to-own public housing. And we also need any kind of job facilities and things like that in the lower level so that people can go and get services in the same building that they live in, as well as maybe a food distribution place. So Canada's putting this to shame. We have rampant homelessness, rampant poverty, rampant crime. It's basically, I feel like I'm living in a fetid country that has completely fallen apart and is not taking care of the poorest of the poor. You judge a nation by how well it treats its poor people, and America is abysmal. We need public housing for all, and we also need rent-to-own property so that working-class families can get microloans either through the government or even through the landlord. Thank you. Next is Todd Andrew. Thank you for the chance to comment on this item. I just wanted to mention that inclusionary fees, unless they're funded as a subsidy, are generally just a tax on new housing, and I generally think we should be taxing existing housing if we want to pay for new housing rather than taxing new housing. We do want new housing, we want a lot of it as much as we can, and so as much as we can balance those fees, it makes sense. And I agree that balancing those towards multifamily versus single-family is a way to go if we're going to have those fees at all. Thank you for the comment, and I appreciate it. Thank you. We have one more commenter. We have Virginia Browning. Virginia should be able to unmute. Last call, Virginia. Let's see. Okay. Virginia, can you unmute? Let's, okay. No, it's not. I don't think she's fully connected. Okay, we'll have to move on. Sorry. Okay, I'm sorry. You can always send your comments in writing to the council at berkeleyca.gov, and council will receive your comments. Thank you very much. Okay, we're coming back to council for comments, starting with council member Humbert. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I want to thank the staff in the planning department and the city manager's office for their work on this item. I think it's a sensible approach to ensure that the very largest single family homes are as well making a contribution to our affordable housing fund.
Segment 4
In my view at least, there's very little reason for most homes to be more than 2,500 square feet and with this approach, the size of the fee will still scale with the amount by which a single family home exceeds that level, exceeds 2,500 feet. This seems to me very fair and I thank you again to all who worked on it. I'm prepared to move it forward. Thank you very much. Council Member Linnaparra, did you have comments? I just really wanted to thank staff for their work on this. I worked on the referral to get this done originally and I'm very thankful for all the work that has gone into it. Thanks. Would you perhaps like to move the item? Yeah, I'll move the item. Do we close the public hearing, Mayor? Oh, thank you, yes. I move to close the public hearing. Second. To close the public hearing on item 26, Council Member Kassarwani? Yes. Taplin? Yes. Bartlett? Yes. Shregob? Aye. O'Keefe? Yes. Blackaby? Yes. Linnaparra? Yes. Humbert? Yes, and thank you also to Council Member Linnaparra. And Mayor Ishii? Yes. Okay, public hearing is closed. Okay. I'll move the item. Second. Alright, can we take the roll on that, please? To approve the resolution amending the inclusionary housing fee, Council Member Kassarwani? Yes. Taplin? Yes. Bartlett? Yes. Shregob? Aye. Yes. O'Keefe? Yes. Blackaby? Yes. Linnaparra? Yes. Humbert? Yes, and thank you also to Council Member Linnaparra. And Mayor Ishii? Yes. Thank you. Motion carried. Thank you very much to our staff. Thank you for being here and for being available for questions and your work. Okay, great. We are moving on to item 27, which is the referral to schedule Hopkins Street for paving with enhanced safety improvements for all users. So, the way that this is going to go, since I'm guessing all of the rest of you are here for this item, is that we are going to have a presentation by the author of the item, Council Member Kessarwani, and then we will have presentations by the rest of the Council Members who have supplementals, and then we are going to take any questions from Council Members, and then we will move to public comment. As in the past, if you have a small child with you or a child with you, I will allow you to come to the head of the line so that you may take them home for dinner or bedtime, etc. And then likely at some point we will need to take a break, and we will continue to do the comments, and then we will come back to do Council comments and our votes. Okay, I think that's everything. Alright, very good. So, and one thing else I want to say, if you cannot stay and you still want to make sure that you give some kind of comment, feel free to email it to us. If you give your comment and you're thinking about maybe heading out and watching from home, please do so, so that way we can allow folks who are in the overflow room to come in and be able to give their comment. So I just ask that when you've kind of finished, if you can watch at home, that you allow others to give their comment here in person. Okay, passing it on to Council Member Kesarwani. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Madam Mayor. I want to begin by thanking Interim Public Works Director Wahid Amiri, who I know is online, and the Public Works Team, Fire Chief Sprague, and City Manager Paul Budenhagen for their work in helping us get to this point tonight. I also want to thank my co-sponsors, Mayor Adena Ishii, and Council Member Mark Humbert on this item. I also want to thank every member of the public who has engaged on this topic. My office has received more than 100 emails on Hopkins Street, and I want to say something that may surprise some people. The emails from District 1 and from across the city have actually been pretty evenly split between support and opposition. That tells me this is a genuinely contested question in our community, and I have tried to take all of those voices seriously. I want to acknowledge up front that this item does represent an unprecedented change in how the public right-of-way is used in a residential neighborhood. I do not take that lightly, but I also want to explain why I believe this action is necessary and overdue. Hopkins Street has been recommended as a low-stress east-west connector route in Berkeley's bicycle plan, and it is a documented high-injury corridor. The proposed safety treatments in this item are not arbitrary. They are directly informed by where people have been killed and severely injured on this street. A pedestrian was killed at Hopkins in Monterey in April 2017. Four cyclists suffered severe injuries on Hopkins at Carlotta, Monterey, the Alameda, and Albina between April 2016 and November 2023. A pedestrian suffered a severe injury at Hopkins in Peralta in June 2021. The median age of those killed or severely injured on this corridor is 67 and a half years old. These are our neighbors, our seniors, our community members. This is also a corridor home to King Middle School, the North Branch Library, and multiple preschools. It is a street that children walk and bike to every day. All of us deserve a safer street. To get into the details of this item, this item asks the city manager to repave Hopkins Street from Sutter Street to San Pablo Avenue with enhanced safety features for all users. Specifically, the item directs staff to design one-way Class 4 separated bikeways, that is physically protected bike lanes, on each side of Hopkins from the Alameda to Peralta Avenue, essentially the Ohlone Greenway. This configuration was considered to be the safest by our public works staff because it allows cyclists to travel in the same direction as adjacent vehicle traffic, reducing conflicts at intersections. The item also calls for Class 2 buffered green-painted bike lanes from Sutter Street to the Alameda, similar to what we have on Monterey Avenue, traffic calming features west of Peralta Avenue to Stanage Avenue, a raised intersection at Hopkins in Monterey, California for pedestrian safety, bus boarding islands at AC transit stops, and a comprehensive curb management plan to address parking, loading zones, ADA spaces, and waste collection needs. Critically, the item also requires outreach to businesses, schools, houses of worship, and residents as staff develop the detailed engineering design if this item is approved tonight, because we want that design to be responsive to the operational needs of everyone along this corridor. I also want to note that three years ago, fire department concerns were among the reasons this project was paused. At the April meeting of the Facilities, Infrastructure, Transportation, Environment, and Sustainability Council Policy Committee, Fire Chief Sprague's department confirmed that bike safety infrastructure on Hopkins retains workable emergency access. That is a significant development that made this item possible. Finally, the pavement condition of Hopkins Street is unacceptable. Two segments are rated failed. Eight more are rated poor. This street has been waiting for repaving for years, and it is critical, I think, that the council provide direction tonight so that our public works staff can move forward. The time to act is now, while Hopkins is already scheduled for repaving in fiscal year 2028. I look forward to hearing from the public tonight, and I look forward to the discussion with my colleagues. Before I fully wrap up, I would like to share screen and just show a couple of really minor amendments. Sure, and just so you know, you're on here twice if you want to. Oh, I'm on twice. If you want to turn off your video on your computer. Okay, but I'm going to need that to share, right? You don't need to have your video on if you want to just do that. Oh, okay, I see that. Let's just do that. Okay, well, I'd like to be... Just in case. It's up to you. Okay, I'm going to make this bigger. I think this is the right version. So, okay, so I understand there was a lot of, I think, reasonable fear about this bullet related to removal of trees, and I just want to be clear, I think one of the most beautiful aspects of Hopkins Street is the tree canopy from McGee to the Alameda, and I and my co-sponsors, I don't think Councilmember O'Keefe, none of us ever had an intention of destroying that, and so I was thinking of a different tree, which is also a problem. So in any case, we just want to make .
Segment 5
attending birthday parties, running on the track, dropping off kids at soccer practice, going to church, attending school, and so much more. These represent people of all ages, from kids to seniors, using all modes of transport, driving, walking, biking, folks who are disabled, and those who aren't. Lots of people visit Hopkins, including 20,000 or more Berkeley residents who live in the 1,700 foot high Berkeley Hills that starts just steps away from the eastern end of Hopkins. Most of those folks can't just bike home, don't have access to reliable public transportation, and must drive to and from Hopkins, many of whom have been in fact doing this for decades. Many of these people are my constituents. Some of them are Council Member O'Keefe's and others, and these people would be negatively impacted by the significant parking loss in the item that we're considering tonight. So given the complexity of the current situation and all of the equities we're trying to balance, I respectfully suggest that Council would be well served to seriously consider multiple options before settling on one. My item simply would refer to staff the development of two alternatives for consideration. One is the current plan put forth by Council Member Kesarwani, centered around the Class 4 protected bike lanes along most of Hopkins that would eliminate more than half the parking spots in the corridor, 145 at our last estimate. And the second direction would be an alternative plan that retains parking for as many residents as possible who travel to and from Hopkins by car, while expanding the potential solution space just a bit to think not just about Hopkins, but also Hopkins, Ada, and Rose Streets together as potential pathways for bicycle infrastructure. After all, we're really talking about trying to do several things all at once here. We're trying to figure out how to keep and expand access to Hopkins for all Berkeley residents, how to maintain the vibrancy of the businesses and community spaces there, how to improve safety for all in this corridor, how to connect North Berkeley and West Berkeley for bicyclists, and how to do all of this as cost effectively as possible. Respectfully, I think we would be better able to evaluate whether a protected bike lane all the way from the Alameda to Gilman along Hopkins is the right solution if we look at it side by side with the best possible alternative. This is not an easy puzzle to solve, but we do have a very capable and accomplished public works staff that is well equipped to help us solve it. And I think we should give them a chance. I think we can all probably attest to interim public works director Wahida Mirian and his team and are looking forward to the leadership of incoming director Jamie Parks. I will say that Council Member O'Keefe and I have watched them plan and implement an effective traffic calming project all along Marin Avenue from the circle to the top of the hill. Working with the fire department, they've cleared sight lines, they've slowed traffic up and down the hill. Having reviewed the results to date, they're looking further to improve safety. They're now in the process of converting four three-way stops into four-way stops. Knocking on a giant amount of wood, they've seriously improved safety all along Marin Avenue with no serious incidents since implementation. So let's give Jamie and Wahid and our public works team a chance. Let's also try to find a way to bring our community together around a solution here, bring down the temperature a bit, improve safety for everyone, strengthen the vitality of this treasured neighborhood, and do it cost effectively. Let me just say I have the utmost respect for all of the advocates of the plan and Council Member Kesarwani's item. These people, I know many of them, they have the best interests of our community at heart. I respect their advocacy so much. Safety for all users of our streets is one of the top priorities in our city. But as city council members, our job is to balance all the interests and equities at play here. While many bicyclists support protected bike lanes, we've heard from many others who don't. There's clearly not only one right way to do this. I think development of a second balanced alternative will give us the best chance to hold the two plans up against each other and ultimately make the best decision either way by having fully considered all the options presented by staff. So very briefly, I'll share my screen with the language from the supplemental, which is here. It's basically just an amendment like Council Member O'Keefe's was an amendment to Council Member Kesarwani's item, which basically moves that we do want to move forward with the repaving. We want to refer to staff the development of two alternate plans for repaving Hopkins enhanced safety through the Hopkins-Ada-Rose corridor. We do need BFD to review and approve both plans as the prior BFD approval refers to two previous options. The alternative on the table tonight has not been approved by BFD. We need to coordinate with AC Transit on bus stops and traffic calming measures. And as Council Member O'Keefe indicated, this request and the resulting plans would supersede the conceptual design approved by Council in 2022. Then we'd ask staff to return to Council for final direction before developing the detailed engineering plan. So again, alternative one is as current. Alternative two, as I've laid it out, would ask for staff to have time to give maximum flexibility to develop a balanced comprehensive plan for the corridor, minimize parking loss, and the key principles here is consider implementation of class two or class four bike lanes only where parking loss is less than 15%, expedite the study and implementation of safety enhancements on Rosen or Ada as part of a more comprehensive plan. I think there are multiple ways to get bicycles in and out of this area that don't just rely on Hopkins, pedestrian safety, slowing vehicle speeds by using traffic calming, curb management plan to manage parking, and so on. So that's the item is to add the ask for basically the second plan. So in closing, let me just say the question to me is not whether or not we support bicycle and pedestrian safety as a city because we do. In fact, we've approved and implemented safety projects all across Berkeley. The question is, what is the appropriate treatment for this particular corridor, given its many users and uses? And I think we could benefit from more staff input before we make such a momentous decision. I'll add that given that any Hopkins project is likely a multi-year effort, as Council Member O'Keefe suggested, I'd also support a plan tonight that begins paving on segments where we can reach agreement right away. And I think there might be some where we could do that. So we could begin the paving process and then focus staff's attention on preparing an alternative for consideration addresses the remaining street segments, especially in that narrow area in the Hopkins commercial district. So thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Did you have a question, Council Member Tregub? I have questions whenever there's time. OK. So I think everyone has now presented their supplemental and the original item. So we are moving on to questions. Go ahead. Thank you, Madam Mayor. This first set of questions is for staff, I believe. Is staff available to answer questions? Staff's available. Everybody's online. Great. All right. Thank you so much. I want to better understand how these proposals align with the recently adopted 2026 bike plan and other relevant planning documents. Do I understand correctly that Hopkins from Sutter to Monterey is designated as class 2 bicycle infrastructure and from Monterey to Gilman as class 3? Sorry, who were you asking this question to? This is for staff. For staff. We have our interim director of public works, Wahid Amiri, who can field that. Yeah. Good evening, Mayor, council members. Wahid Amiri, the interim director of public works. I also have staff available with me. Mark Helmbrecht, our transportation manager, will field that question. The specific there about the bike plan. The bike plans identified as a complete streets corridor study. And the actual designations there, I'm going through the bike plan to get to the underlying information. Give me a minute. It's going to take me a few. While he's looking, can I just ask Council Member Tregup, how many questions do you have? I have five minutes worth of questions. I have more questions probably, but I'm limiting them to within the five minute allotment. Okay. Can I maybe ask fire a question in the meantime? Yeah. Great. What is the fire department's position on the various alternatives before us? And are you at this point able to say that you're comfortable with the range of options being considered? So fire has reviewed and approved the traffic calming features in the Hopkins alternative one and two that were presented to fights. We also generally have confirmed that lane widths that we understand in this new alternative that are either 11 or 10 and a half feet are acceptable. However, for the new proposed configuration that you're discussing tonight, we have not, there is not a design yet. So we have not seen that. We have not reviewed it. And we would need a complete design set from public works. Once that's available, we can evaluate. Spokes please don't, sorry, go ahead. Analyze potential impacts to evacuation times and confirm that design maintains workable access for day-to-day fire and medical emergencies. Does that answer your question, council member? Yes, thank you. For Mark, are you ready? Yeah, it does call for a complete streets corridor study. And from looking at it, let's get it up from Monterey to Sutter. It is bike lane class two is the underlying to the figure. And from Monterey to Gilman, the underlying is bike route class three, but the whole thing is recommended to look at and study class four cycle tracks. Okay, thank you. So I did notice that Hopkins was not identified in the plan Bay Area 2050 plus as either a priority development area corridor for cycle track or as an equity priority community. And that.
Segment 6
by those injury classifications and how they're determined. Good question. Mark and I were looking at this a few minutes ago, so I'll hand it over to him. He'll discuss. There we go. Those are determined by Berkeley Police Department. So as part of their crash analysis and doing police reports associated with crashes, they characterize the results of those crashes, and they get loaded up into SWITRS and then end up on the Berkeley Police Transparency Hub. Okay. I think those are all my questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. Vice Mayor O'Keefe? How did I become next? Thank you. Did you have questions? Yeah, of course. Just a couple. Thank you so much, all of you, for being here. A couple of them were already asked by Council Member Tregub, so I appreciate that. For Interim Director Amiri, have you consulted the Zero Waste Department, and are there any concerns regarding how a garbage truck might access the plan that Council Member Kessler wanted? Yes, we have. As part of the assessment, I did touch base with our Zero Waste leadership, and with the separated cycle track, we envision that we'll have ten and a half, or at some locations with wider curb allowance, we'll have 11 feet travel lanes. As I've said before, it allows us for vehicles for throughput. Again, sometimes calculated depending on if it's a bus next to a Zero Waste vehicle or a fire truck, so it will have to be calculated movement. But operationally, there are challenges. Throughput is one thing, but to be able to use our vehicles in our operation, we do need to look at that in a deeper fashion during detail design. So we know there are going to be challenges, but the specific challenges haven't been identified. All we know is that there will be operational challenges. So just to make sure I understand you, are you saying that there could be challenges if a bus happened to come in one direction while the garbage truck was on the street? Given the lane dimension, they would have to maneuver in a calculated manner just to make sure that there's no issue. So again, we do feel it's safer, ten and a half feet to some areas of 11 feet wide is much safer than the original 10 that we were seeing flying around the community in some designs. But nevertheless, some chassis and some of the larger vehicles with the side mirrors, they go a little bit above and beyond 10 feet. So yes, depending on the driver, the skill sets, the environment, it will require some level of calculations maneuvering past each other. Great. Thank you very much. And I wanted to say, Director Amiri, that I know, I understand it's really, we're going to ask you a lot of really detailed questions, and I just want to say, just to acknowledge for you and for the public, that they have not done detailed design drawings, and so it is very difficult to answer these questions. And so I just want to say I really appreciate you doing your best to give us the information that you can, but I understand that it's hard until you've done the detailed drawings that you cannot do until we give you direction. So I appreciate you working with us. So next question, has there been any sort of parking study or analysis of how the parking loss might affect the merchants or access to the facilities at the park? We have not done that assessment. That will be part of the curbside management assessment and outreach that hopefully will be part of whatever option council directs us to pursue. But we have conducted visual, conceptual, based on site visits, just to, again, get a better understanding between the one-sided, southside, dual cycle track compared to separated cycle track, what that means. And between the two, given the framework that protected bike lanes is the driving criteria, what design would save the most curbside parking. That we have done on a conceptual level, but to your question, council member, we have not done any detailed walking, talking, and actual simulation or any engineering assessment for anything further. That will be part of it. Once we get direction, then absolutely, we will go through the motions. Of course. Yeah, thank you. But you just wanted to clarify, you don't have that, and this isn't a criticism, just trying to understand what we know and what we don't know. You don't yet know how the parking loss, you know what the parking loss would be approximately, but you don't know how it would affect the area. Is that correct? Because we have not done outreach to any of the businesses. Again, our assessment and high-level conceptual feedback was just based on eyeballing it, making some measurements, because we had a lot of requests, and we were doing our best to be able to give some conceptual feedback in a timely manner. Yeah, you're doing your best. I understand. Once again, it's not a criticism that you don't have it. I understand, I understand. Yeah. So thank you very much. Changing topics a little bit, regarding, you know, I mentioned Bicycle Boulevards in my presentation. Could you say just, you know, in a most general sense, what types of, if you were to develop Rose as a Bicycle Boulevard, what types of interventions would that typically entail? I'm not asking for a recommendation officially, just what would it look like? In terms, and I'll defer this to our Bicycle Guru, Mark Helmbrick, but in terms of Bicycle Boulevard or protected bike lanes, that will drive how we answer the question, Council Member. I guess I'm wondering if you were to follow the direction in my supplemental, which says go forward with the recommendation in the bike plan to turn Rose into a Bicycle Boulevard, what would that look like on a general high level? Sure, I'll hand it over to Mark, but just in general, obviously we'll look at vertical deflection for traffic calming. I'm sorry, what is vertical deflection? Our speed cushions, that is part of our toolbox now, which again, it's spaced out, and we've done some live test runs with our colleagues at the Fire Department to make sure it's more friendlier to the fire engines and EC Transit, and then from there, we'll also lower the speed limits. There's other traffic calming measures that we have in our toolbox that we would implement along the corridor to make sure that it qualifies and the conditions for a successful Bicycle Boulevard is present. With that, I'm going to also hand it to Mark to give you the numbers. That's exactly right, Waheed. The other thing is the current volume on Rose is above the volume that we try to achieve on Bicycle Boulevard, so we would likely have diverters, at least one, somewhere along Rose to lower the total volume of traffic along Rose. Like Waheed was saying, we need to bring the speeds down slightly, and then we'd be looking at options under AB 43 to potentially lower the speed limit. Great, so slower traffic and a lot less of it. Great, thank you. That is the goal. Yes, always. What is, and I'm asking you this question because I believe you've already done this calculation, otherwise I wouldn't put you on the spot with this, but what is the approximate, and once again, I know that your cost, you can say your disclaimer if you need to, but I know your cost estimates are very, very general and your best guess, and they could change, so I do understand that, but given that, what is the approximate cost differential between my supplemental, which just has a class 2 painted bike lane from Sutter to McGee and then Sharrows from McGee to San Pablo, versus Kessler-Winey's item? What is the cost differential there? Right off the top of my head, it'll be close to 5, 5-6 million between the two, and that again is for this concrete separation and some other misalignment, and again, between both of those, I'm taking out the placemaking element as well as part of that. The GI is consistent no matter, GI meaning the green infrastructure needs is consistent and is mandatory no matter what alternative council directs us to pursue. Right, it's a matter of state law, is that correct? Yes, it's per our permit and that's something that is a mandatory. It is good for the environment, so we don't have to be so sad about it, but it is expensive. Expensive but good. Yes, great. Councilmember, can I just ask how many more questions you have? I know there are many children and I'd like to get to their comments. Two. Okay. And I appreciate your indulgence because this is, as you know, this is my district, so I do actually have more questions, but I've chosen just these ones. So, second to last question, do you have any data on bike usage around the city or specifically in this area? Does Public Works keep track of that? We have some data from 2022 that Mark analyzed, so I'm going to hand it over to him. I believe our consultant at the time analyzed an intersection for bicyclists, vehicles, and also pedestrians. So, with that, I'm going to hand it to Mark to give you the numbers. The 2022 analysis included traffic counts and pedestrian counts and bicycle counts at Monterey and Hopkins performed by the consultant Parametrics. And at that time, they took both weekday and weekend counts. They had a Tuesday, Thursday, and a Saturday count. Smooshing those kind of numbers together, roughly the numbers were, and these were 12-hour counts, so 7 a.m. in the morning until 7 o'clock at night, roughly 300 bicyclists a day, roughly 3,000 pedestrians a day during those 12-hour periods, and 8,500 vehicles during that period. So, those were the gross numbers, kind of like synopsis. Other than that, there's older counts down at Sacramento that had average daily traffic around 8,500, so fairly.
Segment 7
school before I'm ready for it. I've spoken in support of Hopkins safety improvements in the past, and now it's more important to me than ever before. Hopkins is a direct route for students to get to middle school. I appreciate all the work that's gone into these proposals and supplementals, but I want to stress that sharrows and bypass routes like Rose are steep climbs and cannot be made safe. They do not protect our most vulnerable road users. It's disingenuous to say that Rose Street is a real alternative. It cannot be made safe for children without physically separated infrastructure and removal of parking. Please quote unquote save Hopkins by taking sensible action to prevent further injury and death. Do not let children trying to get to school become a statistic because you voted to prioritize parking over truly safe improvements. Thanks so much. Nice catch, Liza. Hi, my name is Sonia Trouse. Hopkins Street is more than 30 feet wide. There's enough room for parking and a bike lane and one lane of car traffic. People going the other direction make it one way. People going other direction can go on Rose Street. That's a street. I know that people don't want like a new different plan, but I think the most realistic plan is something that gives everybody what they want, right? You're hearing a lot of like we need parking. We need a bike lane. There is room for both. And going forward, we should be replacing car, moving cars with moving bikes. Nobody ever got hit by a parked car. The parked cars are not the problem. It's moving cars. So we say our budget is an expression of our values. Our road budget is also an expression of our values. We want people to be going in bikes, not going in cars. Take lanes away from moving cars. Give those lanes to moving bikes. We could even wind up with more parking. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Hello, my name is Oscar. I am 15 years old, going into sophomore year at Berkeley High. And I just wanted to come up here to say a couple words. First of all, I've been biking to school since sixth grade. I went to Longfellow. But something I wanted to say was that there's many bike lanes in Berkeley, but a lot of them are just next to parking spots. And something I've always grown up learning and being aware of is that someone can open the door and you could get hit by the car door. This has happened to me like two to three times. And yeah. That's okay. Did you need more time? Okay, thank you. So, my name is Finn. I go to Ruth Acty Elementary. And oftentimes, me and my friends after school walk to like rocks or coals or something. And it would be nice if we could bike there because it would make it a lot faster and a lot easier to get there. But since there's no bike lanes, we can't really do that. And like a lot of people have gotten injured while they're biking or died because they were biking and there's not a bike path and a car comes and hits them. And that seems bad. Okay. Do we miss any children? I don't see any. Okay. I think we had those who were outside come in as well. All right. So, we are going to take a 10, actually let's make it a, we're going to take a 15 minute break and we're going to come back and do questions from the council members. Thanks everyone. Recording stopped. Recording in progress. Okay. If you can hear me, clap once. If you can hear me, clap twice. If you can hear me, clap three times. Okay. Everyone, please take your seats. Please finish your conversations or take them outside. Thank you so much. Okay. Thank you very much for your patience. We are going to go back to council member questions with council member Blackaby. Great. Thank you. Hopefully we won't take the full five minutes. Is Chief Sprague still on? Yes. Chief, so just to re-up on the fire review part. So, on the segment of, again in the current plan where the cycle track might be on both sides of the street, if you've got amenities like King Pool, King Track, schools, libraries, all that kind of stuff, what happens with loading zones in those areas? How does that work in conjunction with car traffic, with the protected bike lanes? How do we accommodate all that? So, it depends if there's, in these areas or blocks that have 36 feet curb to curb, obviously, if we have to implement protected bicycle lanes, it removes the curbside parking. But there's other areas, this corridor changes roadway width three, four times. And areas that are 41 feet, which is, again, in the McGee area, in the Monterey, we can, depending on what directions we get from council, we can look at what that means as far as protected bike lanes and travel lanes. Getting to the wider sections, we can design one side, and that's in segments that are about 45 to 46 feet in width. We can permit one side, again, floating with protected bike lanes. But to your point, Council Member, for loading needs, et cetera, we would have to look at side streets as well, too. When we were out there a couple of times, we did observe that the Monterey Market has a few really large delivery vehicles that belong to them that is already parked on the side streets. So, given that once we restrict or remove parking, and we're able to only allow floating parking at specific segments that we have the geometry to allow it safely, parking becomes scarce, right? So, we have to take into account near King Pool, there's already ADA stalls, and we have actually one or two more that have been requested a while back that we'll need to implement. So, that itself requires wider buffer to meet ADA requirements and additional curb cuts depending on where the layout of that specific ADA stall is implemented. So, to your question, we would really have to look hard and be strategic as far as side streets. And that, again, as part of the curbside management plan, we'll also look at metering to make sure that we have sufficient turnaround for businesses and so forth. So, again, all of that will be taken into account once we get direction and we implement the curbside management plan. Perfect. So, I'm thinking beyond even the commercial piece, the pool, tennis courts, birthday parties in the park, all of the Saturday-Sunday traffic with soccer and sporting events and stuff at the park, with no parking, it's like you're going to have even more loading unloading, I think, than you do now. Because right now, parents come and park and whatever, leave their kid or do their stuff. Now, if we're removing or reducing parking, we're going to have, anyway, that just, to me, feels like an issue that we're going to have to think through a lot. And there's parts of that long block along King Pool, there are not side streets, right? It's like you have a long extended block. Sorry, can you keep to your questions, please, just so we can move on to our public comment, if you have more questions. Since you're making some statements right now, so I'm asking if you can keep that to the comment period. Okay. I was asking for feedback on whether or not that, how will we accommodate that? We would have to try to look at side streets, Council Member. To your point, yes, towards the King Pool area, again, as I mentioned, there's already two to three ADA stalls that are going in there. Space is going to be limited, so our only option is to look at the side streets once we get into curbside management and outreach to discuss the business needs and frequencies and so forth. Last, the parking piece, I think we've received an update from staff, I just want to make sure this is still accurate. Roughly 274 or so spaces along the whole Hopkins Strip parking slots currently, and in the current plan we'd be losing about 145 of those. Again, it's order of magnitude, it's not perfect, as Council Member O'Keefe said, we know you haven't done the detailed work, but that feels, that's about a little more than half of the parking sort of goes away with this plan. Order of magnitude. And that's not taking it to standage. If we're going to standage, based on the supplement I heard earlier, that adds another 47, just to be clear. Okay, so maybe it goes from 145 to 190, 192, something, thank you. Council Member O'Keefe, if we go with your plan on the cycle to extension to McGee and Sharrows, what is your understanding, and this could be back to Public Works as well, what's your understanding of parking impact if we do Class 2 instead of Class 4 along that longer stretch to McGee, and then do Sharrows or again something else from McGee to Gilman? What happens to parking in those areas? I definitely want to let Public Works answer, but I will say, I actually, so I asked for a Class 2 bike lane, which is just a painted lane. We actually have that already, it's just hard to read the paint because it's rubble. But I don't believe it's buffered, and once again I really want to defer to Public Works to explain this. I think I left the word buffered in on my item, and I believe there's not room for a buffer between the bike lane and the traffic lane. So assuming there's no buffer, which is my intent, I believe we could keep all of the parking. But I want to hear from Public Works. Thank you for the question. We would have to take a look at it, Council Member, but just in general, as you mentioned, there are segments that have already Class 2. We can bring a higher visibility, whether that's the.
Segment 8
as is, and versus an alternative, like the Rose Street alternative. I would need some time to take a look at that, Council Member. There's a lot of moving pieces, elements. We can get back to you with some sort of a rough order of magnitude or planning purposes cost. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Excuse me, Council Member Humber. Thank you, Madam Mayor. And I'm going to try to keep my questions fairly, they're going to be fairly consistent, and they're going to be in the nature of, they're going to ask for yes or no answers to help to keep us on track here, maybe in the nature of cross-examination, but I don't want to say that. Is maybe an option? Well, possibly. The first one is, can staff please confirm that a cycle track is shown as the envisioned network improvement for Hopkins Street in Figure 2, Low Stress Bikeway Network Vision of the Berkeley Bicycle Plan? Can you confirm that? Mark is looking that up right now. Mark Helmbrick. Yeah. You're on mute. And if he can't find it, I can represent that that's the case. It's shown on the Low Stress Bikeway Network Vision as a study cycle track and as a primary transit route. Yeah. Okay, thank you. Can staff please confirm that a cycle track is shown as the recommended network improvement for Hopkins Street in Figure 3, Recommended Network Improvements of the Berkeley Bicycle Plan? It's consistent there. Yes, it calls for a cycle track study and a complete street corridor study as a primary transit route. Okay, and this is maybe for planning staff. I'm not sure. Maybe for the city manager. Does the plan bay area discuss Berkeley's bicycle network at the individual project level? I'll suggest that it doesn't, and that's kind of a follow up to Council Member Trigub's question. Does plan bay area discuss Berkeley's bicycle network at the individual project level? I don't believe it does, but we'll have to double check. Pardon? I do not believe it does, but I'll have to check. Thank you. Here's another one. Is it correct that the Berkeley Climate Action Plan includes as a strategy, and this is a quote, accelerate implementation of the city's bicycle and pedestrian plans and continue efforts to make walking and cycling safe, healthy, and enjoyable alternatives to driving, end quote? Yes. Okay, thank you, city manager. Is it also correct that the Berkeley Climate Action Plan includes a strategy that reads, quote, manage parking effectively to minimize driving demand and encourage and support alternatives to driving? We'll have to double check, but assume yes. I'll represent that it does. Is it correct that the city of Berkeley has an adopted and still enforced climate emergency declaration that reads in part, quote, the city of Berkeley endorses a just citywide emergency mobilization effort to end citywide greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible? Yes, yes. Okay, thank you. Is it correct that the Complete Streets Policy adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in 2022 includes the following language, quote, safety shall be prioritized for all modes, especially the safety of vulnerable road users. That includes people biking, walking, and rolling. The safety of vulnerable roadway users should not be compromised to achieve improved level of service for people driving personal automobiles, end quote? We'll have to check, but assume yes. Yeah, I'll represent that that's correct. Council Member, I'm sorry, how many more questions do you have? Just a couple more, Madam Mayor. Okay, all right. But actually, just one, are staff aware of any adopted city policy or plans or policies that explicitly prioritize the provision or convenience of non-disabled car parking over pedestrian and bicycle safety, alternative transportation forms, or climate action? No, we're not, Council Member. Thank you, those are my questions. Okay, thank you. Thank you, everyone. All right, so earlier I was saying that I wanted to limit the comments to three hours, two hours in person, one hour online. We've already used some of that time. We did miss a child, so thank you for being first. But we actually need to vote on that. So I would like to make a motion to suspend the rules and allow us to limit public comment to three hours, two hours in person, one hour online. Thank you. Can we take the roll on that, please? Okay, on the motion, Council Member Kessarwani. Yes. Taplin. Yes. Bartlett. Yes. Frega. Aye. O'Keefe. I'm going to vote yes, but I'd like to make a comment afterwards, if that's okay. Yes. Blackaby. Yes. Luna Parra. Yes. Humbert. Yes. And Mary Ishii. Yes. Okay, motion carries. I was also told that there might be another child that's outside that also would like to speak. Is it this person here? Okay. All right, if there are any other children that were missed, please feel free to come to the front. I'm going to start over here with this. Mayor, Mayor. No, I think we should keep your comment for the comment period because I really want to let everyone give their comments. Go ahead. Please, come on up. Go ahead. Hello. Thank you for taking the time to hear us out, board members. Contrary to Miss Kisarwar's statement, it is not genuinely contested about the cycle lane. We had voted this on for Measure Double F and we voted this down. The people of Berkeley have already voted and decided we do not want to have this public endangerment project enforced on us. I live on the 1600 block of Hopkins. I've been there for 30 years. My family has been in the neighborhood for 80. We definitely want to help bicyclists, but the problem is we need to paint standard shoulder bike lanes on Rose and Hopkins and Sacramento and pave the road. We've waited 10 years. We've had two water main breaks and Bike Walk Berkeley is holding our basic infrastructure projects hostage. Parents and children running stop signs on bicycles is a child endangerment and must be ticketed as well as stop signs and red light runners. San Francisco makes millions of dollars in tickets each year. It is child endangerment. People who... Thank you. Thanks for your comment. Okay. Come on up. Hello. My name is Thea and I'm an upcoming freshman at Berkeley High. I'm a member of the Youth Commission, but I'm speaking as an individual. As a young person, I know that many of my friends and peers bike all throughout Berkeley and Hopkins Street is a really popular place for kids my age because of its proximity to King Middle School and its various restaurants and shops. Kids my age don't have driver's license or cars and a lot of people bike or use public transportation to get around. If you've like seen the bike racks at Berkeley High School, they're always packed. And my friends have told me horror stories about how like stressful and unsafe it feels to bike on Hopkins. Young people want to be able to travel safely and that's why we want protected bike lanes on Hopkins. We deserve streets that make biking safer for everyone, especially the youth in Berkeley. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Okay. Whoever's next, come on up. I have somebody seeding time. Okay. So you'll have two minutes. Okay. And so folks, if you have someone who's seeding you time, if you could just organize them so that we can move along as quickly as possible, that would be great. Go ahead. Okay. Good evening. I have two questions. Who won the 2020 election? Second question, who signed off on fire safety issues for one-way class four separated bikeways on Hopkins that you are now proposing? The answer is Biden won the election and no one from the fire department signed off. No one. Fire Chief Sprague sent me the letter, which I sent to you yesterday in which I've distributed at this meeting, and I'd like you to read along with me. Despite what Kessarwani's assurance that the fire department signed off, Sprague unequivocally states that he did not. He writes, it is also important to distinguish what the fire department has and has not approved. The newly proposed configuration involving one-way protected bicycle lanes on both sides of Hopkins is a different design and the fire department has not reviewed that configuration. The council sponsors are lying to us. The lie is on page seven, updated review by fire department. Approval has not been given. I listened to the entire two-hour audio of the Fights meeting that's referred to as when the sign-off took place, and at minute 40, Member Humbert questions Sprague hypothetically on the emergency response with bike lanes. He says, Sprague says, it feels risky to me. I don't know that it's not an option, but it doesn't feel super safe for my, and then Humbert interrupts him. Do you hear that? It feels risky to me. I don't know that it's not an option, but it doesn't feel safe. Council, I am asking you to drop this item. City manager and attorney investigate how this deception and unauthorized proposal came before us tonight. Thank you. When you're, yeah, please come on up, whoever's next. As soon as that person's done, yeah, just come on up. My name is Helen Walsh, speaking today as an individual resident. Accessibility of public right-of-way is a Title II civil rights requirement. It cannot be treated as secondary to any transportation mode. The three supplementums for Item 27 highlight different priorities, but none provide the accessibility structure that Title II requires. What is still missing is a full accessibility analysis of ADA parking displacement, loading access,.
Segment 9
So, I don't want bus lanes. They're dangerous. Or, I'm sorry, bike columns. I don't want barriers. They're dangerous. And losing parking is not something that's just about losing parking. If we lose parking, we have people driving out of their driveways. And the cameras that we now have on our cars don't show you who's coming. They show you who you're about to hit. So, please don't think it's just indulging wealthy people by not being able to park on the street. Tonight, I encourage you to go forward to reschedule paving as agreed to in February and to reject item 20. Thank you. Thanks for your comments. I'm sorry, you got your extra minute, so your time is up. Thank you. Could I have a minute? Thank you. Okay. Pave now with appropriate improvements. Every year of delay means more crack pavement, more potholes, more accidents, and a bigger repair bill for the city down the road. We can't wait another decade. We must decouple the repair of Hopkins and safe bicycle infrastructure. Move for general safety now. Continue working towards a bike plan that suits the scale and culture of our neighborhood. With regard to the development of bike lanes, I encourage more time. A quote from our mayor. A quote from the mayor is, take a step back, breathe, rest your mind, and come with a fresh perspective. I thank you for that. I really do, mayor. And I thank you for your time. Thank you. I'm so sorry, but if you've given your minute, you can't speak. So thank you. Mr. City Clerk, can you please confirm? That's been our practice. Thank you. Thank you, city council. You probably know me. My name is Derek Rodriguez. Today I'm speaking on behalf of Cal Berkeley Democrats. In supporting improvements along Hopkins that would protect the safety of our residents. That, I believe, is the true lens through which this decision should be made. It should be paramount to address pedestrian safety concerns. It is unfortunate if said concerns are only addressed after someone is injured, fatally or otherwise. It is with this in mind that I also advocate for bike lanes. And to address those concerned with business and living arrangements surrounding parking, I say to the city, let the community be involved in the planning process. If we can decide how to integrate greater bike lanes while still maintaining accessibility to people's housing and local businesses, I say we should listen to our community and funnel our concerns from either side to the benefit of everyone. We shouldn't let this spill into partisanship. Let's create a solution with the people's approval and allow us to take part in the planning process. Thank you. I'm Veronique Fuchs, former vice mayor of Berkeley. What I'm concerned about is that we're in a culture war. And it's very, very, very painful to see people on both sides fighting the way it's been going on. Tonight, there's one point of agreement, and that is that Hopkins Street needs to be repaved. You don't have complete information about anything else, and you've heard that the fire chief has not signed off on this. I will tell you something that someone said to me the other day. I was talking, standing next to a cyclist, and I said, have you heard about what's going on on Hopkins Street? And he said, oh, yes. And I said, well, what do you think about it? He said, well, I think we should have bike lanes. And I said, have you thought about all the other people in the community who may need other ways to go? And he looked at me, and he said, you want to hear what he said to me? He said, you won't be around. You will not be here to know the difference. That's culture war. I will not be here to know the difference. And I tell you, I had everything I could do but to raise my hand to that young man. Thank you very much. Before I close, I have three extra minutes for the audience. Thank you. Hi, my name is Moni Gangapathe. I am a candidate for city council in District 1, and I'm a West Berkeley resident. We all want the same things, believe it or not. We want safety. We want accessibility. And we want to be able to participate in this clean transportation future. Council Member Blackaby's supplemental proposal in this item is the most safe, fair, sensible, and environmentally sustainable plan. I am an able-bodied biker and a driver. However, I could not in good conscience support a plan that serves a small number of able-bodied people like myself while reducing accessibility for elders, people with small children, people with disabilities, and people who can't afford thousands of dollars to buy an e-bike, the kind of e-bike that's required to carry small children uphill. Remember, I'm from West Berkeley. A clean transportation future should include clean transportation options for all. The main proposal fails to do that. Furthermore, we need to be able to identify the problem and then address it at its source. What's the problem? A lack of safety. What is the source of that problem? Unsafe driving. All the infrastructure in the world will not address this behavioral issue. As a biker, I have seen cars parked in the protected bike lanes on Novia, which I support the protected bike lanes. I've also seen a car cut off a cyclist to turn onto that cycle track. We need to raise awareness and enforce traffic rules, which is not happening on Hopkins. Furthermore, the main plan will result in environmental harms resulting from increased car traffic, traffic jams encircling around Hopkins, thereby increasing our city's greenhouse gas emissions. City Council, I ask you, are you somebody who is disabled? Elderly? Or do you have children? Are you not able to afford e-bikes to bring your families along? Do you have kiddos like me who use King Pool and play sports on King Field while, I don't have a newborn, while nursing a newborn or bringing your parents along to watch their grandchildren play? If not, I urge you to adopt a Mamdani level of compassion on this issue. Pave Hopkins now, be cost effective with the funds that would have been allocated to the cycle track, and repave and maintain the long list of bicycle streets that need attention across Berkeley. And three, adopt the most humane and sensible plan in this item, which is Councilmember Blaccabee's plan. And thank you also to Councilmember O'Keefe. I appreciate you, I appreciate this work, and thank you for allowing me to speak. I have minutes being seated by Laura Parsons, Lisa Oglesby, and Marilyn Simons. Right there. I'm just going to read this because otherwise I will flub up and waste time. The fight over Hopkins Street has been long and hard fought, and it has taken its toll on the community. Distrust in city government is at or near an all-time high, and general community dissatisfaction continues to grow. I read in a recent Chronicle article that Ben Gerhard Stein of Walk Bike Berkeley reported the organization finally had enough political juice to push the cycle track plan through council. It's a troubling statement. Without political influence, Friends of Hopkins Street, a true grassroots organization with no clout, no outside or city funding, no regional or statewide well-funded organizational support, must simply rely on facts and data to influence you. Over the years, that approach has not worked. To avoid having to address our facts and data, we were maligned as too old, as obstructionists and NIMBYs, and as caring more about our cars than about children. We were told that staff quit because of us. You name it and somebody has said it about us, but by sticking to facts and data, we've accomplished some things. For instance, no one is now insisting that a two-way cycle track on Hopkins is a good or safe idea, because it isn't. And by sticking to the facts and data, we see an opportunity to settle the Hopkins issue once and for all. It centers around actually permitting staff to gather facts and data. Council members have long substituted their own amateur judgments for the professional ones of staff members, which has led to ideology creeping into policymaking and further distrust of our elected officials. But you have the opportunity to turn that around by taking the handcuffs off staff and letting them explore the many options available for providing a great low-stress east-west connection to West Berkeley and the Bike Boulevard network from North Berkeley. There is no inherent reason why the only option ever considered is Hopkins, nor is there an inherent reason why it must include cycle track, especially one on an almost 100% residential street. In fact, there are contraindications for such a plan. That is an ideological desire, no more, no less. Let staff figure this out, hands untied, and get clout and juice and influence and ideology out of the decision-making process. Council Member Blackaby included a plan in his most recent district newsletter that is close to ideal. It would allow staff to evaluate the efficacy of ADA bypass and the use of roads as alternatives to Hopkins. After all, three out of the four local schools cited as a need for a cycle track are actually located on ADA and roads. The fourth, St. Mary's College High School, is located at the north end of Albina Avenue, which is the car entrance to the school. It's heavily trafficked, especially in the morning, and it's rare to see a student bicycling to school at this entrance. I know because I live there. Staff could look at the accident statistics on Hopkins and actually analyze whether a cycle track would make a difference. In its analysis, it would certainly exclude the accidents that didn't even occur on Hopkins, whose inclusion supporting the cycle tracks is a clear indication of ideological creep. As it now is, we are beginning to understand that your constant praise of staff is in celebration of their having done exactly what you told it to do, not a testament to their ability to do quality analysis work.
Segment 10
Open street without cycle tracks can continue to provide access to the swimming pool and tennis courts and to Monterey Market and other businesses. Regarding the climate action plan, concrete is not environmentally friendly at all. Manufacturing cement generates 8% of the carbon dioxide that is produced globally. Plus, it produces a lot of other toxic gases. There are plenty of other streets for cyclists to ride to their desired destination. If safety is what today's bicycles seek, then the city should repair and repave Hopkins Street without a cycle track. So vote no on building a cycle track, vote yes to repair and pave Hopkins Street without cycle tracks. Thank you very much. Thank you. Hi, I'm Gail Alcock and I'm resident of D2 and I was really happy when I moved to Berkeley in 1990 and I could actually get up all the Berkeley Hills, which I could not do in San Francisco. So biking is a great thing in the city and I've had my share of accidents. And the worst one was on the concrete of the bike barrier. And I have bounced off cars and bounced on the asphalt and I have been, you know, I don't want to think about it. It makes me think that I shouldn't be biking. Except today when I got here, I took the bike boulevards. They're fabulous. People slow down. Two kids are coming towards me, rollerblading side by side. And then there's a big, huge Amazon truck parked there and sign and the cars go around them and they wait for everybody. And the Amazon delivery guy waits for me and says, you go ahead. So thank you. Yeah, these are broken heat. Thanks so much. I'm so sorry about your accidents. Thank you. Thanks. $15,000. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, I see you in the back. Hi, my name is Maxine Skaggs Kennedy. I live on Hopkins Street and have an architecture practice in South Berkeley. I'm a member of the North Berkeley design team that has worked extensively on Hopkins Street redesign. I support paving improvements, safer pedestrian crossings and expanded bicycle infrastructure. But I strongly oppose the current proposal to move hundreds of parking spaces along Hopkins Street to create protected bike lanes. First, it's fiscally irresponsible. Berkeley is facing a $30 million budget deficit, yet this project would go from $6.8 million to almost $15 million. At the same time, other neighborhoods are still waiting for basic street repairs, which is a top priority for safe cycling. Second, NACDO and Caltrans bikeway design guidelines strongly recommend that cycle tracks not be installed in places with frequent driveways and intersections, which Hopkins Street has. Also, cycle tracks would not have prevented the serious accidents listed in Exhibit 3. All occurred at intersections, which cycle tracks do not protect. Third, removing all of that parking will be detrimental to our neighborhood. Not everyone has the physical ability or circumstances to bike everywhere. We have spoken with business owners who believe this could threaten their livelihoods. Churches, preschools and people using the King Fields, pool, playgrounds and tennis courts, plus Cedar Rose tennis and pickleball courts, all depend on nearby parking. It will make it especially difficult for people from other districts to use all these amazing businesses and facilities. For the people like me and my family who live on Hopkins Street, it is not just a thoroughfare to get from point A to B. We are a neighborhood of families with children, elderly and pets, and we have asked for years for traffic calming, such as to add a stop sign on Hopkins and Ordway, to no avail. This proposal will cause cars to go even faster than they already do, because the street will appear wider. Now there will be four lanes of vehicles, making it like a freeway of wheels. Along Hopkins Street, many of the lots are more than one unit and do not have off-street parking. Nowhere else in Berkeley has all of the parking been removed from a residential street. For residents, it will be very difficult for things we depend on every day. Deliveries, caregivers, maintenance vehicles, especially those with large equipment, and visiting friends and family all have nowhere to pull over or park. I think about how it would make it very difficult for my elderly father, who uses a walker, to visit us. It will also be difficult and dangerous for families with small children to have carpools if there's nowhere to pull over. There is a better way. Our North Berkeley design team, made of architects, engineers, planners and landscape architects, drafted plans and street sections and show that there are viable options for a balanced alternative to have both bike lanes and only 50% parking reduction. Our group provided five options to the council members and public works. Please don't vote for this proposal just to prove you have gotten something approved when it's not the best solution. Approve a balanced option like that works for everyone. Thank you very much. I have three seated minutes. Sorry, can you hold your hand up, the people in the back? Okay, wait, there are a lot of people holding their hands up. You just need three. You just need three, so could you.. Can you decide who the three are, please? One, two, and my wife, and you're not my wife. Okay, so one here, second person. There, thank you. And the third person is in the back, thank you. Thank you. So, my name is Martin Hammer. I'm an architect and I've lived on Hopkins Street for 27 years. Saturday, I distributed flyers in front of the shops, notifying people of the city's current plan to install cycle tracks and remove all street parking from McGee to Peralta, which almost no one on Hopkins was aware of until our North Berkeley design team began informing them two and a half weeks ago when the significantly changed current plan was first made public. I handed a flyer to a man getting into his car to explain the city's plan. He said, I don't care, man, I'm pro-bike. He doesn't care. This after he had just accessed the shops with his car and parked in a spot to be illuminated by the city's plan. I had just talked with a co-owner of Magnani's who described the vast majority of comments she received from customers who drive from all over, some of them needing wheelchairs, stating the importance of retaining street parking. She also described nasty attack comments from pro-bike people. All of that said, I'm pro-bike. I've bicycled 100-mile bike rides. I've bicycled all over Berkeley and the East Bay. I want safe bicycling in Berkeley. However, I'm also pro-pedestrian, pro-business and their customers and staff, pro-Hopkins Street residents and nearby residents, pro-recreation facility users, pro-churchgoers, pro-preschools. As an architect for 40 years, every day I work to create balanced designs. I know a balanced design when I see it. This is not a balanced design. It gives a subset of bicyclists everything it wants and harms virtually every other constituent group, most of it due to the staggering, unprecedented removal of street parking. 175 of 230 end spaces from the Alameda to Peralta, and now another 83 spaces if C.M. Taplin's supplemental extending the tracks to Stanage occurs, including 122 spaces over seven contiguous blocks from McGee to Peralta. It's never been done for good reason. It causes significant harm, including matters of safety, access, and equity. I'm confident no one in Berkeley, including council members, would support the removal of 100% of parking on the street they live on. And how can you approve a plan that removes 175 to 258 parking spaces, as much as 80%, when a parking study admittedly has not been done? That is mind-boggling. I can't even.. I'm almost speechless, but I'm going to continue. Berkeley prides itself on innovation and representative democracy. One solution to this seemingly intractable conflict is to put representatives of all key stakeholders together with an independent mediator to work out a consensus conceptual design. What do they all want and need? Where can they compromise? In my profession, I've seen mediation work, and believe it can work here in a matter of months, not years. I strongly encourage council to approve the original referrals by CMs O'Keefe and Kesarwani for repaving pedestrian improvements that everyone agrees on, and to facilitate independent mediation resulting in a consensus design that can be overlaid on the original referrals plan. And I want to get a show of hands for people who oppose the city's plan to see if it comports with CM Kesarwani's 50-50.. Thank you. Thanks for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. It's been really cool seeing this whole process. My name is Nick. I'm the head coach for the Berkeley Mountain Bike Team, and I'm a shop owner in Berkeley and a resident of Hopkins Ave. I just wanted to come out here and really express the need for greater safety on the Hopkins corridor. I do believe that cycle tracks are a way towards that. Right now, I consider the Hopkins Speedway, especially where I live, between the Alameda and Sutter. The street is extremely wide. I've seen drivers coming by at speeds in excess of 50 miles an hour. So I think a big theme that we have here tonight is increasing safety and making sure that everyone feels like they have a place at the table. I just wanted to make sure that we really consider how we can make traffic calming and safer for everyone. I do believe that bike lanes and bike infrastructure help protect the most vulnerable people in our communities. And thank you for your time. Thank you. Let's see. I have minutes from Steve Jackson, Chris Baskett, and Chris Paul. I'm missing one. Sorry, I see two. Steve Jackson, Chris Baskett, Chris Paul. Do you want to give me a minute? Okay, go ahead. One more minute. I see that third. I saw that third.
Segment 11
This plan to be safe and to meet the needs of the community. You know, we took two parking spaces already from us already. So by putting that bike lane, it's going to interfere with my job and it's going to interfere with the customers. So I'm opposing the bike lane. So there shouldn't be a bike lane at all. And I fought this a couple of years back and you thought about it. So I hope you guys decide in not putting that bike lane for my job. Hi, Carol Marasovic and Marvin Snow are donating minutes. Two minutes. Thank you. My name is Nancy Rayer. I live in District 6. Opponents of the cycle track are cast as pro-car, anti-climate, anti-safety, and selfish, and a big dose of ageism for sure. But let's be fair. In 1976, Berkeleyans voted to support street barriers that greatly reduced traffic on most residential streets in the flats, a feature that's found in very few cities. Berkeley's extensive bicycle boulevard network was built on that foundation, allowing cyclists to get across town safely on quiet, pleasant streets. Although inconvenient to drivers, virtually everyone supports these quiet streets, even those of us in the hills who do not directly benefit, because we're not pro-car, anti-climate, anti-safety, or selfish. We are old, a lot of us. Protecting residential streets requires that drivers use the major streets, unless they want to get lost in the maze. But now a group of activists has decided that the bike network isn't good enough, and that cycle tracks should be added to our congested main streets so cycles can ride directly to their commercial destinations without having to walk a block or two, and in the hope that drivers will get so frustrated that they'll give up their cars. In an ideal world, sure, but over 10,000, maybe 20,000 of us live in the hills with narrow roads and blind corners, and not everyone has the luxury of working, shopping, and caring for kids or family members within bike-commutable distance, nor does everyone have time in their busy lives to bike miles a day with a cart in tow. Most importantly, many people cannot safely bike at all. Roughly 12% of Berkeleyans are over 70, and about 8% of people under 70 have disabilities. That's 20% of our population. Now, a relative few of those folks do bike, but not many. Whereas the ADA promotes universal designs that benefit everyone, such as curb cuts that allow strollers and rolling grocery carts to easily use the sidewalk, or automatic door buttons that allow people holding two coffee cups to exit, cycle tracks inherently harm people with disabilities who need parking near their destinations and safe access to the curb and public transit. They also need unbroken streets and sidewalks to avoid upturned wheelchairs and tripping and falling. Berkeley has tens of thousands of ADA violations that it is obligated to correct, yet this proposal would spend $5 million on bike infrastructure that would create new bike barriers for people with disabilities. New barriers. Erecting barriers in the town that was a cradle of disability rights and the independent living movement. So please, let's care about all Berkeleyans. Let's improve our bike network, especially on Ada and Sacramento streets. Let's fix our broken streets and sidewalks, and let's keep our public spaces accessible to all. Let's also consider what the congestion that we'll add will do to our emergency response times. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, my name is Rachel Bradley, and I've lived here all my life. I went to middle school at King. I took my kids to soccer games and swimming lessons next door. I drove my elderly mother to walk on the track when she needed a level and protected surface to exercise safely. I continue to shop every week at the Monterey Market, and I have invested energy and love in this community for many years. I strongly urge the council to adopt Council Member O'Keefe's practical and financially responsible proposal to repay Hopkins with necessary enhancements for pedestrian safety. It deserves special respect since the upper part of Hopkins falls in her council district, and she is herself a regular cyclist. The city's budget is in trouble, and this is not the time to sink millions of extra dollars into cycle tracks on Hopkins, especially without properly evaluating reasonable alternatives. Its home to many important civic amenities that we all deserve access to. The current state is dangerous to everybody, especially pedestrians. The longer we wait, the more it will cost. Please keep it simple and repay Hopkins now. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. My name is Stephan Zager. I've lived with my family on Hopkins Street across from King Park for 15 years. I'm also probably the most experienced urban cyclist you're ever likely to meet, or one of them. I've lived and biked in North Oakland and Berkeley for 35 years. I also spent five years working full-time as a bicycle messenger. I'm here to ask you to vote no on this motion. The main problem with the current proposal is that it is a blunt force, one-size-fits-all design that is badly matched to the quirks of Hopkins Street. What makes sense for the residential blocks does not make sense for the commercial areas. The stretch from Gilman to Monterey handles more vehicle traffic than the ones above and below. The area around the tennis courts, pool, park, and track has its own unique requirements. Say what you will about the previous design process, but at least it was an attempt in good faith to tailor a plan to the diverse nature of the problem and to hammer out sensible compromises among stakeholders. The proposal under consideration tonight has all the nuance of a Walmart parking lot. And I know that the motion directs staff to conduct outreach to stakeholders, but the problem is that once you make separate class four bike lanes.. Thank you. I'm sorry, your time's up. There's a minute in the back. Sorry, with the green shirt, I'm taking your.. Go ahead. The problem is that once you make separated class four bikeways on both sides of the street, the non-negotiable north star of the plan, well, Hopkins is not that wide, and it leaves no wiggle room for adapting to local conditions. You have an opportunity to do something really great here. Hopkins has a lot of room for improvement. You also have an opportunity to really harm this neighborhood and everyone who visits it for generations to come. It's your job as council members to consider all the stakeholders here and to forge a reasonable compromise. This is not that. Thank you. I think I have another minute from.. Thank you. Woman with the yellow shirt and the hat. Thank you. Okay, thank you. I'm Corey Cody, and I've lived and voted in Berkeley for over 30 years, and I consider this plan to be flawed. First of all, I think it's fiscally irresponsible. My understanding, and I think I'm underestimating, is that it would cost an extra $5 million. That's a lot of money, and this is a time when we're being asked to vote for more sales tax and for bonds. I'm not going to vote for those things. And you know what? When the whole city realizes that something irresponsible, like this plan, has been, if it, God forbid, gets implemented, people are going to not want to vote for these extra taxes. So what I'm hearing today is that some people want this, but the majority do not. And so I think it's really, in my heart, it's not just that it's fiscally irresponsible. It's that it inflicts real harm on the majority of people who are involved with this neighborhood. This is a thriving intergenerational neighborhood, and my understanding is that 100 parking spaces, but now I've been educated that it's more like 175 parking spaces will be lost. So what does it mean? Is it a minor inconvenience to lose a parking space? Because that's what I've heard from the other side. To lose a parking space means that many Berkeleyans will no longer have access to a neighborhood. They'll no longer have access to the services of the small-scale mom-and-pop businesses that make this neighborhood so successful. Realistically, many of us get to these small shops by car. And guess what? If you have a car, you have to park it. And many of us need.. Thank you. Is that two minutes already? That's it. Oh, my gosh. Thank you. Please vote against this. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Jean Walsh, and I am on the AC Transit Board of Directors. This is my first Berkeley Council meeting. I picked a great one to come to. I'm speaking tonight in my personal capacity. I've heard a lot of talk tonight and in the media about cycling versus parking. I haven't heard a lot about transit. And I just wanted to bring up the fact that people who ride the bus are often seniors, people with disabilities, people who can't bike, people who can't afford a car, and they depend on transit. AC Transit runs Line 12 along Hopkins, and it carries an average of about 3,000 people per day. And AC Transit staff have been working on this project with your staff for several years, have been following along. And I know that previous versions, the staff was concerned about bus boarding islands. This current proposal by Councilmember Kesserwani has the bus boarding islands, which make it safer and improve transit operations. So I support that proposal as an individual, and I am confident that if your staff continue to work with AC Transit, you'll have a great project that benefits the entire community. Thank you so much. And, Mayor, just a quick time check. There's about 44 minutes left in in-person public comment. Yep, thank you. Good evening, Council. My name is Mark Hedlund. Biking on city streets, including Hopkins, is legal. The question before us tonight is whether Hopkins will be safer for everyone, including people on bikes. I strongly support Councilmember Kesserwani's item with Councilmember Tap.
Segment 12
lives. The only thing that saves lives is bold and visionary action. And you have an opportunity to do that today. That's why you are our electors. This is not a popularity contest. This is a contest of do we believe in climate change? Are we going to make changes to our infrastructure? So I hope you choose the right thing. The world is watching. Thank you. I will try and keep it brief, but I may use a minute from Sam here if I need it. My name is Ariya Rubel. I am a candidate for City Council District 1. First of all, I just want to recognize what a difficult decision this is, how many stakeholders there are on all sides. I want to encourage you to use your wisdom to make a decision tonight and not delay this any longer. As a 20-year resident of District 1, I use Hopkins regularly and I recognize that parking is important, but lives are more important. And a protected bike lane from Stanage to Sutter is the right choice. I would be open to the possibility of a parallel path for part of that passage that protects parking, but we need to have protected bike lanes to save lives. Thank you very much. Thank you, Daria. Good evening, Mayor Ishii and City Council. My name is Mia and I'm a resident of Berkeley. I'm speaking here in support of Item 27 with the Luna Park Taplam Supplemental. As a pedestrian and micromobility user in North Berkeley, it cannot be overstated how crucial these safety improvements are for our community. This plan perfectly aligns with Berkeley's Vision Zero initiative and only benefits our community by encouraging safe usage of bicycles and other forms of micromobility while still fostering region connectivity. Additionally, the repaving of the street benefits all users of the road and is a responsible use of city funds. I also urge the Council to keep the Class 2 buffered bike lanes and not compromise for share rows. As someone who uses these streets as a micromobility user, I don't feel safe using share rows and it's not a worthwhile compromise. This has been on the agenda for a while and I believe that North Berkeley residents deserve a decision today. Berkeley cyclists and pedestrians deserve to be safe on their streets. Their lives matter too. Thank you. Thank you, Mia. Thank you, City Council. I live in District 3 and I frequently bike down on Telegraph to visit my parents. If you've ever biked it, it does not feel safe. You switch between just a painted bike lane and being just in the road on a fair row. Every couple blocks you're merging in, merging out of the traffic. Every time I go through that, I feel just a constant feeling like this time that I merge in, a car might not see me and that just might be it for me. I would really not want that for Hopkins. For that reason, I'm here to encourage you to add bike lanes all the way down Hopkins. Additionally, as we fulfill our part of fixing California's housing crisis, we need more ability for people to move around in Berkeley, for more people to live in Berkeley. I believe the best ideal solution is to add more bike capacity because they can be added without needing more cars, more parking structures, and everything. I want to thank everyone here for being positive in your responses. I really appreciate folks not booing and thank you. Hello, City Council. My name is David Woolsey and I live in the Hopkins area neighborhood in shop at Monterey Market. I too am concerned about the loss of parking. What I want to talk about is how bicycle paths get planned into main traffic thoroughfares. There's an issue with air pollution that's generated by cars, either by internal combustion engine, tire wear, brake wear, et cetera. This is not the place that I would choose to bicycle is in a main traffic thoroughfare. Find a way parallel and make that the bicycle path. Now, I understand that that neighborhood, the street grid is all wonky and it's hard to find a parallel path. This is a general piece of advice for other bicycle paths. Don't mix them on the main streets. Put them on the parallel streets as bicycle boulevards. Otherwise, you wind up breathing stuff you really oughtn't be breathing. Thank you. Hi there. I live in District 5. This is my first time attending a meeting. I'm urging the Council to vote yes on the item and the supplemental to build protected bike lanes on Hopkins. I ride a bike on Hopkins with my kids. I have Sasha, who's seven, and Zev, who's two. I asked Sasha what she likes to do on Hopkins and she said the library, King Park, Joya Pizza, of course, and to visit our family in Westbury. I brought their helmets. This is Sasha with the butterflies and Zev. This inch of foam is what protects them, their precious, precious heads when we're riding on Hopkins and other shared roadways. I don't expect you to prioritize these heads over all of the other lovely heads in Berkeley, but I do expect you to weigh them appropriately, Sasha and Zev. All the things that they will do with their lives against a handful of parking spaces. Thank you. Thank you. I want to thank everyone here for being positive in your responses. I really appreciate folks not booing and thank you. Hi, my name's Janice Morota and I grew up in Berkeley on Rose in California. We shop mostly at the co-op where my father was a karma mechanic, but if we ran out of milk, Grandma and I would walk down California Street to where it was, I think it was the Lewis Market. And now I don't live that close. I have to drive. Just because I can't ride a bicycle, does that mean that I can't live and I can't eat in Berkeley? What I'll do is I'll shop in El Cerrito if I can't shop at Monterey Market. I shop between 9.45 and 10.30 on Tuesdays and Wednesdays because that's the only time I can sort of get in there and park and shop at a regional without a huge crowd and get out. So I think maybe the demand on Hopkins is too much where all of us are using that corridor. I used to walk though to the North Park Library. It's still my library, but now I have to drive there. So I hope there's still room in Berkeley for some of us who need cars. Thank you. Thank you. Hi again. My name is Daniel Chang. My daughter spoke earlier. I've been attending Evangel Bible Church for the last 20 years and during my time as an undergrad I put 10,000 miles on my bike inside the city of Berkeley. I'm supportive of safety improvements, better signage and street crossings on Hopkins, but please do not remove access to our church. 100% of our church members have been priced out of the city. There's no parking on Ordway. Multiple times a week we have at least a dozen cars and half dozen vans that depend on Hopkins for access to our church, including people with disabilities and many mothers who are currently nursing. Newborns and a few more on the way. Unlike Monterey Market, we do not have a parking lot. It's not just access only. It's safety. Not just on Sundays, but multiple times during the week we have children's programs at night. In the winter, that's always after dark. And many of our members come in and they would have to park for blocks and walk in the dark with their children. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, my name is Jocelyn Racinos and I work at Berkeley Little School. We're on Hopkins and McGee. There's a stop sign there now. We used to have a loading zone because the stop sign was added. It's now red. And then we were giving a loading zone right next to the apartments next door. But what's going to happen if this is passed is that we're going to get rid of that loading zone. And where are we going to drop off? We serve 42 students between the ages of 18 months to five years old and not everyone drives a bike when they're dropping off their children. And I think about those parents that are coming with an 18 month year old and a two year old. It makes it really hard for them to drop them off at school. I'm also a parent. I have my son that goes to work with me. He's at Berkeley Little School and it's going to make it very challenging. So I really want you to also keep that in mind that we have a preschool there that has been already affected by the previous loading zone being removed and then now we're going to have another, well hopefully not, but I don't want it to keep affecting. Thank you. As a forever resident of Hopkins, I want to say that personally, I don't know why we're having this existential conversation about driving. There's over 400 streets in Berkeley. We're proposing a cycle track on one street. And yet now.
Segment 13
debating on whether we're going to become like Amsterdam or something. The issue at hand is this. The cycle tracks are necessary for the streets where we cannot traffic calm them. That's the main arterial roads. The traffic calming is for the neighborhood streets where cars don't need to go through the full length. Now, even though there's no evidence to suggest that cycle tracks destroy businesses, I think that there is some case to be made about preserving the parking in front of the business. I will concede on that. And so I do think that we can find a way to do a cycle track with the parking in front, as Castroni has suggested that that would be a good idea. But I just like, I don't understand the existential conversation about driving like you still have 400 streets. Thanks, Harold. Good evening, and Brian is ceding me a minute. Thank you very much. I previously co-chaired Georgia Tech's Bicycle Infrastructure Committee, and I bike regularly in Berkeley and in the East Bay. Mayor, as you know, I'm a professional scientist with a doctorate, and in my work, I cannot let opinion lead me to a conclusion not supported by the data. In that spirit, I have brought hard data showing that the council is right to call for protected cycle tracks on Hopkins. I have a study here, an example one of many, that says that bicycle infrastructure, specifically separated and protected bike lanes, leads to fewer fatalities. Commissioner Tregub, that's our metric for success, and better road safety outcomes for all users, drivers included. I will be happy to share the study with you. Commissioner Blackbee, I live in the hills. I do bike from Hopkins into the hills on my e-bike with my groceries. That constituency exists. Sorry, can you just address the council as a whole, please, in your comments? Thank you. Certainly. In this study, the authors quote, say, quote, the research has boiled it down for city planners. Create cycling facilities and you'll see the impact. They found that safer cities aren't due to increases in cyclists, but the infrastructure built for them, specifically separated and protected bike lanes. This is significantly associated with fewer fatalities. For example, in San Francisco, a 50% reduction was seen when protected cycle tracks were installed. I will be happy to share all of these studies with council and, in fact, have already done so by email. 66% of businesses in San Francisco saw increases in business when cycle tracks were added. No study has shown a significant decrease in business for any bicycle infrastructure. Finally, regarding fire issues, this has been done elsewhere. These are not the first protected cycle tracks. Other places for decades have solved the fire access issues. This is a solved problem. Vote in favor, please, of protected cycle tracks. Thank you. So, Mayor, we have 15 minutes left in this comment period. Okay, good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is Abby Thorn-Lyman. I live on Hopkins Street between Sacramento and Gilman. I back out of my driveway every morning at rush hour, and I will tell you backup cameras do, in fact, see who is coming. I can tell you from experience I see them on Hopkins every day. I want to address the matter of commercial parking. If you had a use generating as many trips as Monterey Market does today, if you had that use coming in to the city of Berkeley, you would not be looking for how many parking spaces you can fit to accommodate that use if it were a new use. You would be looking to do transportation demand management measures to get people out of their cars. You would have far, far more bike parking in front of Monterey Market, and you would probably tell them to build bike lanes. I strongly support Council Member Keshawani's referral, and so I appreciate your time tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. I'm a long-term Hopkins Street resident of 32 years, and I'm urging you to oppose this plan. I fully support modal transportation, but removing critical parking will harm our small businesses, the residents, and visitors, especially the seniors. As someone who works in risk management, I can tell you this plan creates new safety hazards. On any given day, hundreds of kids jumping in and out of cars will have to navigate fast-moving scooters and e-bikes now. The Fire Department hasn't signed off on this project. Staff have already said buses and garbage trucks will face operational constraints. Key studies haven't been completed. What exactly are you voting on? There are better options. Safe bike corridors parallel to Hopkins on a street without heavy traffic or bus routes. Repave Hopkins Street. Thank you very much. Thank you. I'm married to him, a pediatrician. So 32 years on Hopkins, and I oppose the bike lanes specifically. The reason is that safety is my concern, and I feel like the safety has not actually been addressed. When you speak to the planners, no one's really assessed what's going to happen. We know kids, especially preschoolers, and I'm a pediatrician, so I know how these brains work. They do not navigate bikes that are coming down. I'm also a biker, so I know how quickly you can come down Hopkins Street, and that can be very dangerous for kids who are not quite functionally there yet, developmentally. So you guys, it's going to be $20 million. I would add a few more, many more millions for all the lawsuits that are going to come your way because it's so poorly planned. Thank you so much. I'd like an extra minute, my wife Cindy. Hi, my name is Howard Goldberg. My wife Cindy and I have lived on Hopkins Street in the same house for 48 years, and a lot of the things I want to say have been said by people who are opposing this plan, but I think about it in one different way. I think I try to put myself now, there's cycle tracks, and all the more bicycles and e-bikes and scooters that are coming down, and it's going to be a raceway. I mean, I have my own lane now. I can go as fast as I want, and I'm trying to think of myself backing out of my driveway, backing out, and if I lose just for a fraction of a second my concentration, which is bound to happen, you know, a phone rings or you're talking to somebody, all of a sudden you're immediately upon them, bam, there's going to be something happening, a bad thing, and that doesn't happen when the cyclist is seven or eight feet out. There's parking there, and they're out further. There's more time to respond in just that fraction of a time, so I think that this is a very dangerous situation that you're creating if you put a cycle track there. I just think there's going to be more and more accidents, and lastly, if we're such in a budget crunch, why would you want to spend all this more money on this? I, in good conscience, cannot possibly think about wanting to pass an extra sales tax or a vote for a $30 million bond, and you're putting an extra $5 or $10 million into this thing. Please don't do it. Thank you. Hello, my name is Judith Small. I've lived on Peralta off of Gilman for over 40 years. I'm here to speak on behalf of Mahmoud Husseini, who you already heard from a while ago, the flower seller, beloved flower seller, who sells flowers from his cart near Monterey Market at the curbside. Mahmoud has been described very accurately as the soul of the neighborhood. We call him that because he not only sells beautiful flowers, which he arranges with an artist's eye, but he greets all of us, so many of us, young and old, children, all sorts of people, including cyclists, with great generosity and charm. In 2021-2022, there was a group of residents who came together to support Mahmoud, to make sure that he did not lose his livelihood. This is not an exaggeration. He will lose his livelihood if he loses his spot, some kind of spot, in the neighborhood. We had productive conversations with the city then. We hope that as you continue your deliberations, you'll be able to stay in touch with you to ensure that he's able to stay in the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, I'm Zach. I live in D1, and I'm proud of my council members' leadership on this. I travel across and also along Hopkins very frequently. Every crossing is a nail-biter. High speeds are routine, visibility is poor, especially at night, but drivers are creatures of habit. Paint does not correct drivers who drift into bike lanes, but physical protections do. And Rose was repaved without protections, and now drivers' speed 15% faster, with casualties mounting. On the other hand, Milvio, with its protected bike lanes, feels safe. We should be trying to bury Robert Moses, not curl up next to him. 1970s bike policies, like vehicular cycling and sharrows, have had a half-century to bring about the biking renaissance. They haven't. They don't work. Let's get these bike lanes built along the Taplin-Unipara lines. Thank you. Thank you, Zach. I was on the bubble, but I made it. My name is Barry Fike. I taught at Ruth Actey for 13 years. I've lived in Berkeley since 1961. I have two big fears at my age—being hit by a car while on my bike, and number two, a decline in my driving skills as I get older, and hitting a child on a bike or scooter who drifts into my car lane. Protected bike lanes address both of these well-founded fears. Sharrows do not. As for fear of business being hurt by the proposed changes, that is not well-founded, and runs counter to numerous studies, all of which demonstrate that there will be a positive or, at worst, a neutral.
Segment 14
Air Force ROTC cadet, and when I was injured in 2005 using crutches, there were many times it was difficult to find parking and had to ask church brothers to come and help me park. We've been taught to love our neighbors and we've been serving them by not parking in front of their homes, as well as preserving the parking spaces immediately around our church building on Hopkins and Ordway for families with pregnant moms, young children, visitors, and guests. With my three children, even with existing parking on Hopkins Street, I've often needed to park two or three blocks away on Wednesday evenings for Bible study, and this has become very difficult in the last year walking with my bilateral foot brace, walker, or at times wheelchair in the dark evenings as I anticipate an ankle replacement surgery. Removing parking on Hopkins will further exasperate and make it even more dangerous for our church families and many young children to walk and cross many streets access to our church building for gathering and worship. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, I'm John Heller. I use bicycle as my primary source of transportation, but I'm speaking in opposition to this proposal because I don't believe we have done what is the responsible thing to do here, which is to conduct a business impact survey. To make sure that the businesses that are impacted can survive a disruption of this nature. We've heard this area described as a treasure. A previous speaker described the Hopkins Monterey areas as a treasure of small businesses, and it really is, but a treasure of that nature needs to be nurtured and honored and supported, not taken for granted. I have no doubt that both sides hope that these businesses will survive this disruption, but hope is different from empirical evidence, and we need to conduct a study to make sure that that's the case. Thank you. Hello, my name is Kevin Jones. I'm a Berkeley resident for over 20 years, and I just want to suggest to you guys to read the book Bike Lanes Are White Lanes. This is seriously about gentrification. This is not about safety. Let's be real. And these bike lanes will hurt the businesses. Businesses on Valencia, after their bike lane was installed, lost 70% of their businesses. It will close down businesses. So if you actually care about the residents that are here, the business owners that are here, you will actually rethink this program, okay? Because seriously, this is about gentrification. I don't care what the people from the Gentrifier Land, oh, excuse me, the Turner Lab have to say, or all these people that are pushing for these bike lanes to help property values. That is what this is about. This is about plans happening in the future and not for the people that already live here. Tough act to follow. My name is Michael Boland. I'm a landscape architect and city planner. I worked for my whole career in the public realm, working on complicated public realm projects. I think we can all agree Hopkins Street is a mess. But I have to tell you, I think this process is a bigger mess. And I think it's shocking that eight years have passed and Hopkins Street is still unpaved. But I don't think it's unexpected. Why? Because this process has pretty much broken every rule around good governance and good planning processes, starting with a solution rather than actually defining the problem. So unless you are all interested in experiencing this over and over and over again when every bike project comes along, I urge you to stop and create an authentic, inclusive process that engages everyone. Thank you. Good evening. Thank you all for your time. My name is Casey. It's a pleasure to see. Many of you have spoken with you before. You've seen me biking around town with my twins on the back of my e-bike. I would love to bike to Hopkins. I'd love to bike to King Pool and King Playground, but it's not safe to do so. I have an older kid as well who's riding on their own. And it's not safe. Painted bike lanes are not sufficient. I was on Alcatraz last week, luckily without my kids, and I was hit by a delivery truck that decided that they should cut into the bike lane. And luckily, they hit the back of my bike right where my kids would have been had they been with me. Paint is insufficient. We need protected bike lanes, especially on a collector street, which is what Hopkins is. Paint is insufficient. We need protection. And if you build it, they will come. So I don't care what the past has been. You are hearing from people who would bike, who would choose to get there in safer methods if they had it. Thank you. Thank you. Hey, hey, excuse me, folks. Come on. Really? Go ahead, Maria. I am so impressed with all of us, and I thank you, Mayor, for your gracious space. Whatever we end up fighting over is not the right question. Bicycles could create rickshaw, help everyone get around, right? And they'd get all the exercise they ever needed. I've already been through Milvia and Temescal and the first church on Dana. It's like, oh, my God, we solved one thing, and we create other things. And if there was just more paying attention and courtesy, it would be better because we have lots of traffic rules, and yet there's still endless accidents. I've almost been run over more by bicycles than cars. So it's like, can't we learn how to live together better? Thank you. Thanks, Maria. Okay. We are going to take a 10-minute break, and then we will return and do our online comment. If you are here for online comment, please raise your hand. We are up to 50 right now. 53. Okay. Mayor, sorry, yes, we are going to make, sorry, I will entertain a motion to extend until what? 2.30? 12.30. I can't hear. Okay, folks, please, if you can keep it down so we can hear each other. Motion to extend until 12.30. Second. All right, can we take the bill now, please? Okay, to extend the meeting until 12.30 a.m., Council Member Kesterwine is absent. Kaplan? Yes. Bartlett? Yes. Tragan? Aye. O'Keefe? Yes. Blackabee? Yes. Munapara? Yes. Humbert? Yes. And Mayor Ishii? Yes. Okay, motion carries. Recording stopped. Recording in progress. Okay. Okay, hello, everyone. Let's take your seats, please. Quiet down, quiet down. We're going to get started again. We're moving to our online comments. Folks, please. Thank you. All right, we have 53 comments online, and we are starting with Ben Gerhardstein. Oh, and actually, I know that you have been given a minute by Libby, so I will give you two minutes. Oh, and three. Sorry, you've been given three minutes. I'll take two. All right, good. Thanks. Two to total, but, you know, just give me that. Fair enough. Good evening, Council. I'm Ben Gerhardstein with WalkBike Berkeley. I so wish I could be with you in person for this important vote. WalkBike Berkeley, together with North Berkeley Now, Berkeley Neighbors for Housing and Climate Action, East Bay for Everyone, Telegraph for People, East Bay EMB, Sierra Clubs, Northern Alameda County Chapter, and Bike East Bay urge you to pass Council Member Kessler-Winey's referral, along with Council Member Taplin's supplemental. Our coalition of safe streets, housing, and environmental organizations strongly supports repaving and rebalancing Hopkins Street to give people of all ages and abilities more safe, sustainable transportation options to and through North Berkeley. As a Vision Zero City, Berkeley has established that safety is our highest priority. At least 10 Council-approved plans and policies support making pedestrian, bicycle, and transit improvements on Hopkins when it's repaved. We oppose Council Member Blackabee's and Council Member O'Keefe's supplementals, as they seek to further delay or deny bicycle improvements on Hopkins to continue prioritizing car parking. That's unacceptable because there are no alternative bicycle routes that will provide critical safe connections to West Berkeley and to the schools, parks, and shops on Hopkins. We do not need more study on this issue. Please think toward the future. With increased housing development in Berkeley, the city needs to redesign Hopkins and other automobile-dominated streets to encourage new neighbors to make walking, biking, and transit primary forms of transportation. Failure to do so invites more congestion, traffic injuries, and climate pollution in Berkeley. For too long, this Hopkins project has been a cloud over our community. Please pass Kessler-Winey's and Kaplan's items and empower staff to move this project forward without delay. Vote for a smooth, safe Hopkins for all and for a brighter, safer future for Berkeley. Thank you. Thank you, Ben. Next is Andrea. Andrea H. Should be able to unmute. And on deck are Charles Siegel, Sharon Friedman, and Seth. Just so you know, you're on deck. Andrea? Sorry about that. I was dual screening. Thank you for taking my comment. My name is Andrea Horvinsky. I want to echo everything that the pro-bike lane speakers have said. I also want to correct some misinformation that has been spoken both by commenters and also by, I believe, some council members about the mistaken belief that bike lanes harm nearby businesses. Worldwide studies and rebalancing have shown that businesses, in fact, benefit when streets are rebalanced for pedestrians and bicyclists. Valencia Street in San Francisco, a city report actually found that merchants were not harmed by the bike lane, contrary to their claims. So for all these reasons and many more, I would urge you to support rebalancing Hopkins. And once again, remember that Berkeley should not be a necropolis.
Segment 15
top tier donor and institutional partner. Bike East Bay also receives financial backing from the private for-profit corporation, Alta Planning and Design. Alta's business model relies on securing lucrative municipal contracts to design transportation projects. Bike East Bay fiscally sponsors local interest group Walk Bike Berkeley, and both of those groups lobby this council for projects that benefit the corporate donor on this pipeline, Alta Planning and Design. This is a closed-loop ecosystem, one that is amplified by the intense lobbying and political support of members of this council by well-funded trans-Berkeley urban coalition groups like Yimby Action and East Bay Yimby. Consequently, voices of local opposition are being muffled. In the meantime, Alta has done significant work in Berkeley, including developing the city's 2017 bicycle plan. It was lead consultant for the updated Berkeley bicycle plan, and in 2025, it consulted on the Adeline Street project and conducted outreach that targeted businesses and property owners to diffuse potential dissent. When private firms affect public policy through lobbying pipelines, it dilutes the voices of residents, neighborhood associations, and small business owners who do not benefit from a taxpayer-funded corporate-backed apparatus to echo their concerns. In this way, democracy is subverted. Please, listen to the citizens who elected you, especially those disadvantaged by systemic inequities. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Makai Freeman. Makai, we're giving you extra time. I'm not going to talk tonight. I waited for one year to have time to talk to. I cannot stop. I'm no good anymore. I used to stop at Ace Hardware for many years, but getting out on my accessible van, I almost got hit twice. I know I'm going to quit my job at System Strength, but I can tell you that it is I who contacted the city to have town hall at CIL. I stopped almost exclusively outside of Berkeley because I'm able to talk. Where I stopped, you know, at the sidewalk, I don't have to worry about my car coming down Bankroft Avenue. My ramp would come directly out in traffic. I told the city planners, and now we're the last public. I understand why the field community is treated so disobediently, but we will continue the fight and allocate. Thank you, Makai. For our rights. Thanks, Makai. Next is Lucas Cantor. And right behind is Francesca Cantor, Vicki Summer, Kathy Rye, and then Christopher Cole. Excuse me. Thank you. This is Lucas Cantor. Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm a Berkeley resident who walks or bikes on Hopkins with my family nearly every day. And nearly every day, we're afraid we're going to be the next to die. We love Hopkins despite its dangerous design, and we're excited to see your plan to add protected bike lanes. The evidence is clear. Cities that build one-way curbside protected bike lanes keep them. Not one has ever been a failure. Not for safety, not for accessibility, not for business. This is a solved problem. It does not require compromise. It requires political will and strong leadership. Oakland had this exact debate over their protected bike lanes on Telegraph. But when the dust settled, the data showed sales up and crashes down. Meanwhile, we've spent the past decade waiting and debating on Hopkins, and dozens of our neighbors have been hit by cars. Three of them died. This is senseless and completely preventable violence. Paint is not sufficient, and it won't keep us safe past item 27. Thank you. Francesca Cantor? Hi. Good evening, everybody. I'm Francesca Cantor. I'm Lucas's wife, actually, a Berkeley resident. I'm just here to add on to support item 27. You know, this isn't only about cyclists. Protected bike lanes make streets safer for anyone who can't or doesn't drive. We assure users, kids, the elderly, and transit riders. In Berkeley, we walk or bike for 40 percent of trips, but pedestrians and cyclists absorb 60 percent of our severe and fatal collisions. I also want to address two arguments I've heard tonight. First, parking. I think my husband said a lot about this already, but studies in New York, Toronto, and Chicago found protected bike lanes had a neutral or positive effect on local businesses, even after parking was removed. In some cases, sales grew faster than on streets without them. Second, cost. A protected bike lane runs a fraction of what it costs to build or maintain a car lane. Cars also cost cities more just by existing on the road. Thank you so much. Your time is up. Thank you. Next is Vicki, followed by Kathy, then Kala, then Joanna. Good evening. This is Vicki. It makes no sense to intentionally work on a busy commercial street. Spend our tax dollars to repave Hopkins and other streets and direct cycle traffic to quieter side streets. Follow the plans for Hopkins that were proposed by O'Keefe and Blackaby, which are rational, fiscally sound, and will best serve all stakeholders. Don't install parking meters. That proposal is just anti-car punitive. And don't waste local tax dollars pandering to the externally funded bike lobby. They pushed for a bike lane on the Richmond Bridge, which saw only limited usage. Be smarter than that. And I'm distressed to hear that a cycle track is being proposed minus critical evaluations of the space, safety, and parking. And regarding these cycle tracks, ask, how many blocks will an elder without a disability placard carrying two big grocery bags have to walk to access their car in the rain? Listen to O'Keefe and Blackaby. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Kathy, followed by Kala Schmidt, Joanna Dillon, Nick Pilch, Laura Eide. After Kathy. Hi, Mayor, Council Member. I'm Kathy Rye. I used to be a Berkeley resident. I still adore and shop at many Berkeley restaurants and shops, and it's just an amazing place to be and continue to patron. I am sympathetic to the less abled churchgoers and the people who would be affected. Here's the thing, though. No one has died of inconvenience and extra time. I am sure those who lost loved ones would happily chip in for an Uber or Lyft if it would have saved their loved ones from dying. You know, maybe a bike or a helmet tax would help to fund something like that. And I'm also an unreported injured where I didn't know my elbow was broken when I hit a bump and I missed a car because the swelling didn't go away after two days I went to the ER. So, Sharrow on Marin Avenue does not work. I was almost hit by a truck just this morning. Thank you for listening. And yes, the more traffic, the more bicycle accidents. Thanks so much. Next is Kala. Hello, I'm Kala Schmidt, a professor of environmental science and a cyclist. I want to speak in support of the referral to put protected bike lanes on Hopkins and the supplemental to extend them to Stanage. We need safe and viable alternatives to cars to meet our climate goals and to live up to other city policy, particularly Vision Zero and safe routes to schools. As a parent that currently bikes my child to school using roads, I want to strongly state that roads is not a workable alternative. It is steep and the car and school bus traffic to Ruth and King, Ruth Actey and King Middle Schools do not have a viable alternative route. Our kids deserve safe routes to school. Hundreds of parents are driving their kids short distances because it doesn't currently feel safe to walk or bike. This is creating congestion and dangerous conditions for pedestrians young and old. It is already challenging to park in this neighborhood, as many have spoken to tonight. As we add more housing and residents at North Berkeley BART and throughout the city, we need to ensure this growth doesn't create more traffic. Thank you. Thanks for your comment. Next is Joanna. Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. My name is Joanna Dillon. I'm a parent in a bike-first family that bikes every single day to Ruth Actey, the public library, park and pool, and private businesses on Hopkins. I'm also the daughter of an 80-year-old Berkeley resident in District 5. I support Council Member Kessler-Waney's item with the extension to Saanich because I want Berkeley to be a city where everyone has more ways to get around safely, not fewer. As my parents age, I want Berkeley to offer them more choices. For people to stay independent longer, they need safe places to walk, safer crossings, reliable transit, and streets where biking feels like a real option. And I want the same independence for my children as they grow up, so they can safely bike to school. Anyone who has ridden rows during drop-off can tell you sharrows are not safety. Cities across the country have shown that protected bike lanes can improve safety while supporting vibrant business districts. Rows is not a viable alternative. Berkeley is growing. Our transportation system needs to evolve with it. Thank you very much. Please move forward with bike lanes. Thank you, Joanna. Next is Nick. Hello, good evening. This is Nick Pilch, former Albany mayor, Sierra Club leader, 65-year-old senior, temporarily disabled, and user of Hopkins Street. I was there today on my hand cycle. This is simply a matter of equity. Please vote for the thoughtful referral from Council Member Kessler-Waney. I'm sorry, but it's simply insulting to suggest that bicycles use ADA and or rows instead of Hopkins. Insulting because why do we consider the desires of motor vehicle drivers over all others? Why do only motor vehicle drivers deserve good access to King Pool, the shops on Hopkins, and all the other amenities, but not bicyclists? Motor vehicle drivers use Hopkins to pass through or access these destinations, but some are saying that cyclists should use other streets and not be allowed easy and safe access to Hopkins and its amenities. Once again, insulting and detrimental to the businesses on Hopkins as well, because they are denied access to the.
Segment 16
And if there's an extra nine or even four million dollars that are needed, it's going to have to come out of the council's already approved 20, 27, 31, five-year plan for paving and streets and bike paths. So I urge the council to give very close thought to how you want to allocate fixed dollars across all the paving, pedestrian, and bike lane needs that we have in the city. And your CIP documents show that there's $260 million of unfunded street projects and $66 million of unfunded pathways. Thank you. Next is former council member Cheryl Davila. Followed by Andrew Talbot and Robert Davila. Robert's giving his minute to me. Okay. Can you just, I'll unmute myself. Hold on a second. Okay. So, you know, there's, can you stop the clock for a second? No, I'm sorry. Your time is still moving forward. Thanks for being so fair. Oh, we can't hear you at all now. Cheryl, we can't hear you anymore. Okay, Cheryl. Go on to the next speaker. Next is Andrew Talbot. This is actually Jackie Irby, his wife. In January 2018, my kids were three and five when the Hopkins safety study referral began. They're teenagers now. In March 2021, I was rear-ended by a reckless driver while biking on a bicycle boulevard in Berkeley. My eight-year-old son watched it happen. First responders couldn't tell him if I would survive. He was left on the roadside with strangers while I was rushed to Highland Hospital. I didn't see my kids for weeks. A year later, council voted 8-1 to advance safety improvements on Hopkins. My son stayed up past his bedtime to comment that night. Then that project was killed. My kids attend King and they bike there every day. This year, my son's classmate was hit by a car on Hopkins. He didn't want to talk about it. My son starts high school in two weeks, kindergarten to high school, while we've kept talking. He didn't want to stay up tonight to comment, so I'll read his words. I biked to King every day. I took Rose, even though it's too steep and dangerous. I want to take Hopkins. It's quicker, but there are too many cars and it's not safe for bikes. Our family supports protected bike lanes on Hopkins. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Tarmigan, followed by Samuel, then Leah, then Jackie. So, Tarmigan. Tarmigan, are you there? Can you hear me now? Yes. Oh, sorry about that. Thank you again to the council members, mayor, and city staff for your work. Even though I live on the other side of the city, my kids are currently taking swimming lessons at King Pool. We mostly get across Berkeley by bike, but on a bike, Hopkins feels unsafe. Hopkins needs better infrastructure, and the alternative parallel routes don't allow safe access to facilities directly on Hopkins Street. I urge you all to support council member Kesherwani's proposal with the supplemental to extend to Stanage. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Samuel. Hi, my name is Samuel. Can you guys hear me? Yes. I just wanted to say I live on Hopkins Street between Ordway and Acton. There's not a lot of bikers in this specific area of Hopkins, so it doesn't seem like there's a lot of demand. I've been living here since 1989. Never had a problem with the designated bike lane that goes along the Berkeley BART tracks. Been using that for years. I don't really see a point of, you know, wiping out all the parking spaces, especially like the mailman said. Like, what if you got a big box? The mailman can't even deliver your box. You know, stuff like that. Let me see how much time I got left. Also, if it was in front of your house, I'm sure you wouldn't want that to happen. We can't necessarily use our driveway the way we would want to do it. Also, the driveway has poor visibility. If we do get a car in there, more likely to hit people coming out of the driveway, likely to hit people in the driveway that's trying to bike by. It's just going to make it overall more dangerous, in my opinion. I'm totally against it. Thank you. Thank you, Samuel. Okay, Leah. Hello. Hello. My name is Leah Bushman. I'm a homeowner and resident in the Westbury neighborhood of Berkeley. For the last eight years, I've lived a block and a half from Hopkins Street. My family bikes to and from work, to the gym, local parks, to see friends, buy groceries at Monterey Market, and grab a slice of Joya. My five-year-old son, Theo, will be starting school at Ruth Aksy Elementary School as a kindergarten next month, and he is a future King Middle Schooler. He is extremely excited to start biking to and from school every single day. Bike lanes on Hopkins would allow my family and others in the neighborhood to get safely around town. I'm saddened that many families in my neighborhood have expressed concern about being able to bike their children to school safely. I love living in Berkeley. We moved yesterday because we love getting around by foot and bike and public transit. Bike lanes save lives. Please vote yes to 27 and supplemental. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next is Jackie. Followed by Linda's iPad, Robert Munch, and then Matt. Good evening. My name is Jackie. I'm the manager at Saka Sushi in Hopkins. I support safe streets for cyclists, but this current plan is not it. Hopkins is more than just another commercial corridor. It's actually a destination. We can all agree on that. Every day, we welcome not only neighbors who walk or bike, but also customers from all over Berkeley and across the Bay Area. I've personally spoken with people who drive here as far as Marin County and Vallejo because they value the unique businesses and the character of this neighborhood, and this goes the same for all businesses here on the block. Removing so much parking without practical alternatives will discourage those visitors hurting the small businesses that have made this area successful in the first place and that contribute to Berkeley's tax revenue. My concern isn't just about parking. It's about preserving the long-term vitality and identity of North Berkeley. Please reconsider this proposal and work towards a balanced solution that improves safety while preserving the accessibility of businesses. Thank you, Jackie. Thanks so much. Next is Linda. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Hi, my name is Linda Harris, and I've lived in District 5 for 32 years. As a longtime Berkeley resident, one of the things I love most about Berkeley is its diversity. So considering all the points of views tonight, I am advocating for a plan that includes all the diverse shareholders. So one, please let's go back to the drawing board. First, Council Members O'Keefe and Blackaby's process and design an inclusive process representing all the diverse stakeholders, not just cyclists. Two, please vote to reject Council Member Karawasi's proposal. Three, no matter what, please vote to make Hopkins safer for all by repaving it and installing the appropriate traffic controls, etc. And finally, last bonus point, please consider adding new parking on Hopkins. There's a connector street. I don't know exactly what it is. The one that fronts Monterey Market and Berkeley Hort, close it off to through traffic and make it not a connector street, but parking. Thank you, Linda. Next is Robert, followed by Matt, Jonah, and Theo. Hi, my name is Robert Munch. I'm a first-time commenter. I gotta say, this has been a very illuminating experience, so just hats off to the Council and the Mayor. My wife and I own a house in District 3. We decided to settle in Berkeley partially because of the accessibility that living in Berkeley would provide for us and our future family. We decided to invest in Berkeley, invest in a life, invest for the future, and invest for a family. I grew up in a state and a town like most American towns that had no infrastructure outside of driving, seeing a friend, playing pickup in the park, or meeting a girl just couldn't happen unless I could get a ride. The ability for everyone in Berkeley to have access to safe parts of the city is really something worth preserving. I support the plan for the protected bike lane, mainly because I like to bike. It's good for your health, good for your wallet, good for the environment. But also, as someone planning a life in Berkeley, I worry that the city, when we prioritize parked vehicles, we become a bit more like those vehicles, internalizing their lessons, staying in place because it's easy, because it's cheap, because that's the way it's been. Sorry. Thanks, Robert. Matt? Followed by Jonah, Theo, and then Carrie Schulman. Great. The good thing about Council Member O'Keefe and Blackaby's proposals are that they reflect that they actually listen to the residents and what the residents want, and they show interest in the concerns of the residents who overwhelmingly oppose this. The other Council Member's proposal, on the other hand, favors this bike lobby that's part of this YIMBY group, and they're very dogmatic, and they're feeling, you know, I invested in Berkeley, and I came here for this and that. Well, the long-term residents have also invested in Berkeley. In fact, their tax dollars over the years and decades pay for the Berkeley that you like, that attracted you here. So their concerns ought to be taken in account as well, rather than imposing this dogma on long-time residents and denigrating them. Thank you. Next is Jonah. Hi, thank you. So we're a family of three with a four-year-old. We own a home. We live at the intersection of Hopkins and Peralta. We see cyclists here all the time.
Segment 17
streets in my district and it works for everybody. I do not understand why bike lanes have to be on Hopkins when there are all kinds of streets around which would not require you spend a small fortune to build all of this apparatus when you could just paint a line down the street designating the bike lane as they have done on California and as far as I know on California there have never been any serious accidents much less fatalities. So I'm really concerned about why this insistence on being on the most traffic street in the area when you could have them on the streets. Your time is up. Thanks so much. I'm sorry folks. I know there are a number of you that are still online that weren't able to give public comment so I'm sorry we weren't able to give you that time this evening. We are coming back to councils for council members comments starting with Council Member Kessarwani. Thank you very much Madam Mayor. I want to thank all of the commenters both in person and online. I continue to reiterate what I said at the beginning that this is a really challenging issue for us. I think for the purposes of discussion I would like to move my recommendation with the amendments that I shared earlier on screen. Second. Okay thank you for that and I do want to address the supplemental from Council Member Taplin co-sponsored by Council Member Lunapada and first I want to thank you for it because I know we did hear from a lot of folks tonight asking to extend to stanage and I do want to explain in more detail why I believe the proposal that I've authored is the right one for now and I had said and I believe that the reallocation of the public right of way that we are proposing for Hopkins Street is without precedent in our city and when a big change like this is made I believe it should be justified by the the data that we have in terms of where the serious and fatal crashes are occurring and that is why my item includes information about those locations and proposes safety treatments to address them. When we look at that far western segment which is the five blocks from Peralta Avenue Ohlone Greenway to Stanage Avenue we do propose traffic calming because we want to make sure when we repave that street you know some of what we've seen on roads and other repaved streets is the tendency for cars to go faster so we do want to have traffic calming there but when we looked at the data for the 15 years that we have in our report there were no serious injuries that occurred on that segment and for bicyclists there were it appears from our map there were three incidents that occurred none of them were serious this is over 15 years and so when I when I consider that and I consider the trade-off of the reallocation of the public right of way for that segment it didn't appear justified to me and and I do want to talk about connecting West Berkeley to the amenities on Hopkins. I think that that will still happen because the Alameda County Transportation Commission is going to improve the intersection of Camellia and San Pablo Avenue so that if you live in Northwest Berkeley if you're around the Virginia Street crossing you can easily cross and get on the Greenway if you're living you know more farther north of that you should be able to cross safely at Camellia and cross and at that point you'd have a couple options you could go up to Santa Fe and get on the Greenway and you'd be on a protected route and connect to the Hopkins bike lane the protected bike lane that we propose to start at Peralta so so I want people to keep in mind those folks would have a connection a safe connection to the Hopkins amenities once we have that parallel route that's proposed for Stanage that could be another option for folks who do who would feel comfortable taking the Hopkins route and and so it's not something that I want to preclude our item talks about doing pedestrian safety features that would allow for a future bike lane but I think with the information I currently have and the ability to connect West Berkeley that I think this is the the right the right location to pursue which is the Ohlone Greenway and Peralta Avenue stopping point and then on the funding issue you know a lot of people were saying you know how can you have the funding to pursue this when you have a deficit I just want to clarify the funding for paving and safety infrastructure if you look at our paving item from July 7th those are primarily special funds that can only be used for paving and safety infrastructure and when we talk about our deficit we're talking about the general fund so so it's these funds are not they're not fungible with each other and I know it's very confusing and it may not make sense but in terms of thinking about Hopkins Street and how we pay for it you know I feel comfortable with this proposal because of the nature of how it is funded through special funds so I did want to say that and and help folks understand that's the issue you know we can't use some of these special restricted funds to pay for things that we're proposing through our sales tax measure and our bond measure so so I wanted to clarify that and and I look forward to hearing comments from my colleagues thank you very much thank you moving on to council member Taplin thank you very much and I want to I want to thank the speakers especially the people who spoke who were themselves survivors of traffic violence I want to really underscore how much courage it takes to come here to us tonight and share that those stories with us and I thank you for for for doing that and for me that's really what's at the heart of this for me and there's like no end to what I could say right now but I want to I want to circle back to what Councilmember Humbert was was saying during the question round you know really pointing out all of our policies that we have you know the bike plan climate action plan there these are things that we continuously adopt and declare as priorities and profess that we'll contribute resources to move things forward and then so far too often the choice comes to us and and you know perhaps previously at times Council has has not set forward in the way that it should have and I think tonight we can correct that and for me it's I also want to just point out that I mean I've been here six years but six years ago the conversation has has really I'm actually grateful that we can choose between you know the the protected lanes and protected lanes for a larger stretch the fact that we're having that conversation right now to me is is really indicative of what of how far we've come as a community so so thank you to all you to all of you you know with with the with the ACTC project and with the Hopkins project I did see I did see the chance to integrate these two things but sounds like it sounds like you don't support that and you know I certainly would I would even support sending it to Milvia but sounds like that's not really an option tonight thank you councilmember Toplin you know I I do appreciate it I know we heard that from a lot of commenters and I think we you know I sort of explained my my feeling on the on the Western segment in terms of that Eastern segment we do have the the buffered we're proposing the buffered class two bike lane there it's the same reason that when we looked at the crash data we didn't see the serious injuries there that warranted the protected bike lane and on that segment you have significant costs there's a church there that has parking and you know people are pointing out the cost of this we do have to be sensitive to that because as we know you know the these dollars we have hard choices to make in terms of funding this doing the safety infrastructure and then trying to do everything else that we have in our paving plan and and what we voted on for FF so so that is the the reasoning behind really focusing the protected bike lane where the serious injuries occur but but doing as much as we can to connect the network you know we we do want to we do recognize the Milvia bike boulevard is there we want to bring people down safely and connect to the Greenway and other options thank you yeah thank you very much yeah you know I think I really want to thank you for your leadership and your and your work on this and I you know I don't want to let that perfect be the enemy of the good and so I'm happy to support the motion thank you councilmember Luna Parra thank you I know everyone has a lot to say and it's been a long night and given that I proudly and loudly helped organize the die-in protest on Hopkins several years ago I know everyone knows where I stand so I want to thank all the public commenters and I just really want to hone in on a few points that particularly struck me and that I think are important I know it seems to many as if these proposed changes are not that serious for people on bikes we have but we have redesigned our streets and our cities around cars and the consequences of that have been deadly I love our bicycle boulevards but when you are on a bicycle and you are sharing a road with cars without physical separation you are entirely at the mercy of the driver a driver that is operating a machine that can be and is often used as a deadly weapon a simple moment of road rage can and often leads to loss of life for the person outside of the car and that is why sharrows and painted bike lanes especially with the goal of preserving non-blue curb parking spaces is a disservice and feels like a slap in the face it especially feels like a disservice to our young residents who deserve the right to move about the city safely and independently to our low-income residents who are most likely to rely on modes of transportation other than cars to the many residents of all ages who want alternatives to driving but do not feel safe using our current streets and to our residents who have been personally victims of traffic violence I want to focus in on that fact that these on the fact that these are not passive decisions every fatality from traffic violence on our streets is a policy choice and I know that maybe connecting this issue to the threats of our democracy is a bit melodramatic but I believe that part of our grander national problem is exactly what we've been hearing about today the city council has been debating the single street for almost a decade with.
Segment 18
amount and intensity of discussion that we need in order to install a protected bike lane, but at the same time, it makes sense because this is about more than just a bike lane on one street. It's about what kind of a city we want to be and what we're willing to do to live up to our professed priorities and principles set forth in all of our plans. Through our bicycle plan, our climate action plan, our Vision Zero plan, our declaration of a climate emergency, and most importantly, through citywide elections, Berkeleyans have shown what kind of a city we want to be. Berkeleyans want to join the ranks of world-class cities like Copenhagen and Paris in taking real action to make walking and biking safer, not just for the health of their communities, but frankly for the health of the climate. And these things are incredibly urgent. Devastating wildfires have spread across Canada, the Pacific Northwest, Colorado and New Mexico, Spain, and even France. We have to recognize that in a warming world, the quality of life impacts from a bike lane will feel like nothing compared to the heat, smoke, and severe storms we will increasingly face. And if we are to fight back against the people who say that climate change is a hoax, we here in Berkeley cannot act like climate change is a hoax by refusing to take action in our community and in our lives. We must avoid making Berkeley a city that believes in climate action, except if it would mean parking our second car further away from our house. That said, I get it. I feel that same twinge of annoyance. Yeah, maybe more than a twinge. When the parking spot in front of my house is taken. Or I have to park a block away from my destination. Less concerned about that. It's usually the parking spot in front of my house. But you know who almost always has to walk or roll one or more blocks on either end of their trips? People who take the bus. Those of us who primarily use cars need to recognize the privilege of our position and have some perspective on the level of inconvenience that we face when there isn't a parking spot exactly where we want it. I absolutely agree that we need to be cognizant completely of disabled access and make sure that we're placing ADA parking spaces nearby. But at the same time, I want to recognize that disabled people are actually less likely to drive than those who are not. Prioritizing bikes, micro mobility devices, and transit is the pro-disabled mobility approach. And this is a good segue into the other reason we need to protect bike lanes. Public safety. Study after study have shown that protected bike lanes improve safety for not just cyclists, but also pedestrians and even drivers themselves because they push drivers to slow down, pay attention, and be more conscientious of their surroundings. The current toll of injury and death on Berkeley streets is far too high. No parking spot on Hopkins is worth a human life. And you know, that's not hyperbole. Finally, I want to turn to the concerns of merchants, for which I do have great sympathy. For someone driving, walking a block is a minor inconvenience, but for a small business, a decrease in foot traffic can spell doom. But I think it's worth thinking about that term, foot traffic. There's a reason we use it. Because everyone who visits a business does so by walking or using a personal mobility device at some point in the process. Improving street safety means improved safety for all customers. And just as importantly, the data are frankly conclusive. Putting in bike lanes, even at the expense of parking, does not hurt business districts. In fact, many business districts see their business increase after the installation of safe bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. And we see this in neighboring cities like Oakland, where Temescal is more vibrant and busy than ever. And parenthetically, pedestrian and cyclist safety has vastly improved in the Temescal since the installation of those bike lanes. In summary, I believe that safe bike infrastructure is the right thing to do on Hopkins for our climate, for our kids, for safety, and even frankly for small businesses. I want to thank again everyone who worked on this, but especially Council Member Kesarwani and her staff, and the mayor and her staff, all of whom have listened to all the perspectives and put an incredible amount of care and effort into this proposal. I, of course, will be voting in support of Council Member Kesarwani's item. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Tregub. Thank you. First of all, I want to say that everyone who contacted me provided very valuable and thoughtful input, regardless of where they are on this issue. I have read every single email. My office has met with three different groups of neighbors. I've done my best to respond to all emails received from direct constituents. I biked different sections three years ago, the last time this was an issue before I was on the Council. I spent time in the Hopkins Corridor today just to take a look at it. Like in Council Member Kesarwani's district, comments in mine have been split generally down the middle. We received a great deal of feedback from avid bicyclists who completely opposed protected bike lanes separated by concrete barriers and said that they felt less safe with that design, as well as from those who said they feel safe biking on city streets only when protected bike lanes are in place. I myself started biking as a child in Europe, where my parents felt comfortable letting me ride to school because there were protected bike lanes. Since then, I've associated protected bike lanes with bicycling safety. Of course, as someone mentioned, they have to be unobstructed by trash cans, delivery vehicles, and other objects. My office constantly works on that issue to try to address it on Milvia. We've heard from community members who support this proposal because they believe it restarts a project that has been under discussion for years, improves safety for bicyclists and pedestrians, and preserves more parking than earlier concepts. The supporters have also pointed to the proposal's inclusion of additional ADA parking and loading zones as an effort to improve accessibility while accommodating multiple modes of travel. Many also shared that Hopkins is a key gap in Berkeley's bicycle network, an important connector between the Alami Greenway and the Milvia Bicycle Corridor, and a critical route to schools, businesses, and other key destinations. Some expressed that they currently avoid bicycling on Hopkins because they find it intimidating. Frankly, as do I, and I try to minimize the distance I travel on a bike on that street as much as possible. And I believe that completing this connection is an important step towards reducing dependence on cars. I understand that this debate is not only about bicycling. It is about the safety of everyone who uses our streets, our public commons. It's about accessibility of our residents, including seniors and people with disabilities. It's also about ensuring that our beloved local businesses have access and infrastructure they need to succeed. We've heard from many residents and business owners who remain concerned that the proposal would still remove too much parking, could negatively affect Monterey Market and other nearby businesses, does not adequately address accessibility concerns, and does not reflect what many neighborhood residents want. Others suggested that staff should also study alternative routes rather than focusing exclusively on Hopkins. And some have also questioned whether Hopkins has been studied sufficiently, expressed concerns that cycle tracks do not address the intersection safety issues where many collisions occur, worried that traffic could be diverted onto neighboring residential streets, and urged the city to allow staff to evaluate all feasible options for improving bicycle access to the Hopkins area, rather than presupposing that Hopkins itself is the best location. This is not an easy issue. It's clearly extraordinarily divisive. We've received many comments expressing very strong opinions on all sides. Personally, I would like to provide our staff, especially our fire department and transportation division, with the greatest possible flexibility and trust. They're professionals and specialists in their fields, and I would like them to present us with a plan that truly works, one that includes official outreach to all members of the community and gathers feedback from nearby residents and those who use the corridor. I also want to make sure that the Commission on Disability and Aging and individuals and organizations representing our senior residents have an opportunity to weigh in before anything beyond our forward-to-study options is adopted. Overall, I appreciate that Councilmember Blackabee's proposal provides flexibility and includes multiple options, but I would love to see it move a little closer to the main motion in some respects, particularly around minimizing or eliminating the use of shells, which I agree do not make cyclists safe. It also explicitly calls for coordinating with AC Transit, which I think is essential, given that Hopkins is a bus route. I need 30 more seconds. Is someone going to give you 30 seconds? I can give him 30 seconds. Alright, Councilmember Kessler-Winey will give you 30 seconds. Thank you. I believe coordinating with AC Transit is essential, given Hopkins is also a bus route and several bus stop reconfigurations are proposed. I would also like to see if we can consult with East Bay Peregrine Transit. I am concerned that if we were to constrain our staff's options at the outset, we may be putting ourselves in a corner, both financially and in terms of the range of solutions available to us. I would much rather allow our professional staff to evaluate the corridor comprehensively, incorporate the perspectives of all affected stakeholders, and return to us with recommendations that are informed by data, technical expertise, and broad community engagement within a reasonable but expeditious timeframe. With that said, I want to reiterate that I want to move forward tonight so that we can have our staff assess options and come back to us with their recommendations. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Bartlett, and then Councilmember Blackaby, and then back to Councilmember Taplin. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'll be brief. And I want to thank everyone for all the work you've done, all my colleagues, all the different versions, supplement.
Segment 19
Hey, why haven't you figured this out yet? Why can't people answer these questions? And that's because that's where we're at in the process. We need to give them direction, policy direction, before they can do a lot of these studies that people are talking about and analysis. So I want people to understand that it's not that we haven't thought about this, it's just this is where we're at in the process. And I know that Hopkins Street has been a source of controversy for a decade or so. I've heard people's concerns about safety, support for local businesses, and parking. And I am deeply invested in ensuring that our streets are safe for all users, pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers. And that is why I support bike lanes on Hopkins Street. I really want to acknowledge that folks have different ideas of what safety means, and I'm making my decision today based off of the studies that have been referenced today about safety, as well as my own personal experiences. Something that I talked about a lot on the campaign was the importance of street safety, because I'm someone who was on a bicycle, who was hit by a car on Milvia Street before there was protected bike lanes. And I think folks sometimes forget that. But believe me, it's very painful to get hit by a car on a bicycle or as a pedestrian. And certainly, I don't want to disregard anyone's concerns about getting hit by a bicycle. I'm sure that that's also very painful. But my dad used to say, between a bike and a car, or a person and a car, who's going to win? And so you just keep that in mind as we're talking about safety here. Cyclist infrastructure improves safety for everyone. And the reason why we're doing this, just to kind of take a step back, as someone was saying I'd like to do, the reason why we're doing this in the first place is because Hopkins is a high-injury corridor for pedestrians and cyclists. And those numbers that we've talked about earlier with 46 pedestrian-bicycle crashes occurring and three fatalities is the reason why we're talking about Hopkins Street. And it's why we're not talking about the other places. Excuse me. There are many studies that show how bike lanes and infrastructure can produce also tangible economic benefits. I know this has been mentioned multiple times. I don't want to go into it too much more. I understand that the loss of parking is a concern because not everyone can ride a bike or walk to the places they want to go. And adding parking management in the commercial areas will encourage turnover. And we are retaining some parking along parts of the corridor. I just don't want folks to think that we're eliminating all parking. I also wanted to briefly share that I've spoken with wheelchair users who use bike lanes to get around the city because they actually feel like that feels safer than riding on the sidewalk. And I've also seen these really awesome tricycles with folks that are older cyclers, and that feels safe to them that they can ride on a tricycle and sometimes an e-tricycle. Very exciting that we have all these other options now. Regarding the concerns about accessibility, we will ensure that it's incorporated into the design plans with things like ramps, curb cuts, and loading zones. I mentioned a few other ways that we are also thinking about accessibility. And I just want to be clear that we have not done a perfect job in bike lanes and bus islands. I understand that those have not always been successful. And definitely as we bring in our new director of public works, I know that this is something that he will consider. And we on council will make sure that these areas are accessible for people. That is absolutely important to me. As someone who is disabled, it's absolutely something that I keep in mind. We need to also balance. We've talked about being fiscally responsible and safe. And by incorporating bike lanes now, we're saving money compared to adding them later. It will be a lot more expensive to add bike lanes in later. They're only adding around $3 million to the project compared to requirements like green infrastructure, which I also support, which costs $6 million. And that's a requirement. Right now, Hopkins Street is unsafe for cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers alike. We need to move forward with this referral to repave Hopkins and implement bike and pedestrian safety improvements to help us reach our climate goals and keep everyone safe. Thank you very much. All right. So we have the sub. Excuse me. You are being very rude. No booing. You can be disappointed. You can be disappointed, but you can do it quietly or outside. Thank you. All right. So we have a motion that's on the floor. Excuse me. Excuse me. Excuse me. You need to either step outside or please be quiet. Okay. So we have two motions on the floor. And if you could, Mr. City Clerk, just run us through where we're at. The first, the main motion is Council Member Kesarwani's motion. The substitute motion is from Council Member O'Keefe to adopt the supplemental submitted by Council Member O'Keefe with the reference to the language from trees from Council Member Kesarwani's item and to remove the word buffered from the edits that were made. So that's currently the pending motion is the substitute motion from Council Member O'Keefe, seconded by Blackaby. You ready for a vote? Yes, we're ready for a vote. On the substitute motion from Council Member O'Keefe, Council Member Kesarwani? No. Taplin? No. Bartlett? Yes. Traigov? No. O'Keefe? Yes. Blackaby? Yes. Lunaparra? No. Humbert? No. And Mayor Ishii? No. Okay, that motion fails. Madam Mayor, I'd like to offer another substitute. Go ahead. Let me share my screen. So this is an adjusted substitute on my previous sup with a couple of amendments that I've marked. One amendment is that I'm asking that as part of the staff analysis, they do a parking impact analysis, including potential impact for lost parking on local businesses. I've also got confirmation again, just a reminder that Mr. Murray confirmed that Hopkins is going to be paved in the FY 2028 cycle and that he could do the study in six months or less. So my direction is that we basically take the six months, do the extra work and confirm that paving will commence on Hopkins as planned in fiscal 2028, no delay. So what I'm basically saying is there's a way of doing the analysis and developing an alternative approach that we can put against the cycle track plan, do them both and we don't delay Hopkins one bit. There's nothing that we do here that will move that back. So counter to some criticisms that we're adding a bunch of time, we're putting it in the existing time, we're just taking the time to look at one other option for consideration. And lastly is in response to other people's concerns, which I agree are very valid. We've basically said we want to make sure that sharers are not the default. They're actually the very last resort if used at all. And the way we get there is we say we're willing to accept and look at class two or class four bike lanes and bump up the acceptable parking loss to 20%. So more parking loss is acceptable. Sharers are last resort. We really want to do class two, class four bicycle boulevards as sort of the preferred options in whatever plan that we ask staff to do. And so my motion is to offer my item as a substitute to the Kesarwani item with these additional amendments. That's my motion. Second. Okay. Can we take a vote? Can I just inform something? Does your motion also take the amended street trees language out of Councilmember Kesarwani? Yes. Also takes the amended street trees language. Yes. Thank you. Thank you Councilmember Traeger. Okay. On the substitute motion from Councilmember Blackaby, Councilmember Kesarwani? No. Taplin? No. Bartlett? Yes. Traeger? Aye. O'Keefe? Yes. Blackaby? No. Lunaparra? Yes. Humbert? Yes. And Mayor Ishii? Yes. Okay. That motion fails. Can we vote on the main motion, please? On the main motion. May I? Oh, go ahead. I'd like to speak before we did that if possible. Do you want to start? Well, the main motion is the motion from Councilmember Kesarwani to adopt her item as submitted with the amendments that were introduced at the meeting. Councilmember? May I offer an amendment? I'd like to. An amendment? Yeah, I'd like to request that you amend the motion to change the end of the Class 2 bike lane from the Alameda to McGee. So, extending the painted bike lane just along the park so we'd be able to preserve the parking along the park. So, my understanding is we will be able to preserve parking on one side from McGee to the Alameda. Yes. And so with that proposal, essentially, you're asking for parking on both sides with a Class 2 green painted 5 feet bike lane. And because of the width of the street, as you amended your item, there would be no buffer. I appreciate why you're asking. I understand the concerns that we heard tonight. But given that there would be no buffer and no protection there, unfortunately, I can't accept it. But I respectfully thank you for asking. Okay. Thank you. Okay, so on the main motion from Councilmember Kesarwani, Councilmember Kesarwani? Yes. Taplin? Yes. Bartlett? Yes. Traigov? Aye. O'Keefe? No. Blackaby? No. Lunaparra? Yes. Humbert? Yes. And Mayor Ishii? Yes. Okay, that motion carries. Thank you. So item 28 was moved to consent. And so I will see if there's any public comment for items not listed on the agenda. Anybody online? Well, I.