Fwd: Tomorrow’s Hopkins Street Vote: Where I Stand and Why
Diane Tokugawa
From: Shoshana O'Keefe <shos...@shoshanaokeefeforberkeleycitycouncildistrict52024.ccsend.com>
Date: July 27, 2026 at 2:06:48 PM PDT
To: dtok...@comcast.net
Subject: Tomorrow’s Hopkins Street Vote: Where I Stand and Why
Reply-To: sok...@cityofberkeley.info
Hello Diane,
With an essential meeting on the future of Hopkins Street tomorrow, I am reaching out to explain my positions and current thinking. In the message below I lay out all of my reasoning for why I feel the way I do. I am doing this in the spirit of transparency, but I also acknowledge it is quite long. Below is a summary of the main takeaways, and if you’d like to further understand my thought process behind my position, I invite you to read the entire message. Thanks!
- Hopkins St. needs to be repaved, urgently. Parts of it are rated "failed," and every year we wait makes the repair more expensive. The paving must come with pedestrian safety improvements, especially at the busy intersection of California/Monterey.
- I plan to reintroduce a version of my original “pave only” proposal from February with a few small improvements and some additional language granting city staff flexibility on phasing the project if necessary.
- I do not support a protected (class IV) bike lane on Hopkins. I said so when I ran, and I still believe it. Cyclists have alternative routes now (Rose and Ada) and better ones can be built for a fraction of the cost.
- The two main reasons are parking and cost. Public Works projects the lane would eliminate all parking between McGee and Peralta and a significant amount between The Alameda and McGee, which hurts merchants and cuts off access to King Park for people who rely on cars. And it adds over $3 million to an already enormous project, in a year when we’re cutting budgets and asking voters for new taxes.
- If the bike lane passes anyway, I’ll work to improve the plan rather than lose with nothing to show for it.
Details and reasoning on all of this are below.
Full statement:
Thanks to everyone who has weighed in on the future of Hopkins St. It’s been a long time since an issue drew this much input, and it shows how invested this community is in making our city better.
Tuesday will be tense. The strong feelings on both sides are mostly opposed to one another, but I trust the people of Berkeley to be respectful of each other and the process.
I plan to reintroduce a version of my original item from February asking that the street be paved with pedestrian improvements. I also intend to add language requesting better parking management, encouraging development of Rose St. as a Bicycle Boulevard, and allowing for flexibility in the way the project is implemented.
I’m going in with a clear view of my ideal outcome, and of what I’ll fight for in a compromise. I’m laying it out here because a public meeting doesn’t leave room for nuance.
I don’t believe a protected bike lane ("class IV" in traffic engineering terms) is right for Hopkins Street. I speak as a daily bike commuter, a member of a three-generation family of cyclists, and with real sympathy for how unsafe our streets can be.
Whenever I face a policy question, I ask three things: What’s needed versus what’s wanted? What tradeoffs already exist? And what can we realistically accomplish?
Let’s go through the question of what the future of Hopkins St. should be through this framework:
What’s needed versus what’s wanted?
Hopkins St. needs to be repaved, and soon. The street is designated a high-injury corridor, and parts of the pavement are rated "failed." Repaving was scheduled years ago, but the last round of controversy delayed the project, leaving the safety problems unaddressed and likely adding millions to the cost. The longer a street deteriorates, the more expensive it is to fix. Repaving must happen as soon as possible, and it has to come with pedestrian safety improvements, especially at Hopkins and California/Monterey.
Many people want a bike lane and I can understand why. The busiest sections of the street are harrowing on a bike, and the low-stress bike network doesn’t connect that area well to the neighborhoods to the west. But there are alternatives. Rose St. is already designated as a future Bike Boulevard, and the changes required to make that a reality cost a fraction of a protected bike lane on Hopkins. Ada St. is already a naturally occurring low-traffic route running parallel to the most congested stretch of Hopkins. Cyclists have options now, and in the future they’ll have even better ones.
A bike lane on Hopkins is a want and not a need, given that alternatives exist now and more can be pursued in cheaper and less disruptive ways. Repaving the street and adding pedestrian safety upgrades are a need. Running a city means making the best use of limited time and money. That distinction matters.
What tradeoffs already exist?
There are two main tradeoffs that drive my position on this issue - parking loss and cost.
Parking is already scarce on the commercial stretch of Hopkins. I’ve driven there to shop and left without finding a space more times than I can count. Public Works projects that a class IV bike lane would remove all parking between McGee and Peralta and a third of it between McGee and The Alameda. Merchants fear that such a loss would hurt their businesses. Residents tell me they love shopping there but need a car to do it. And King Park’s track, tennis courts, and pool draw people from across the city, including many who are elderly, disabled, or hauling small kids. For them, nearby parking is essential to meaningfully access these facilities.
The second tradeoff is cost. The bike lane is projected to add over $3 million to this already expensive project. That is $3 million that would not be available for other streets in urgent need of repair. When we recently adopted the Five-Year Paving Plan, several Councilmembers spoke passionately about streets in their districts that didn’t make the list. The paving budget is zero-sum, and the city’s fiscal crisis has already required severe cuts, a proposed sales tax increase, and a new bond measure. In that context, anything less than strict fiscal discipline is difficult to justify.
Given the loss of parking and the fiscal tradeoffs required in the current budget climate, I can’t support the bike lane proposal as written.
What can we realistically accomplish?
Now for the question of practicality: what will it actually take to get the needed work done?
Even without a bike lane, this project is projected to cost as much as $20 million, and our annual FF revenue is $15 million. I’m worried that even if my paving proposal passes, it won’t get done for lack of money. I’ll be including language that allows staff to divide the work into smaller segments if necessary. I’d rather see Hopkins paved in stages than not paved at all. I hope the bike lane’s proponents do the same, though that’s harder with a bike lane in the mix. The bottom line is simple: if we pass a plan on Tuesday but the street continues to languish unpaved for years, we will have failed the people of Berkeley. I can’t let that happen.
Second, a political reality. I’m barred by law from coordinating with most of my colleagues, but their public positions give me reason to believe the bike lane proposal could still win the day. I hope I’m wrong. But I’d rather be ready than surprised, and losing a vote 5-4 with nothing to show for it doesn’t serve the people of my District.
If my proposal does not pass, and it becomes clear the bike lane plan will, I intend to make it a better plan than it would otherwise be. I may propose amending Councilmember Kesarwani’s item to change the class IV lane to a class II lane (a painted lane beside the car lane, no barrier) along the wider stretch east of McGee. That would at least preserve the parking along the park, a significant improvement over the projected parking loss there. Compromise is inherent in this work, and I want to be transparent with my supporters that, if the bike lane proposal is certain to pass, I may support a compromise that includes some bicycle infrastructure.
I know this has been a long explanation, and I appreciate everyone who has taken the time to read it. Getting this right is extremely important to me. My staff and I have worked especially hard on this topic during my term. Regardless of what happens on Tuesday, I owe my constituents transparency, careful consideration, and due diligence going into a decision that will affect the landscape of one of the most loved neighborhoods of our wonderful city.
Thanks again to everyone who has written, called, or spoken with me on this issue. I hope many of you come to speak at the meeting on Tuesday, and I look forward to seeing you all then. Please see below for information about participating:
WHEN: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 at 6:00 PM
WHERE: School District Board Room – 1231 Addison Street, Berkeley, CA 94702; Participate via ZOOM
HOW: After approval of the Consent Calendar, make public comment on the Action Calendar (Item 27) in support of Councilmember O’Keefe’s Supplemental. Commentators will have 1 minute to speak but can receive up to 3 minutes from others (4 minutes total). Those ceding their comments must be there in-person or on zoom to do so.
Shoshana O'Keefe | 1320 Spruce St. | Berkeley, CA 94709 US
