    |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
corridors
• community support east 14th/international
el camino real
san pablo avenue
|
Community Support - Corridors
To determine community perceptions and support regarding local planning and development, a phone survey was administered to "opinion leaders" working or living in the neighborhoods along three major transportation corridors in the region: East 14th/International Boulevard, El Camino Real, and San Pablo Avenue.
Summary Findings This summary of findings is for community opinion leaders surveyed along the three corridors. Findings are presented by topic area: neighborhood strengths and needs, housing, transportation, development, and community engagement. Detailed findings for specific corridors and by topic are contained in the Community Support sections for the individual corridors.
Neighborhood Strengths and Needs "What people have influences what they want and need"
Overall, people seem to highly value being part of a "community." People were very in touch with those elements that make their existing community complete or incomplete; for instance people recognized if their community lacked affordable housing, jobs, neighborhood serving retail, access to alternative transportation modes, or parks and open spaces.
Housing "Housing is important, people are more important." People are aware of the region's housing affordability issue. There was more concern, however, for how more housing in existing neighborhoods would affect people, both currently living along the corridors and future residents. There was concern for how well new housing would meet the needs of existing and future families. For example, people were concerned with access to parks, crowding and crime in their neighborhoods. Density, building heights, and crowding were also concerns.
"People's choices are only limited by their options." Having transportation choices was valued in most communities surveyed. Driving was cited as the most common mode of transportation. Where transportation options were available, it was often cited as neighborhood strength. Where there was access to BART or a quality bus line, such as the 72 Rapid bus that serves San Pablo Avenue, respondents reported regular use by residents.
Development "We won't react if you don't." People varied greatly in their support for new development in their neighborhoods. Residents of lower income communities were supportive of development mostly because they were interested in neighborhood improvements and improved or additional services, especially neighborhood retail. Many community leaders in these neighborhoods felt that the community lacked sufficient access to retail services, including grocery stores. Upper income communities also voiced support for development. Residents of these communities were more concerned that new development be well designed, add to the "character" of the neighborhood, and that it include restaurants and other local entertainment or services.
In some communities, there was interest in more low and moderate-income housing, while in other communities there were concerns about the impacts more housing would have on the neighborhoods, such as loss of open spaces or parks for children to play, loss of parking, and school impacts.
We also found that many members of the community felt that city staff often "reacts" or is highly responsive to developers and their needs, and not the needs of community members. Essentially, many respondents claimed that city staff may be just as guilty in their "reactionism" to development as city staff often claim residents are.
Community Engagement "People's reactions measure the quality of our communication." The level of community engagement, or depth of engagement, was highly dependent on education and income levels, whether there was a strong community-based organization that mobilized the community, and past experience with local government. In general, communities were more reactive than proactive. People were much more likely to be active when the issue impacted their individual neighborhood or business. Most respondents felt that those who wanted to be engaged were, although barriers were noted, including timing, access to childcare, and language or cultural differences.
|
|||||||
In
communities, particularly low-income communities, where basic needs,
e.g. safety, shelter, jobs, and health care, were not being met, those
needs were of central concern. In neighborhoods where basic needs were
being met, residents were more concerned with advanced needs, such as
higher education, parks, landscaping amenities, quality building design,
and other aesthetics and amenities.
Much
of the opposition to new development seemed to stem from not being well
engaged in the development process. This included housing development.
Many respondents claimed that their community voiced opposition to recent
housing developments only because they were not engaged early on, not
because they didn't recognize that more housing was needed in the community.