    |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
corridors
east 14th/international
• community support el camino real
san pablo avenue
|
Community Support - East 14th Street and International Boulevard
Neighborhood Strengths and Needs Central location in the region and resulting transportation options and access were consistently mentioned as neighborhood strengths along East 14th/International Boulevard. Availability of neighborhood-serving retail, commercial and health services, and strong sense of community were also cited by some residents, but this varied by neighborhood. This was especially true regarding the availability of neighborhood retail, where Oakland neighborhoods were less likely to say that they had quality retail services.
Crime and safety, including pedestrian safety, were common concerns cited across all neighborhoods along East 14th/International Boulevard. Therefore, most respondents thought that improved police presence and better access to social services would improve their neighborhood.
Minimal employment and shopping opportunities, poorly maintained building and storefronts, and sidewalk repairs were also commonly raised issues, mostly in Oakland and unincorporated Alameda County neighborhoods. This was confirmed by many respondents, who cited the need for better economic development assistance, small business loans, and improved city services as things that would improve their neighborhoods.
Traffic, vacant lots, trash, and access to affordable housing were also raised as issues of concern.
Housing Availability and Affordability Housing affordability was raised consistently as a concern for people living along East 14th/International Boulevard. Most people were concerned about higher density housing, though, and cited apartments as particular concerns. Many felt multi-family housing caused crowding, crime, and put pressure on city services.
In both Alameda County and San Leandro, most respondents thought the housing stock was of good quality. This contrasted with Oakland, where most respondents voiced concerns about the quality of the existing housing stock.
Most respondents in the neighborhoods along East 14th/International Boulevard felt that most people drove to work, shops, and schools. Yet many stated that the multitude of available transit options allowed many people to also use transit, walk, or bike to get around. This was especially true in San Leandro, where many people use BART for work trips, and in neighborhoods where retail was located close to homes (such as Chinatown, portions of East Oakland, San Antonio, and the Fruitvale neighborhoods). Many respondents also noted that people on limited incomes and seniors are the predominate users of transit or are walking in their communities.
Proximity of retail or employment to housing along East 14th/International Boulevard, inadequate sidewalks, and other pedestrian amenities were cited as the major barriers to more residents choosing to walk or bike for shopping or work trips. Limited access to retail and jobs forced many to travel (via car or transit) outside of their neighborhoods to shop or work. Crime was also mentioned as a barrier to walking within one's neighborhood.
Support for New Development
Opinions regarding development of affordable or high-density housing varied across the corridor. In some communities, there was an interest in having more low and moderate-income housing, whereas in others there were concerns expressed about the impacts of adding more housing, such as loss of open spaces or parks for children to play, parking, and school impacts.
In regards to new development, respondents cited concerns with safety (or the need for adequate lighting and police presence), design and aesthetics, and displacement and gentrification.
In general, respondents claimed that people tend to be more supportive of development when they can input into the process.
Engagement in Planning and Development Along East 14th/International Boulevard, there was quite a variation in how and when different groups participate in the planning process. The variation seems dependent on race, income, level of organization, and age makeup of the neighborhood, as well as the presence of a strong community-based organization or a proactive or strong city-sponsored community engagement process.
Most respondents did not think that more people would like to be or would become more engaged in planning. This was especially true in lower-income communities, as respondents felt that these populations were transient and therefore not invested in the community for the long term. Common barriers cited for lack of involvement included disinterest, lack of time or timing of meetings, child care, language and cultural barriers, and lack of information about current issues or activities that affect individual communities.
In terms of representation, most felt that those who do participate in planning are generally reflective of the community at large. Some noted, however, that young people are not represented well and that business owners, who often do not live in neighborhoods, are over-represented. It was also mentioned that there seems to be a vocal minority that often attends to oppose housing or other specific projects and that these small groups or individuals do not generally reflect opinions of the neighborhood at large.
Common methods for learning about planning and development include local newspapers, city and other government newsletters, television, word of mouth (neighbors), community-based organizations, and e-mail LISTSERVs.
|
|||||||
Only
San Leandro residents mentioned quality streetscapes and well-maintained
homes as a neighborhood strength. At the same time, however, San Leandro
residents were also more apt to cite pedestrian and streetscape improvements
as being necessary to improve their neighborhoods.
Overall,
respondents claimed that the community was supportive of change in their
neighborhoods, especially new neighborhood-serving commercial development
and some housing, with special mention of condominium development in
certain locations. There was also expressed interest and support for
mixed use buildings with retail on the ground floor and residential
above. People were less supportive of additional big-box retail, as
they expressed concern over impacts to small, local businesses.
Overall,
opinions were mixed about when the community gets involved in a project.
Some respondents felt that residents were very aware of changes happening
in their neighborhoods, and were thus able to get involved early, especially
with commercial and retail development. Some concern was expressed that
local governments should do more to ensure that residents are really
involved in making decisions in the planning process, and that their
"input" is not limited to simply responding to plans and proposals.