    |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
corridors
east 14th/international
el camino real
san pablo avenue
• community support
|
Community Support - San Pablo Avenue
Neighborhood Strengths and Needs While
strengths varied greatly by community, all respondents referred to the
people in their community as the strength of the neighborhood. The reasons
varied, including diversity, friendliness, political activity, and well-connected
networks. In certain areas,
Community concerns varied greatly, generally associated with the average income of the community surveyed. Upper-income communities were largely concerned with issues such as traffic and aesthetics, while lower-income communities were concerned with crime, a lack of city (especially police) services, a lack of commercial services, housing affordability, and gentrification due to the influx of condominiums and other expensive units. Safety issues were a concern in most communities, especially when referring to walking or biking along San Pablo Avenue, either due to crime or heavy traffic and unsafe crossings.
Desired improvements varied as well, with the variation seemingly linked to average incomes of the neighborhoods. In upper-income communities, people were largely concerned with improving aesthetics and maintaining the neighborhood character with all new developments. These were very desired in lower-income communities as well, but these communities were also very interested in increasing the level of city and commercial services in their neighborhoods, improving public transit, and finding programs to provide better education and recreational opportunities for youth (potentially decreasing loitering and crime). Another commonly desired improvement in low-income neighborhoods was increasing the amount of single-family housing and decreasing the number of rental properties, so that new homeowners could come in and invest in their communities.
Housing Availability and Affordability Opinions about housing varied greatly amongst residents in the neighborhoods along San Pablo Avenue. Most felt that houses should be more affordable, especially in lower-income communities. Many respondents expressed that residents seem concerned with the higher ratio of rental to owner-occupied units, as respondents thought this kept a lot of people from investing in the community (renters were thought to have more transient attitudes across all communities). Concerns about housing, both availability and affordability, were strong in all communities on San Pablo Avenue.
Transportation Access and Choice
Driving was cited across the corridor as the most common manner of getting around, although nearly every community stated that a fair amount of walking and biking took place in their neighborhoods. In addition, many neighborhood residents cited the new 72 Rapid bus that moves along San Pablo Avenue as a very welcome and successful addition.
For those neighborhoods near BART stations, many people used BART to get to work. In West Oakland, however, one respondent expressed reservations about the safety of walking to and from the BART station at night.
The use of alternative means of transportation depended largely upon two factors. First, if people had no other choice, they would walk or bike or take public transit (this was common in the lower-income communities). Second, if the walking environment was friendly enough and services were close enough to homes, then people would walk. Across the corridor, people stated that walking along San Pablo was unsafe (due to crime or traffic) and unpleasant (due to aesthetics, traffic, and noise). Most expressed that people would walk if they felt safe, the services were close, and the environment was pleasant.
Generally, community support for projects varied largely by the income of the community. Lower-income communities (with the exception of West Oakland) were much more likely to be welcoming to new developments, as they were seen as changes to bring good commercial services and good people to the areas, providing changes for the area to revitalize. Upper-income communities, which generally already had these services, were likely to be more concerned with the traffic, noise, and impacts on neighborhood character, and were much more likely to be resistant to new developments. The exception to this trend was West Oakland, which was said to have a deep distrust of developers and the city, and has fought very hard with new developments to make sure that they serve the existing residents. Gentrification was especially an issue in West Oakland, as well as other lower-income communities.
Regardless of the income of the community, respondents claimed that people are much more likely to support new development if they are engaged early on in the process so that they have an opportunity to help design the projects. This is due to concerns regarding new development impacts on existing residents.
In addition, new developments that maintained and improved the neighborhood character were strongly desired. Height, however, was consistently cited as a reason that residents would oppose new development.
Engagement in Planning and Development While
specific levels of involvement varied by community, all stated that
there was a core group of people who were very active in the community,
and that most others outside of this group did not regularly participate
in the process. It was often reported that
Common barriers to participation included lack of time and that meetings were held at night (for safety reasons). Lack of notice was also a common problem, especially when people did not have access to computers and the internet. Language barriers and an intimidating process were also cited as barriers.
The general opinion was that communities were more reactive than proactive, and people were much more likely to be active when they had a specific topic to rally around. Interestingly, one organizer said he used this fact to promote community activity, by creating a relatively positive issue (tree plantings) that communities could come together on and establishing the basis for more consistent community activity. Across the more active communities, people were interested in getting involved in the process as early as possible, and were appreciative of the opportunity to do so.
The most common ways that people learned about community issues included being connected to local organizations or on LISTSERVs for city councils and planning commission meetings. In addition, direct contact with city officials was common for more involved community members. Several cities aired city council meetings on television, and people saw this as a convenient way to attend the meeting without leaving their homes. Local media also played a role in informing the public about community issues. Public notice was generally not considered a good source of information (with a noted exception in Albany).
|
|||||||
the
diversity of commercial services was also considered a strength. Some
specifically mentioned the fact that many businesses were independently
owned as a strength in their community.
Whether
people shopped and worked locally depended largely upon the presence
of quality commercial services in the neighborhood. If these services
were present, then many people shopped in the neighborhoods. For example,
Albany, El Cerrito, and Berkeley all cited their commercial services
as a strength, and stated that many people did at least some of their
shopping in these neighborhoods, although they also went to regional
centers to shop. In areas that lack adequate services, grocery stores
were especially noted as absent, and people had to travel to other areas
to get good groceries. Communities with industrial areas like West Oakland
and Berkeley mentioned that some peopled worked in these areas.
activity
increased when there was a pending project that directly impacts the
community. Communities with a lot of renters were less engaged in issues,
as renters saw themselves as transient and therefore less attached tot
he neighborhood.