Over the holiday weekend, a local resident shared a detailed history of the Richmond Complete Streets public engagement process. Their reflection included conversations with a couple of El Cerrito residents—neither of whom lives on Richmond Street. While both individuals were neutral about the plan, they reportedly felt the project was being pushed from the top down and wasn’t responsive to community input. The resident wrote a recap to counter that perception and highlight the City’s public engagement efforts.
The post traces the process back to September 2024, when an in-person workshop and online survey kicked things off. More than 165 people responded to the survey and around 75 attended the first meeting. Feedback was consistent on one front—drivers speed through the area and create safety issues for pedestrians and cyclists. But when it came to solutions like dedicated bike lanes, responses were divided: in-person attendees skewed 56% against bike lanes, while 61% of online respondents supported them. It illustrated the common pattern in public engagement where status quo voices dominate in-person meetings, while broader community sentiment leans toward change.
A second meeting in November 2024 introduced preliminary designs based on this feedback. By then, some options—like fully protected bike lanes—had already been ruled out. The session focused on refining chicane elements and balancing parking with safety. The resident captured the tension well: “the grand vision of complete streets meets the lived experience of residents who need somewhere to put their garbage cans.”
However, the third meeting was invite-only and specifically for Richmond Street residents. The local resident acknowledges they didn’t attend and, importantly, does not live on Richmond Street. The post also does not include any direct quotes or reactions from people who do. That omission matters.
The most recent public meeting in June 2025 drew a full crowd. City staff and consultants made a visible effort to explain the proposal and treat residents respectfully. The local resident praised this effort, and encouraged people to listen to the recordings or read the transcript. Still, they observed a telling contradiction: while residents demand safer crossings and lower speeds, many remain unwilling to support the parking trade-offs or infrastructure changes that would make those safety improvements possible.
The post ends on a thoughtful note about how public engagement often struggles to activate neutral residents early enough—and how these processes can be dominated by those with the most time to participate.
In another comment the writer also disparaged the residents by suggesting they were merely afraid of change. In truth, their concerns are valid, as the proposed changes would have a significant negative impact on them.
It’s also important to note that this perspective, while informed, does not come from someone who lives on Richmond Street. This citizen’s post supports the idea behind Complete Streets and applauds the City’s public engagement efforts. However, their summary misses a crucial element—how these plans may affect the people who live directly along Richmond Street. Trade-offs like reduced parking, rerouted traffic, or construction disruption can have a profound effect on daily life. These are not abstract concerns—they’re specific, immediate, and deeply felt by the people living where the change will happen.
In short, the citizen offers a helpful timeline and critique of broader public engagement dynamics. But for a truly complete perspective, it’s essential to elevate the voices of Richmond Street residents themselves. Any well-meaning analysis must consider not just process and theory—but the real-world consequences for the people at the heart of the issue.
This citizen’s post supports the idea behind Complete Streets and applauds the City’s public engagement efforts. However, their summary misses a crucial element—how these plans may affect the people who live directly along Richmond Street. Trade-offs, such as reduced parking, rerouted traffic, or construction disruptions, can have a profound impact on daily life. These are not abstract concerns—they’re specific, immediate, and deeply felt by the people living where the change will happen.
In short, the citizen offers a helpful timeline and critique of broader public engagement dynamics. However, for a truly comprehensive perspective, it’s essential to amplify the voices of Richmond Street residents themselves. Any well-meaning analysis must consider not just process and theory, but the real-world consequences for the people at the heart of the issue.
If Richmond Complete Streets is to succeed, those most directly impacted should be at the center of the discussion—not just included, but prioritized. A complete streets plan requires a full understanding of its community—block by block.
El Cerrito Committee for Responsible Government (ECCRG) 