By Samson Reiny/Oakland North

Many of Oakland’s community health problems can be traced to a history of bad city planning and land use, an expert from the Alameda County Public Health Department (ACPHD) said last Wednesday during a panel discussion at the American Institute of Architects East Bay offices in downtown Oakland. 

Sandra Witt, the County’s deputy director of planning policy and health equity, referred often to a report published last year called “Life and Death from Unnatural Causes: Health and Social Inequity in Alameda County,” as she argued that historical segregation, racial steering and block-busting practices by real estate agents, as well as business disinvestment and concentrated poverty in urban centers, have created poor living conditions in largely non-white communities.   

Witt said that this has resulted today in the proliferation of liquor stores, a lack of safe community spaces, and forced close proximity to hazardous industrial zones, just a few of the many direct causes of health inequity for these depressed communities.  People in these areas suffer from higher rates of obesity, diabetes, asthma, and early death.

The report found that both ethnicity and geography play a role in one’s health. Compared to a white child in the Oakland Hills, a black child in West Oakland is seven times more likely to be born into poverty, five times more likely to be hospitalized for diabetes, and two times more likely to die of heart disease.  A black child in West Oakland, on average, has a life expectancy that is fifteen years shorter than that of a white child in the hills. “Looking at social inequities, it’s indicative of who makes decisions, and how we value certain populations over others,” Witt said.

Alameda County will try several strategies to overcome these challenges.  The “Place Matters Team,” formed in 2007 as an initiative of the Health Policy Institute, conducts research that focuses on the influence of social conditions on health.  The findings are designed to influence policy on issues including affordable housing, economic development, education, and land use.

The county’s public health department has also advocated on behalf of communities confronted with potentially health-averse developments.  Last year, county health officials were one of several agencies that testified before the California Energy Commission (CEC), lobbying against the construction of a power plant in a low-income area in Hayward.  The CEC ultimately denied the permit requested by the East Shore Energy Center to build.  Officials also recently testified at a San Leandro City Council Meeting, urging members to support an affordable housing complex as part of a new development project near the downtown BART.  A decision is expected by the end of the month.

The health department is also involved in the City-County Neighbor Initiative (CCNI), a partnership between the county, the city of Oakland, the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD), and various community groups aimed to help neighborhood residents tackle health inequities.  The CCNI worked with Sobrante Park area residents as they petitioned the Oakland City Council to fund improvements and safety measures at Tyrone Carney park, which was closed in 2002 due to violence and drug dealing in the area.  In 2007, the city allotted $30,000 for the redesign of the park, and public works installed new traffic safety improvements. 

“Creating healthy communities is in the original DNA of the planning profession,” said Albert Lopez, director of planning for the County. “But good advice has been ignored for several decades.” He notes that urban sprawl in the last several years has been about “dumb growth,” about reckless planning in certain counties and communities.  “There’s a lack of pedestrian amenities and there’s a real sense of isolation in the hinterlands like Antioch and Pittsburgh, where they have less access to transportation and resources,” Lopez said.

But Lopez said he believes that change is coming.  Planning is moving toward regionalism and mandates from a higher level of government, a change from what had been largely a city and county’s prerogative. Lopez said he believes it’s probably better this way, because the greater oversight of planning for land usage, “will create better connectors between housing, jobs, and transit … it will reinforce sustainability and resiliency.” 

As an example of this trend toward a more integrated and thoughtful planning system, the state is putting an emphasis on “going green.” In 2008, the California Legislature passed bill, SB375, which provides priority federal and state funding for communities whose plans include ample walking alternatives and public transportation. The goal of the legislation was not only community sustainability but decreased automobile usage, which would help to offset carbon emission levels.

But Lopez said planning does not hold all the answers to better health equity.

“The solution is not just a land use issue alone,” he said.  “It requires a conversation with various professions, and it needs political will.” 

Witt agreed. “There are historical forces at play in shaping our communities,” she said. “It’s not just a public health issue. It’s how we can better collaborate with transportation, educational sectors … it’s a collective effort.”   

The 34 condominiums built on top of an abandoned gas station at 2700 San Pablo Ave. last year were supposed to signal the transformation of their southwest Berkeley neighborhood. Vacant lots and empty buildings would give way to a vibrant, mixed-use district.

Then the units didn’t sell, and the developer lost the property through foreclosure. The building failed to attract a bid when it was put up for auction in mid-December, and now, a year after its completion, it’s owned by a former lender who is renting the condos as apartments with no plans to sell.

“About 10 units,” less than a third, “are occupied,” said Mark Seiler, a co-owner of Metrovation, the lender.

But despite the building’s troubles, hundreds of new condos are still likely to be built along San Pablo during the next few years, according to city planning documents and interviews with developers. The new developments may be welcomed by some, but they could also spark resistance from residents who fear they will make the neighborhood less affordable.

“West Berkeley is Berkeley’s last diverse, working neighborhood.” said Toni Mester, 65, a teacher who lives near the foreclosed project.

The first signs of transformation along San Pablo started before the recent condo project. Over the past few years, clusters of high-end shops and restaurants have sprung up along the street, especially near the intersection with Dwight Way. Three years ago, the neighborhood became the site of the Berkeley International Food Festival, and this spring, the Berkeley Bowl supermarket plans to open a new location on Heinz Ave., a block from San Pablo.

“There’s a lot of great things happening in west Berkeley,” said David Mayeri, who has approval to build 40 condos, with retail on the ground floor, at 2747 San Pablo Ave.

Mayeri and other developers said they believe the recent foreclosure was caused by the national credit crisis, and that there is still demand for condos in Berkeley.

“We really believe in this market coming back,” said Ali Kashani, who is planning to build 100 condos, with 12,000 square feet of commercial space, at the corner of San Pablo and Ashby avenues.

It appears the new projects could be supported by the lack of other new housing options in Berkeley, which has seen property values remain fairly stable. This fall, as the median condo price dropped by a quarter in Alameda County, it fell just 7 percent in Berkeley, according to Pacific Union Real Estate.

“There’s always been more housing demand then supply in Berkeley,” said Michael Caplan, Berkeley’s economic development manager. “I don’t see that changing.”

But Mester, who called Kashani’s project a “yuppie dormitory,” said that regardless of their financial prospects, the new developments are too dense, and the condos will appeal mainly to short-term residents because there is little open space.

“We should be building affordable family housing for people who actually want to raise children in Berkeley,” she said.

Others argue that San Pablo is precisely the type of place where high-density development should go, because residents will have access to an express bus line.

“You’ll never please everybody,” said Darryl Moore, a city councilmember who represents southwest Berkeley “I’d much rather see development occur around a transit corridor as opposed to inside a neighborhood that’s established.”

Moore said that the new projects will help create low-cost housing because Berkeley requires 15 to 20 percent of new units be priced for low-income residents. He said he does have concerns about the neighborhood’s design, but has proposed a special planning document, similar to ones created for downtown Berkeley, to guide new development in the neighborhood.

“Right now we have no development plan,” Moore said. “It’s a little haphazard.”

A local nonprofit developer has purchased land in Oakland’s Eastlake area to build affordable rental units for low-income families. But some residents say the influx of new households will bring parking and traffic congestion to their relatively calm neighborhood.

Wedged on three sides by the 880 freeway, the commercial East 12th Street, and the football field of Laney Community College, this portion of the city was once designated for residential and light industrial use. Victorian houses exist side by side with automotive shops and contractors.

But now the winds are changing. Stretching one block long and about half and block wide, a dirt lot is the proposed construction site for a four-story, affordable housing development.

A chain link fence topped with razor wire encircles the lot, littered with construction trucks and materials, including spools of industrial wire. But even though it’s an eyesore, many neighbors say they would prefer to keep the property as is.

For most of her life, America de la Pena, 25, has lived two houses away from the dirt lot surrounded by a chain link fence topped with barbed wire, and construction trucks coming in and out.

“It’s better like that than all the people,” she said.

The people she refers to are the families that will occupy 55 rental units.

In order to qualify as tenants, a four-member household would have to make below 60 percent of the area median income–less than $51,660 annually, said Robert Stevenson with the developer, Resources for Community Development.

On the high end, a family of four might pay $1000 for a three-bedroom rental, he said. The units will have between one and four bedrooms.

Almost a third of the rental units would be set aside for Section 8 housing, where a tenant would pay rent using a calculated percentage based on their income. The Oakland Housing Authority would then cover the difference in rent.

Resident de la Pena said the garage parking, one or two per unit, would not be enough to keep parked cars off the street.

Neighbors have written letters and made their way to meetings with the city council member to publicly voice their feelings. But for the nonprofit housing developer, such sentiment is normal–even in low income neighborhoods such as this one.

Once they see the other affordable housing developments, they know they are constructed with high quality and well managed, said Stevenson. RCD has built more than 1400 housing units in Alameda, Contra Costa and Solano Counties since 1984.

“All poor neighborhoods get affordable housing,” said homeowner David Ryan, 43, who lives and works across the street from the lot. The city doesn’t build them in well-off areas such as the hills, he said. “I thought we were past this.”

Ryan said he had asked the developer to consider families of all income levels, instead of just low income. But the answer was simple–the proposal would qualify for more public funding if it could benefit more people that need affordable housing.

The proposal is set to receive $6.25 million in public funding, about three-quarters from city redevelopment funds, and the rest from federal funds, according Jeffrey Angell, housing development coordinator with Oakland’s Community and Economic Development Agency.

“It looks like a big junkyard at the moment,” said Angell, “Being converted into residential use will be an improvement.”

But Ryan said he doesn’t mind the eyesore that is there now.

“I love it because I get to look at empty blue sky,” he said. Currently there is no building on the property across the street from where he works and lives.

The design of the building, four stories high, has been altered to address residents’ concerns. The fourth story now recedes from the front so that it’s not as noticeable, said Stevenson.

The main tenant that occupies the lot, Ray’s Electric, is a contractor that installs streetlights. An employee, who asked not to be named, said the owner has been given notice to vacate the property. The company plans to move to another location, he said.

Juan Guerra, 55, an automotive shop owner who lives and works across the street, said the owner of the property, a downtown Chevy dealer, had originally used the lot to store new cars.

He said it was the owner’s wife’s idea”to sell (the land) to somebody to be beneficial,” he said. “She’s always liked working with the community.”

But even though he works and lives across the street, he doesn’t think his voice will count.

“When I see they come with a steamroller. I know you can’t stop them,” said Guerra, who stopped participating after attending two meetings. “You put two and two together. You know how it works. You can’t stop a federally funded project.”

In a unanimous vote, the Fremont City Council voted to support Senate Bill 791 during its September 16 meeting — a bill that, if passed by the Legislature, would allow the city, and surrounding areas to sell land currently owned by the California Department of Transportation and use the revenue for approved local transportation projects.Supporters see the measure as a positive step toward completing city road projects since the current law says the revenue can only be used on state projects. Opponents have raised concerns over wasteful spending and environmental hazards.

CalTrans and the Alameda County Transportation Authority own roughly 60 acres of land in Fremont. This land was originally intended for the construction of a freeway.

Jim Pierson, the director for transportation and operations for Alameda County, said that, for development reasons, this “Historic Alignment” design was abandoned almost 20 years ago. As a result of a growing population, Pierson said, “The “need for a highway in the area is increasing.”

In order for the city to build this highway, it must first find a source of revenue. Pierson explained that the current law states that whenever land owned by Caltrans is sold, that money goes into the state Caltrans budget.

SB 791 will allow revenue from the sale of the Caltrans property in Fremont to be used for three specific non-state highway projects. This includes the construction of a connector road from interstate 880 through Fremont and Union City.

But half a dozen residents who attended the meeting felt that SB 791 is not in the best interests of the community.

Ron Moeller, 67, said the city council has shown a complete disregard for a huge amount of money that only applies to a small amount of land.

“It’s a 1.4-billion dollar road like the Alaska bridge to nowhere,” he said.

Melodye Khattak is concerned about the pollution this new road will produce.

“We’re going to get a lot more traffic from the valleys going right through Fremont. That’s going to affect our air and our drinking water,” said Khattak.

For residents neighboring the Caltrans property that will not be developed into a roadway, some are still reluctant to see that land developed at all.

For the past 20 years, Marcus DiFranco, 50, and his wife and two daughters have been able to open their backdoor to see grazing horses belonging to a farm renting the property from Caltrans.

“We bought this house knowing there might be a road in our backyard one day,” said DiFranco, “It’s a relief to know that won’t happen, I just wish they could leave the horse farm. It’s beautiful.”

As the measure moves forward and construction projects begin, there will be people on each side following the issue. When asked what he’s going to do next, Moeller replied, “I think I’m going to sit in a tree. Maybe we’ll try and hire those [Berkeley] tree sitters to come down here.”