And what’s so great about preserving the Fire Alarm building anyway? I don’t see anyone picnicking there. I seriously doubt that the Trader Joe’s was going to be over five stories, so that has nothing to do with height limits that somehow “intrude” on parkland. If this is all about shadows, somebody should do a poll and see how much people care, and whether most people enjoy shaded parks or direct sunlight. According to our zoning code, buildings get density bonuses for being near parks, so you’re asking for the city to turn conventional planning on its head.

By including references to mid-rise buildings scattered throughout downtown, the Lake Merritt planning process is encouraging anti-development zealots to show up and conflate design review with planning policy. The General Plan is very clear that current zoning is too restrictive around the lake, and calls for upzoning the area, as its a major transit corridor (or should be – the 12 and 13 don’t run late enough). The General Plan, which reflects not only the huge 1998 process but also allows us to meet increasing ABAG mandates, is our consensus. Don’t build on a park – sure. But what’s wrong with skyscrapers across the street from one?

But let me cut to the chase regarding those who want definite height limits (5 stories maximum) within 500 feet of the waters edge, the so-called “anti growth zealots.” There was not a single person at the meeting who was anti-development. The opposition to development focused exclusively on properties immediately abutting the lake or within 500 feet of it. As a matter of fact, there was one proposal to enact a single zone 500 feet wide around the entire perimeter of the lake, a special zoning designation such as “the Lake District Zone” or something to that effect.

The simple point I want to make is that there is no evidence that restricting high-rise development at the lake drives development away from Oakland. In fact, the contrary is true, that is, not only can we save park land at the lake, in doing so, projects will migrate to more appropriate sites. Let me give you three excellent examples: the Fire Alarm site at 14th Street, the cathedral at 12th Street, and Trader Joes at Splash Pad Park. As may be recalled, the “anti-development zealots” came out of the woodwork in droves to oppose these City-proposed projects; all of which were ultimately defeated, and wisely so.

Having been thusly rejected, was this the end of the story for these projects? Did these developers pack their bags and leave town, whipped and chastened by the zealots? No, they did not, not by a long shot. Where did they go? Trader Joes moved away from our park land to across the street to occupy an abandoned grocery store and Splash Pad Park was vastly improved. The cathedral moved away for our park land to Grand Ave. & Lakeside Drive and Measure DD will reclaim park land at 12th Street and reconnect it to the lake. Finally, condos are popping up all over downtown, just not on our park land at the lake!

The question I now have for City staff and those favoring high rise development at the lake is: what part of “don’t sell and develop our park land at Lake Merritt” don’t you understand? It should be abundantly clear that the public wants to preserve its park land at the lake, period. It is also abundantly clear that there are innumerable opportunities and areas to build in Oakland which do not encroach upon the lake’s nature environs.

Yes, it will be interesting to see how City staff interprets these so-called “conflicting requests” coming from the community.