Mini-city plan draws a big council crowd Hundreds weigh in on Oak

0 Comments | Oakland Tribune, Mar 29, 2006 | by Heather MacDonald, STAFF WRITER

OAKLAND -- Several hundred residents flooded the City Council chambers Tuesday night, demanding to weigh in on the proposed Oak to Ninth development that promises -- for better or worse -- to reshape the waterfront.

Opponents of the 3,100-unit project presented the council members with a litany of complaints, including a lack of affordable housing and open space as well as the destruction of a historic port terminal.

Supporters of the project, however, urged the council to approve the development, which they said would create a mini-city of parks, homes and shops on blighted land that is now all but unusable.

For months, the Oak to Ninth Community Benefits Agreement Coalition has been pressuring developer Pleasanton-based Signature Properties to set aside a portion of the 63-acre project for affordable housing.

The developer and the coalition have agreed in principle to set aside 20 percent of the units -- with two and three bedrooms -- for low- and moderate-income residents, particularly families earning less than $50,000.

"I don't think we're that far apart," said Mike Ghielmetti, president of Signature Properties.

The agreement is expected to involve the developer selling two parcels of land to the city's Redevelopment Agency, perhaps at a discounted price, and the agency would then select a nonprofit developer to build the roughly 500 units.

"Who are these beautiful parks for? Who is this beautiful waterfrontfor?" asked Fernando Marti , a member of the coalition. "Are they for all of Oakland or for the owners of 3,100 condos?"

In addition, the developer has agreed to use union labor on the project, make a $1.65 million contribution to job-training programs and reserve 300 jobs for local workers new to the construction trades.

Councilmember Desley Brooks (Eastmont-Seminary) said she was skeptical of the project, saying it was not clear that the community is getting enough in return for the rights to the lucrative development on land now owned by the Port of Oakland.

"I have grave concerns," Brooks said.

Other opponents said the project's 20 acres of open space is much less than the amount required by the Estuary Policy Plan, which governs development on Oakland's waterfront.

"What good are plans if we don't follow them?" asked John Sutter, a former Oakland City Council member.

The development plan also proposes to demolish 90 percent of the historic Ninth Avenue Terminal, which preservationists hail as one of the last remaining reminders of Oakland's maritime past.

"It's a great old building," said Naomi Schiff of the Oakland Heritage Alliance.

Both supporters and critics of the project wore yellow T-shirts emblazoned with slogans, backers urging "Support Oak to Ninth" and opponents saying "Build Oakland for Everyone."

In addition to a half-dozen groups that mobilized to oppose or promote the development, more than 100 people signed up to address the council; however, most of them left before their names were called after 10 p.m.

City officials appeared unprepared to handle the torrent of residents who descended on City Hall. Council President Ignacio De La Fuente (Glenview-Fruitvale) had to repeatedly ask for the aisles to be cleared, and two overflow rooms were set up.

But the sound was problematic in those rooms, and officials had trouble ensuring that translation services for Spanish, Cantonese or Mandarin speakers were available.

The special council meeting was designed to allow residents to weigh in on the project, and the council members will not make a final decision on the project for at least two months.

Councilmember Patricia Kernighan (Grand Lake-Chinatown), whose district includes the development, said her goal was to bring life to a now desolate area of the city, and she encouraged the developer to increase the size of the planned 200,000-square-foot shopping center.

Councilmember Jean Quan (Montclair-Laurel) said the project should include a school rather than sending the 1,500 children who are expected to live in the new apartments and condominiums to existing schools.

E-mail Heather MacDonald at hmacdonald@oaklandtribune.com.