# General plan documents — oakland-california

Assembled by OpenPublica from the documents it serves for this government. Each section below is a separate publication by the government; page anchors (`<!-- page N -->`) refer to pages of that section's own source PDF, linked in its heading.

**Contains 1 document.**
OpenPublica has pinned these slots for this government: conservation, open_space. That is what we have looked for, not a statement that the government publishes nothing else — a plan element absent here may simply not have been reviewed yet. Last reviewed 2026-08-09.

---

## Conservation — City of Oakland Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element (PDF, 78MB)

- Source: https://www.oaklandca.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/planning-amp-building/documents/sp/gp/city-of-oakland-open-space-conservation-and-recreation-element.pdf
- Pages: 336
- Covers: conservation, open_space
- **Transcription findings were recorded for this document;** check figures against the source.

<!-- page 1 -->
<<FIGURE>>
<<FIGURE>>
<<FIGURE>>
<<FIGURE>>
<<FIGURE>>
<<FIGURE>>
<<FIGURE>>

# C I T Y O F O A K L A N D
# OPEN SPACE
# CONSERVATION
# AND
# RECREATION

AN ELEMENT OF THE OAKLAND GENERAL PLAN

<!-- page 2 -->
# OPEN SPACE, CONSERVATION, AND RECREATION (OSCAR) Element

### An Element of the
### Oakland General Plan

### City of Oakland, California

Adopted by the Oakland City Council
June 1996

The OSCAR Element has a two-volume Technical Report which is not part of the adopted Element. The Technical Report provides background information on the topics discussed in the OSCAR Element and does not contain policy or action items.

<!-- page 3 -->
# ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

**City Council**
*Elihu Harris, Mayor*
*Sheila Jordan, District 1*
*John Russo, District 2*
*Natalie Bayton, District 3*
*Richard Spees, District 4*
*Ignacio De La Fuente, District 5*
*Nate Miley, District 6*
*Dezie Woods-Jones, District 7*
*Henry Chang, At-Large*

**City Planning Commission**
*Harold P. (Peter) Smith, Chair*
*Jean Blacksher*
*Lynda Bytof*
*Joseph P. DeLuca*
*Dolores Jaquez*
*Anthony Pegram*
*Vincent Reyes*

**Project Administration**
Office of Planning and Building
*Shirley Stubblefield, Acting Director*
*Willie Yee, Manager of Current Planning*
*Andrew Altman, Manager of Comprehensive Planning*

Office of Parks and Recreation
*Cleve Williams, Director*
*Tony Acosta, Manager of Park Services*
*Kerri Ricketts-Ferris, Measure K Program Manager*

**City Attorney's Office**
*Ralph Wheeler, Deputy City Attorney*

**Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission**
*Anne Woodell, Chair*
*Marsha J. Corprew, Vice Chair*
*Jose E. Guzman*
*William B. Patterson*
*William S. Riley*
*C. Martha Robles*
*Jeffrey E. Wong*

**Consulting Project Team**
*Barry Miller, Project Manager*
*Katrina Koh*

**Interns and Volunteers**
*Andrew Delaney*
*Gladys Makabenta*
*Brent Wirkkala*

### OSCAR Advisory Committee

| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| *Valerie Abad* | *Deborah Muse* |
| *Bill Belford* | *Chris Pattillo* |
| *Don Bingelli* | *Ernest Robinson (d)* |
| *Marina Carlson* | *C. Martha Robles* |
| *Lorna Dare* | *Judy Rowe* |
| *Patrick Doughton* | *Nancy Sidebotham* |
| *Carolyn Douthat* | *Lise Stamfli-Torme* |
| *John Glover* | *John Sue* |
| *Jonathan Goldman* | *David Thorne* |
| *Judith Goldsmith* | *Martin Vitz* |
| *Sylvester Hodges* | *Harriet Walsh* |
| *Walter Hood* | *Rich Wirkkala* |
| *Jim Keddy* | *Jeff Wong* |
| *Wilbert Lee* | |

*Printing of this document was made possible by a grant from Friends of Oakland Parks and Recreation*

<!-- page 4 -->
# TABLE OF CONTENTS

Directory of Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii

## CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW
What is the OSCAR? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
Relationship to Private Property Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
Relationship to Other Plans and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
The Planning Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4
Organization of the Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6
Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7

## CHAPTER 2: OPEN SPACE
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Open Space Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9
Resource Conservation Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9
Urban Parks, Schoolyards, and Gardens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18
Institutional and Functional Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23
Private Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31
Linear Parks and Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-33
Regional Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-42
Shoreline and Creeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-44
Shoreline Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-44
Creek Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-56
Open Space for Community Character . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-61
Landform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-61
Scenic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-64
Civic Open Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-67
Street Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-70

## CHAPTER 3: CONSERVATION
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
Earth Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
Soil Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
Land Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
Mineral Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10
Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12
Water Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12
Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15
Surface Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23
Plant and Animal Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-32
Protection of Native Plant Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-33
Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39
Rare, Endangered, and Threatened Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-40
Vegetation Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-46

<!-- page 5 -->
*Table of Contents, continued*

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Wildlife ........................................................................................ 3-49  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Air Resources .................................................................................... 3-52  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Energy Resources .............................................................................. 3-59

# CHAPTER 4: RECREATION
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Introduction ....................................................................................... 4-1  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A Brief History of Oakland's Park System ........................................ 4-2  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Park Classification System ............................................................. 4-4  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Factors Affecting Recreational Needs .............................................. 4-12  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recreational Needs Survey ............................................................ 4-19  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Park Land Use ................................................................................... 4-25  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Park Planning and Management ..................................................... 4-25  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Park Design and Compatibility of Uses ........................................... 4-34  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Parkland and Park Facility Deficiencies ........................................... 4-39  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Park Operations ................................................................................. 4-46  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Maintenance and Rehabilitation ...................................................... 4-46  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Park Safety ................................................................................. 4-49  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Joint Use of Recreational Facilities ................................................ 4-53  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Human Resources ............................................................................... 4-56  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Recreation Programs ................................................................... 4-56  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Special Recreational Needs ........................................................... 4-60  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Community Involvement ............................................................... 4-64  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Funding ............................................................................................ 4-69

# CHAPTER 5: PLANNING AREA STRATEGIES
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Introduction ....................................................................................... 5-1  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;North Oakland ................................................................................... 5-2  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;West Oakland .................................................................................... 5-6  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Chinatown/ Central ............................................................................. 5-10  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;San Antonio ...................................................................................... 5-15  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Fruitvale ........................................................................................... 5-19  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Central East Oakland ........................................................................... 5-24  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Elmhurst ........................................................................................... 5-28  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Lower Hills ....................................................................................... 5-33  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;North Hills ....................................................................................... 5-37  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;South Hills ....................................................................................... 5-44  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Airport ............................................................................................. 5-49  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Harbor ............................................................................................. 5-52

### APPENDIX A: Proposed Park Classification
### APPENDIX B: Implementation Matrix

<!-- page 6 -->
# LIST OF TABLES

| Table | Title | Page |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 1 | Open Space Land Uses in Oakland - 1993 | 2-3 |
| 2 | Total Acreage and Open Space Acreage by Planning Area | 2-4 |
| 3 | Proposed Resource Conservation Areas | 2-11 |
| 4 | Composition of Wildland Areas Within Oakland City Limits | 3-33 |
| 5 | Special Status Animal Species in Oakland | 3-42 |
| 6 | Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Vascular Plants Potentially Present in Oakland | 3-43 |
| 7 | Thresholds for Submission of Environmental Documents to BAAQMD for Environmental Review | 3-58 |
| 8 | Oakland Park Classification System | 4-5 |
| 9 | Summary of Oakland's Parks | 4-10 |
| 10 | Local-Serving Park Acreage Per Capita | 4-12 |
| 11 | Factors Affecting Recreational Needs | 4-15 |
| 12 | Outline of Proposed Ordinance Text for Urban Parks Zone | 4-27 |
| 13 | Proposed Procedures for Improvements or Change In Use Within Oakland Parks | 4-31 |
| 14 | Landmark Status of Oakland Parks | 4-38 |
| 15 | Level of Service Standards for Oakland Parks | 4-40 |
| 16 | Major Unmet Capital Needs in Oakland | 4-43 |

<!-- page 7 -->
# LIST OF FIGURES

| Figure | Title | Page |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 1 | Location of Major Open Spaces .......................................................... | 2-5 |
| 2 | Planning Area Boundaries ................................................................ | 2-6 |
| 3 | Open Space Plan ......................................................................... | 2-8 |
| 4 | Potential Resource Conservation Areas ................................................ | 2-10 |
| 5 | Predominant Slope 30 % + .............................................................. | 2-15 |
| 6 | Citywide Pedestrian Trail System ....................................................... | 2-35 |
| 7 | Shoreline Access .......................................................................... | 2-49 |
| 8 | Potential Areas for Creek Improvement ................................................ | 2-58 |
| 9 | Urban Form ................................................................................ | 2-62 |
| 10 | Landslide Potential ....................................................................... | 3-7 |
| 11 | Watershed Boundaries .................................................................... | 3-22 |
| 12 | Plant and Animal Communities .......................................................... | 3-34 |
| 13 | Observed Plants of Special Concern .................................................... | 3-44 |
| 14 | Potential Wildlife Corridors .............................................................. | 3-51 |
| 15 | Oakland Parks By Category .............................................................. | 4-11 |
| 16 | Areas Served by Oakland Parks ......................................................... | 4-13 |
| 17 | Park-Deficient Areas ...................................................................... | 4-14 |
| 18 | Resident Attitudes Towards Oakland Parks ............................................ | 4-21 |
| 19 | Recreational Preferences of Oakland Households ..................................... | 4-22 |
| 20 | North Oakland Major Recommendations ............................................... | 5-5 |
| 21 | West Oakland Major Recommendations ................................................ | 5-9 |
| 22 | Chinatown/Central Major Recommendations .......................................... | 5-14 |
| 23 | San Antonio Major Recommendations .................................................. | 5-18 |
| 24 | Fruitvale Major Recommendations ....................................................... | 5-23 |
| 25 | Central East Oakland Major Recommendations ........................................ | 5-27 |
| 26 | Elmhurst Major Recommendations ...................................................... | 5-32 |
| 27 | Lower Hills Major Recommendations ................................................... | 5-36 |
| 28 | North Hills Major Recommendations ................................................... | 5-43 |
| 29 | South Hills Major Recommendations ................................................... | 5-48 |
| 30 | Airport Area Major Recommendations .................................................. | 5-51 |
| 31 | Harbor Area Major Recommendations ................................................... | 5-54 |

<!-- page 8 -->
# DIRECTORY OF
# GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS

### PART 1: OPEN SPACE

**GOAL OS-1: OPEN SPACE LAND USES ........................................... 2-9**

**Objective OS-1: Resource Conservation Areas ................................. 2-9**
Policy OS-1.1: Wildland Parks ................................................ 2-9
*Action OS-1.1.1: Resource Conservation Designations ......................... 2-11*
*Action OS-1.1.2: Wildland Park Master Plans ................................. 2-11*
*Action OS-1.1.3: Regional Park Land Use and Development Plans ............... 2-11*
*Action OS-1.1.4: Creation of Open Space Advisory Committee .................. 2-12*
Policy OS-1.2: Open Space Protection Priorities .............................. 2-12
*Action OS-1.2.1: Acquisition of Dunsmuir Ridge .............................. 2-12*
*Action OS-1.2.2: Other Potential Open Space Sites ........................... 2-12*
*Action OS-1.2.3: Expansion of Leona Open Space .............................. 2-13*
*Action OS-1.2.4: Additional Resource Conservation Area Designations .......... 2-13*
*Action OS-1.2.5: Conservation of Emeryville Crescent ......................... 2-13*
*Action OS-1.2.6: Management of Airport Wetlands ............................. 2-14*
*Action OS-1.2.7: Evaluation of City-Owned Real Estate ........................ 2-14*
Policy OS-1.3: Development of Hillside Sites ................................. 2-14
*Action OS-1.3.1: Land Use Element Update .................................... 2-16*
*Action OS-1.3.2: Transfer of Development Rights ............................. 2-16*
*Action OS-1.3.3: Conservation Easements ..................................... 2-16*
*Action OS-1.3.4: Hillside Design Guidelines ................................. 2-16*
*Action OS-1.3.5: Conservation of Unstable Parcels ........................... 2-17*
*Action OS-1.4.2: Panoramic Hill Specific Plan ............................... 2-17*

**Objective OS-2: Urban Parks, Schoolyards, and Gardens ....................... 2-18**
Policy OS-2.1: Protection of Park Open Space ................................. 2-18
*Action OS-2.1.1: Urban Park Designations .................................... 2-18*
Policy OS-2.2: Schoolyard Enhancement ........................................ 2-19
*Action OS-2.2.1: Schoolyard Enhancement Pilot Program ....................... 2-19*
Policy OS-2.3: Community Gardening ........................................... 2-20
*Action OS-2.3.1: Community Gardening Program ................................ 2-20*
*Action OS-2.3.2: Development of School Gardens .............................. 2-20*
Policy OS-2.4: Land Trust Properties ......................................... 2-20
*Action OS-2.4.1: Coalition of Oakland Land Trusts ........................... 2-21*
Policy OS-2.5: Urban Park Acquisition Criteria ............................... 2-21
*Action OS-2.5.1: Use of City-Owned Sites .................................... 2-22*
*Action OS-2.5.2: Use of Sales Proceeds for Park Development ................. 2-22*
*Action OS-2.5.3: Use of Abandoned Gas Station Sites ......................... 2-22*
*Action OS-2.5.4: Land Banking ............................................... 2-22*
Policy OS-2.6: Street Closures for Parks, Plazas, and Gardens ................ 2-23

<!-- page 9 -->
Objective OS-3: Institutional and Functional Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23
Policy OS-3.1: University, College, and Institutional Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-24
*Action OS-3.1.1: Conservation of UC Hill Property* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-24
*Action OS-3.1.2: Conservation of Peralta College Open Space* . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-25
Policy OS-3.2: Military Base Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-25
*Action OS-3.2.1: Designation of Naval Hospital Open Space Areas* . . . . . . . 2-26
*Action OS-3.2.2: Shoreline Access Provisions at Fleet Industrial Supply Center and Oakland Army Base* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-26
Policy OS-3.3: Golf Course and Cemetery Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-26
*Action OS-3.3.1: Private Open Space Designations* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-27
Policy OS-3.4: East Bay Municipal Utility District Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-27
*Action OS-3.4.1: Resource Conservation Zoning of Watersheds* . . . . . . . . . . 2-28
*Action OS-3.4.2: Joint Use of Tank Sites* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-28
Policy OS-3.5: Joint Use of Parking and Open Storage Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-28
*Action OS-3.5.1: Parking Lot Landscape Standards* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-28
*Action OS-3.5.2: Re-Use of Open Storage Areas* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-28
Policy OS-3.6: Open Space Buffers Along Freeways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-29
*Action OS-3.6.1: Landscape Screening Along Freeways* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-29
*Action OS-3.6.2: Caldecott Canyon Open Space* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-29
*Action OS-3.6.3: Freeway Buffers* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30

Objective OS-4: Private Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31
Policy OS-4.1: Provision of Useable Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31
*Action OS-4.1.1: Changes to Useable Open Space Requirements* . . . . . . . . . . 2-31
*Action OS-4.1.2: Design of Private Open Space* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31
Policy OS-4.2: Protection of Residential Yards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31
*Action OS-4.2.1: Lot Coverage Limits* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-32
Policy OS-4.3: Protection of Rural Character . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-32
*Action OS-4.3.1: Measures to Preserve Rural Character* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-32
Policy OS-4.4: Elimination of Blighted Vacant Lots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-33
*Action OS-4.4.1: Changes to Blight Ordinance* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-33

Objective OS-5: Linear Parks and Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-33
Policy OS-5.1: Priorities for Trail Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-34
*Action OS-5.1.1: Trail Funding* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-36
*Action OS-5.1.2: Designation of Creek Trails* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-36
*Action OS-5.1.3: Designation of Urban Trails* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-37
*Action OS-5.1.4: Trail Dedication in New Development* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-37
*Action OS-5.1.5: Park Trail Improvements* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-37
Policy OS-5.2: Joint Use of Rights-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-37
*Action OS-5.2.1: Bancroft Parkway Improvements* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-38
*Action OS-5.2.2: Mandela Parkway Improvements* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-38
*Action OS-5.2.4: PG&E Right-of-Way Joint Use* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-38
*Action OS-5.2.3: Traffic Islands and Median Enhancement* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-39
Policy OS-5.3: Trail Design Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-39
*Action OS-5.3.1: Preparation of Urban Trails Plan* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-40
*Action OS-5.3.2: Preparation of Bicycle Trail Plan* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-40
Policy OS-5.4: Maintenance of Mid-Block Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-40
*Action OS-5.4.1: Mid-Block Path Inventory* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-41

<!-- page 10 -->
### Objective OS-6: Regional Open Space Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-42
#### Policy OS-6.1: Intergovernmental Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-42
*Action OS-6.1.1: Communication with East Bay Regional Park District* 2-42
*Action OS-6.1.2: Park District Acquisitions and Improvements in Oakland* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-42
*Action OS-6.1.3: City/ Port Liaison* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-42

## GOAL OS-2: SHORELINE AND CREEKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-44

### Objective OS-7: Shoreline Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-44
#### Policy OS-7.1: Promotion of Beneficial Waterfront Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-45
*Action OS-7.1.1: Coordinated Waterfront Planning* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-45
#### Policy OS-7.2: Dedication of Shoreline Public Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-45
*Action OS-7.2.1: BCDC Access Requirements* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-46
*Action OS-7.2.2: Mitigation Banking Opportunities* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-46
#### Policy OS-7.3: Waterfront Appreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-47
*Action OS-7.3.1: Improvements to Bay Bridge Approach* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-47
*Action OS-7.3.2: Oakland Shoreline Curricula* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-47
*Action OS-7.3.3: Use of Plaques and Event Markers* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-47
*Action OS-7.3.4: Promotion of Maritime Museum* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-48
#### Policy OS-7.4: Waterfront Park Enhancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-48
*Action OS-7.4.1: Potential New Park Areas* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-53
#### Policy OS-7.5: Lateral Access and Links to the Flatlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-55
*Action OS-7.5.1: Bay Trail Construction* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-55
*Action OS-7.5.2: Improvements to Broadway Underpass* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-55
*Action OS-7.5.3: Improvements to Lake Merritt Trail* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-55
*Action OS-7.5.4: Improvements to 16th and 66th Avenue Overcrossings* 2-55

### Objective OS-8: Creek Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-56
#### Policy OS-8.1: Public Access to Creeks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-57
*Action OS-8.1.1: Flood Control Easement Joint Use* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-57
*Action OS-8.1.2: Mitigation of Access Conflicts* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-59
#### Policy OS-8.2: Creek Daylighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-59
*Action OS-8.2.1: Pilot Creek Daylighting Projects* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-60
*Action OS-8.2.2: Interdepartmental/ Interagency Coordination* . . . . . . . . . 2-60
#### Policy OS-8.3: Community Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-60

## GOAL OS-3: OPEN SPACE FOR COMMUNITY CHARACTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-61

### Objective OS-9: Natural Features and Urban Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-61
#### Policy OS-9.1: Protection of Natural Landform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-61
*Action OS-9.1.1: Update of Land Use and Transportation Elements* . . 2-63
#### Policy OS-9.2: Use of Natural Features to Define Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-63
#### Policy OS-9.3: Gateway Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-63
*Action OS-9.2.1: Improvement of Airport Gateway* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-64

### Objective OS-10: Scenic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-64
#### Policy OS-10.1: View Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-65

<!-- page 11 -->
Policy OS-10.2: Minimizing Adverse Visual Impacts ............................ 2-66
*Action OS-10.2.1: Visual Analysis for New Development* ....................... 2-66
*Action OS-10.2.2: Preparation of Urban Appearance Element* .................... 2-66
Policy OS-10.3: Underutilized Visual Resources ................................. 2-67
Policy OS-10.4: Retention of City-Owned Space in Scenic Corridors .............. 2-67

Objective OS-11: Civic Open Spaces ............................................ 2-67
Policy OS-11.1: Access to Downtown Open Space ................................. 2-68
*Action OS-11.1.1: Preparation of Downtown Open Space Plan* .................... 2-68
*Action OS-11.1.2: Downtown Open Space Requirements and Bonuses* .............. 2-68
Policy OS-11.2: New Civic Open Space .......................................... 2-69
*Action OS-11.2.1: Development of Fruitvale BART Plaza* ....................... 2-69
*Action OS-11.2.2: Urban Plaza Design Guidelines* ............................. 2-69
Policy OS-11.3: Public Art Requirements ........................................ 2-69
*Action OS-11.3.1: Expanded Private Role in Providing Public Art* .............. 2-69
Policy OS-11.4: Siting Public Art .............................................. 2-70
*Action OS-11.4.1: Siting Guidelines for Public Art* ........................... 2-70

Objective OS-12: Street Trees ................................................. 2-70
Policy OS-12.1: Street Tree Selection .......................................... 2-71
*Action OS-12.1.1: Adoption of Street Tree Plan* ............................... 2-71
*Action OS-12.1.2: Priorities for Tree Planting* ............................... 2-71
*Action OS-12.1.3: Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Membership Change* .... 2-72
*Action OS-12.1.4: New Funding Sources for Maintenance* ........................ 2-72
*Action OS-12.1.5: Review of Approved Street Tree Lists* ....................... 2-72
Policy OS-12.2: Street Tree Maintenance ........................................ 2-72
*Action OS-12.2.1: Adoption of Maintenance Specifications* ..................... 2-73
*Action OS-12.2.2: Five-Year Maintenance Cycle* ................................ 2-73
Policy OS-12.3: Street Tree Removal ........................................... 2-73
*Action OS-12.3.1: Specifications for Sidewalk, Curb, and Gutter Repair* ........ 2-73

### PART 2: CONSERVATION

# GOAL CO-1: CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES .............................. 3-1

## Objective CO-1: Soil Conservation ........................................... 3-2
Policy CO-1.1: Soil Loss in New Development .................................... 3-3
*Action CO-1.1.1: Soil-related Development Controls* ........................... 3-3
*Action CO-1.1.2: Public Education on Soil Conservation* ....................... 3-4
*Action CO-1.1.3: Consideration of Soil Constraints in Development* ............ 3-4
Policy CO-1.2: Soil Contamination Hazards ...................................... 3-4
*Action CO-1.2.1: Further Study of Soil Contamination* ......................... 3-4
*Action CO-1.2.2: Monitoring of Dredge Spoils Disposal* ........................ 3-5

## Objective CO-2: Land Stability .............................................. 3-5
Policy CO-2.1: Slide Hazards ................................................... 3-6
*Action CO-2.1.1: Ordinance Evaluation and Public Information* ................. 3-8

<!-- page 12 -->
*Action CO-2.1.2: Graded Slope and Retaining Wall Maintenance* ..... 3-8
Policy CO-2.2: Unstable Geologic Features ........................... 3-8
*Action CO-2.2.1: Geo-technical Study Requirements* ................. 3-8
*Action CO-2.2.2: Land Stability Data Base* ......................... 3-8
Policy CO-2.3: Development on Filled Soils .......................... 3-9
Policy CO-2.4: Hillside Cuts and Fills .............................. 3-9
*Action CO-2.4.1: Update of Grading Ordinance* ...................... 3-9
*Action CO-2.4.2: Preparation of Grading Guidelines* ................ 3-9

### Objective CO-3: Mineral Resources ................................... 3-10
Policy CO-3.1: Rhyolite Conservation ................................ 3-10
Policy CO-3.2: Quarry Operations .................................... 3-10
*Action CO-3.2.1: Mitigation of Quarry Impacts* ..................... 3-10
*Action CO-3.2.2: Update of Land Use and Transportation Elements* .. 3-11
*Action CO-3.2.3: Sulfur Mine Clean-Up* ............................. 3-11

### Objective CO-4: Water Supply ........................................ 3-12
Policy CO-4.1: Water Conservation ................................... 3-12
*Action CO-4.1.1: Implementation of Urban Water Management Plan* . 3-12
*Action CO-4.1.2: Public Education on Water Conservation* ........... 3-13
Policy CO-4.2: Drought-Tolerant Landscaping ......................... 3-13
*Action CO-4.2.1: Adoption of Water-Efficient Landscape Ordinance* . 3-13
Policy CO-4.3: Use of Reclaimed Water ............................... 3-14
*Action CO-4.3.1: Support for East Bay Municipal Utility District Reclamation Programs* ............................................. 3-14
*Action CO-4.3.2: Reclaimed Wastewater Requirements* ................ 3-14
Policy CO-4.4: Water-Conscious Development Patterns .................. 3-14
*Action CO-4.4.1: Review of Large Development Proposals* ............ 3-14

### Objective CO-5: Water Quality ....................................... 3-15
Policy CO-5.1: Protection of Groundwater Recharge ................... 3-15
*Action CO-5.1.1: Consideration of Impervious Surface Limits* ....... 3-16
*Action CO-5.1.2: Stormwater Dispersion Methods* .................... 3-16
Policy CO-5.2: Improvements to Groundwater Quality .................. 3-16
Policy CO-5.3: Control of Urban Runoff .............................. 3-17
*Action CO-5.3.1 Pre-Treatment of Runoff* ........................... 3-17
*Action CO-5.3.2 Storm Drain Maintenance* ........................... 3-18
*Action CO-5.3.3 Litter and Debris Removal* ......................... 3-18
*Action CO-5.3.4 Street Sweeping Improvements* ...................... 3-18
*Action CO-5.3.5 Mitigation of Road Construction and Dredging Impacts* ............................................................. 3-18
*Action CO-5.3.6 Hazardous Spills Prevention* ....................... 3-18
*Action CO-5.3.7 Clean-up of Estuary Hot Spots* ..................... 3-19
*Action CO-5.3.8 Litter Law Enforcement* ............................ 3-19
*Action CO-5.3.9 Public Education on Urban Runoff Hazards* .......... 3-19
*Action CO-5.3.10 Lake Merritt Catch Basins and Trash Receptacles* .. 3-19
*Action CO-5.3.11 Improved Sewage Collection and Treatment* ......... 3-20
*Action CO-5.3.12 Intergovernmental Coordination* ................... 3-21

<!-- page 13 -->
| | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Policy CO-5.4: | Development in Reservoir Watersheds | 3-21 |
| *Action CO-5.4.1:* | *Runoff from Horse Boarding Facilities* | 3-21 |
| *Action CO-5.4.2:* | *Urban Runoff in Reservoir Watersheds* | 3-23 |
| | | |
| **Objective CO-6: Surface Waters** | 3-23 |
| Policy CO-6.1: | Creek Management | 3-24 |
| *Action CO-6.1.1:* | *Preparation of Creeks Master Plan* | 3-25 |
| *Action CO-6.1.2:* | *Improvements to Watercourse Protection Ordinance* | 3-25 |
| *Action CO-6.1.3:* | *Flood Control Design Guidelines* | 3-25 |
| *Action CO-6.1.4:* | *Changes to Environmental Review* | 3-25 |
| Policy CO-6.2: | Creek Maintenance and Safety | 3-26 |
| *Action CO-6.2.1:* | *Community Creek Clean-ups* | 3-26 |
| *Action CO-6.2.2:* | *Increased Penalties for Dumping* | 3-27 |
| *Action CO-6.2.3:* | *New Funding Sources for Maintenance* | 3-27 |
| Policy CO-6.3: | Creek Awareness | 3-27 |
| *Action CO-6.3.1:* | *Participation in Kids in Creeks Program* | 3-27 |
| *Action CO-6.3.2:* | *Flyer for Creekfront Landowners* | 3-27 |
| Policy CO-6.4: | Lake Management | 3-27 |
| *Action CO-6.4.1:* | *Lake Merritt Parks Master Plan* | 3-28 |
| *Action CO-6.4.2:* | *Lake Temescal Dredging* | 3-29 |
| Policy CO-6.5: | Protection of Bay and Estuary Waters | 3-29 |
| *Action CO-6.5.1:* | *Assistance on Long-Term Dredging Strategy* | 3-29 |
| *Action CO-6.5.2* | *Zoning of San Leandro Bay* | 3-29 |
| *Action CO-6.5.3* | *Update of King Shoreline Master Plan* | 3-30 |
| *Action CO-6.5.4* | *Alternatives to 66th Avenue Bridge* | 3-30 |
| Policy CO-6.6: | Restriction of Bay Fill | 3-30 |
| *Action CO-6.6.1:* | *Land Use Diagram Change* | 3-31 |
| *Action CO-6.6.2:* | *MacArthur Maze Modifications* | 3-31 |
| | | |
| **Objective CO-7: Plant Resources** | 3-33 |
| Policy CO-7.1: | Protection of Native Plant Communities | 3-33 |
| *Action CO-7.1.1:* | *Native Plant Mapping* | 3-35 |
| *Action CO-7.1.2:* | *Development of Standardized Mitigation Measures* | 3-35 |
| *Action CO-7.1.3:* | *Use of Conservation Easements* | 3-35 |
| *Action CO-7.1.4:* | *Riparian Setbacks* | 3-36 |
| Policy CO-7.2: | Native Plant Restoration | 3-36 |
| *Action CO-7.2.1:* | *Consideration of Landscape Guidelines* | 3-36 |
| *Action CO-7.2.2:* | *Control of Invasive Species* | 3-37 |
| Policy CO-7.3: | Forested Character | 3-37 |
| *Action CO-7.3.1:* | *Preparation of Residential Design Guidelines* | 3-37 |
| *Action CO-7.3.2:* | *Maintenance Agreements* | 3-37 |
| Policy CO-7.4: | Tree Removal | 3-37 |
| Policy CO-7.5: | Non-Native Plant Removal | 3-38 |
| Policy CO-7.6: | Rehabilitation of Damaged or Dead Vegetation | 3-38 |
| *Action CO-7.6.1:* | *Long-Term Tree Replacement Plan and Firestorm* | |
| | *Revegetation* | 3-38 |
| *Action CO-7.6.2:* | *Support for Conservation Corps* | 3-38 |

<!-- page 14 -->
Objective CO-8: Wetlands ............................................................. 3-39
Policy CO-8.1: Mitigation of Development Impacts .................................. 3-39
*Action CO-8.1.1: Mitigation Planning and Monitoring* .............................. 3-39
*Action CO-8.1.2: Maintenance of Wetland Buffers* ................................. 3-39
Policy CO-8.2: Wetland Park Activities ............................................. 3-40
*Action CO-8.2.1: Wetland Access Limitations* ..................................... 3-40

Objective CO-9: Rare, Endangered, and Threatened Species .............................. 3-40
Policy CO-9.1: Habitat Protection ................................................... 3-40
*Action CO-9.1.1: Development of Standardized Mitigation Measures* ................. 3-41
*Action CO-9.1.2: Preparation of Pre-Development Surveys* .......................... 3-45
*Action CO-9.1.3: Preparation of Habitat Conservation Plan* ........................ 3-45
*Action CO-9.1.4: Recreational Use Limitations* ................................... 3-45

Objective CO-10: Vegetation Management ............................................... 3-46
Policy CO-10.1: Flammable Vegetation Control ........................................ 3-47
*Action CO-10.1.1 Implementation of Vegetation Management Plan* ................... 3-47
Policy CO-10.2: Fire Prevention Measures ............................................ 3-47
*Action CO-10.2.1: Development of Fire-Resistant Landscape Guidelines* .............. 3-48
*Action CO-10.2.2: Public Education on Fire Suppression* ........................... 3-48

Objective CO-11: Wildlife ............................................................ 3-39
Policy CO-11.1: Protection from Urbanization ....................................... 3-49
*Action CO-11.1.1: Wildlife Survey Requirements* ................................... 3-49
*Action CO-11.1.2: Leash Law Enforcement* .......................................... 3-49
Policy CO-11.2: Migratory Corridors ................................................ 3-50
*Action CO-11.2.1: Wildlife Corridor Designations* ................................. 3-50
*Action CO-11.2.2: Guidelines for Habitat Protection* .............................. 3-50

Objective CO-12: Air Resources ....................................................... 3-52
Policy CO-12.1: Land Use Patterns Which Promote Air Quality .......................... 3-52
*Action CO-12.1.1: Land Use Element Update* ........................................ 3-53
Policy CO-12.2: Coordinated Transportation Systems .................................. 3-53
*Action CO-12.2.1: Transportation Element Update* ................................... 3-54
*Action CO-12.2.2: Use of Non-Gasoline Powered Vehicles* ............................ 3-54
*Action CO-12.2.3: Improved Bicycle and Pedestrian Systems* ......................... 3-54
Policy CO-12.3: Transportation Systems Management ................................... 3-54
*Action CO-12.3.1: Trip Reduction Measures* ......................................... 3-54
Policy CO-12.4: Design of Development to Minimize Air Quality Impacts ................ 3-55
*Action CO-12.4.1: Design Guidelines Promoting Air Quality Improvements* ............. 3-55
Policy CO-12.5: Use of Best Available Control Technology ............................. 3-55
Policy CO-12.6: Control of Dust Emissions ........................................... 3-55
*Action CO-12.6.1: Grading Ordinance Review* ....................................... 3-55
Policy CO-12.7: Regional Air Quality Planning ....................................... 3-56
*Action CO-12.7.1: Public Education on Air Quality* ................................. 3-56
*Action CO-12.7.2: Monitoring of NOx, SO2, and PM10* ............................... 3-57
*Action CO-12.7.3: Spot Monitoring of Air Quality Impacts* .......................... 3-57

<!-- page 15 -->
*Action CO-12.7.4: Staff Liaison to Bay Area Air Quality*
*Management District ..................................... 3-57*
*Action CO-12.7.5: Air Quality Element ..................................... 3-58*

### Objective CO-13: Energy Resources ..................................... 3-59
#### Policy CO-13.1: Reliable Energy Network ..................................... 3-60
*Action CO-13.1.1: Staff Liaisons to PG&E- ..................................... 3-60*
#### Policy CO-13.2: Energy Efficiency ..................................... 3-61
*Action CO-13.2.1: Funding for Conservation and Efficiency Programs 3-61*
#### Policy CO-13.3: Construction Methods and Materials ..................................... 3-62
*Action CO-13.3.1: Codes, Regulations, and Procedures Supporting Energy*
*Conservation ..................................... 3-62*
*Action CO-13.3.2: Distribution of "Retrofit Right" ..................................... 3-62*
*Action CO-13.3.3: Additional Measures ..................................... 3-63*
#### Policy CO-13.4: Alternative Energy Sources ..................................... 3-63
*Action CO-13.4.1: Elimination of Regulatory Obstacles ..................................... 3-64*
*Action CO-13.4.2: Promotion of Waste to Energy Facilities ..................................... 3-64*

## PART 3: RECREATION

### Goal REC-1: PARK LAND USE ..................................... 4-25

### Objective REC-1: Park Planning And Management ..................................... 4-25
#### Policy REC-1.1: Protection of Park Open Space ..................................... 4-25
*Action REC-1.1.1: Creation of Park Zoning Districts ..................................... 4-26*
#### Policy REC-1.2: No Net Loss of Open Space ..................................... 4-26
*Action REC-1.2.1: Maintain Open Space "Balance Sheet" ..................................... 4-29*
#### Policy REC-1.3: Siting of Buildings in Parks ..................................... 4-29
*Action REC-1.3.1: Impervious Surface Coverage Limits ..................................... 4-30*
#### Policy REC-1.4: Park Improvement or Change in Use ..................................... 4-30
*Action REC-1.4.1: Permanent Land Use Controls ..................................... 4-30*
#### Policy REC-1.5: Park Master Planning ..................................... 4-32
*Action REC-1.5.1: Adoption of Citywide Park Plan ..................................... 4-32*
*Action REC-1.5.2: Preparation of Park Master Plans ..................................... 4-33*
*Action REC-1.5.3: Open Space Component of Other Plans ..................................... 4-33*
*Action REC-1.5.4: OSCAR Element Updates ..................................... 4-33*

### Objective REC-2: Park Design And Compatibility Of Uses ..................................... 4-34
#### Policy REC-2.1: Park Conversions to Other Uses ..................................... 4-34
#### Policy REC-2.2: Conflicts Between Park Uses ..................................... 4-34
#### Policy REC-2.3: Environmentally-Sensitive Design ..................................... 4-35
*Action REC-2.3.1: Park Design Guidelines ..................................... 4-35*
#### Policy REC-2.4: Off-Site Conflicts ..................................... 4-36
*Action REC-2.4.1: Land Use Compatibility Guidelines ..................................... 4-36*
#### Policy REC-2.5: Park Visibility ..................................... 4-36
#### Policy REC-2.6: Historic Park Features ..................................... 4-37
*Action REC-2.6.1: Landmark Designation of Historic Parks ..................................... 4-39*
*Action REC-2.6.2: Historic Resource Inventories ..................................... 4-39*

<!-- page 16 -->
**Objective REC-3: Parkland and Park Facility Deficiencies** ................... 4-39
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Policy REC-3.1: Level Of Service Standards ................................. 4-40
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Policy REC-3.2: Systematic Allocation of Funds ............................. 4-41
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Action REC-3.2.1: Annual List of Projects* ............................. 4-42
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Action REC-3.2.2: Regular Needs Assessments* .......................... 4-42
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Policy REC-3.3: Park Location Factors ...................................... 4-44
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Action REC-3.3.1: Projections of Operating and Maintenance Costs* ........ 4-45

**Goal REC-2: PARK OPERATIONS** .............................................. 4-46

**Objective REC-4: Maintenance And Rehabilitation** ............................ 4-46
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Policy REC-4.1: Systematic Maintenance Provisions .......................... 4-46
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Action REC-4.1.1: Priority on Maintenance* ............................. 4-47
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Action REC-4.1.2: Improvements which Reduce Maintenance Costs* .......... 4-47
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Action REC-4.1.3: School District Coordination* ........................ 4-47
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Policy REC-4.2: Environmental Responsibility ............................... 4-47
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Action REC-4.2.1: Integrated Pest Management Program* .................. 4-47
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Policy REC-4.3: Renovation and Rehabilitation Priorities ................... 4-48
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Action REC-4.3.1: Annual List of Priority Projects* .................... 4-48

**Objective REC-5: Park Safety** ............................................... 4-49
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Policy REC-5.1: Increased Range of Activities .............................. 4-49
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Action REC-5.1.1: Designation of Community Garden Areas* ............... 4-49
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Action REC-5.1.2: Non-recreational Use of Recreation Centers* .......... 4-50
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Action REC-5.1.3: Opportunities for Youth* ............................. 4-50
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Policy REC-5.2: Safety-Oriented Design ..................................... 4-50
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Action REC-5.2-1: Designation of Drug-Free/ Weapon-Free Zones* .......... 4-51
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Action REC-5.2.2: Design Review by OFD and Ranger Unit* ................ 4-52
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Policy REC-5.3: Law Enforcement ............................................ 4-52
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Policy REC-5.4: Civic Responsibility ....................................... 4-52
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Action REC-5.4.1: Take Back the Park Efforts* .......................... 4-52
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Action REC-5.4.2: Graffiti and Litter Abatement* ....................... 4-52
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Policy REC-5.5: Hazardous Conditions ....................................... 4-52
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Action REC-5.5.1: Assessment of Play Equipment Hazards* ................ 4-53
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Action REC-5.5.2: Assessment of Soil Toxicity* ......................... 4-53

**Objective REC-6: Joint Use of Recreational Facilities** ...................... 4-53
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Policy REC-6.1: Joint Use Agreements ....................................... 4-54
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Action REC-6.1.1: City/ Schools Joint Use Agreement* ................... 4-54
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Action REC-6.1.2: Peralta College Joint Use Agreement* ................. 4-54
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Policy REC-6.2: Public-Private Partnerships ................................ 4-55
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Action REC-6.2.1: East Oakland Swim and Diving Center* ................ 4-55
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Policy REC-6.3: Use of Surplus or Underutilized Properties ................. 4-55

<!-- page 17 -->
### Goal REC-3: HUMAN RESOURCES ........................................................ 4-56

#### Objective REC-7: Recreation Programs ................................................. 4-56
##### Policy REC-7.1: Program Diversity .................................................. 4-56
*Action REC-7.1.1: Responding to Unmet Needs* ............................................. 4-56
*Action REC-7.1.2: Staff Provisions* .................................................... 4-57
##### Policy REC-7.2: Coordination with Other Service Providers ........................... 4-57
*Action REC-7.2.1: After-School Programs* ................................................. 4-57
##### Policy REC-7.3: Reduction of Public Costs ........................................... 4-57
##### Policy REC-7.4: Environmental Education for Youth ................................... 4-58
*Action REC-7.4.1: Urban Naturalist Volunteer Program* .................................... 4-58
*Action REC-7.4.2: Development of Nature Trails* ........................................... 4-58
*Action REC-7.4.3: Re-use of Chabot Observatory* ........................................... 4-58
##### Policy REC-7.5: Multi-culturalism ................................................... 4-59
*Action REC-7.5.1: Advocacy Group Liaison* ................................................ 4-59
*Action REC-7.5.2: Fairs and Festivals* ................................................... 4-59
##### Policy REC-7.6: Recognition of Local History ........................................ 4-60
*Action REC-7.6.1: Renaming of Oakland Parks or Park Features* ............................. 4-60

#### Objective REC-8: Special Recreational Needs .......................................... 4-60
##### Policy REC-8.1: Young children ..................................................... 4-60
##### Policy REC-8.2: Teens .............................................................. 4-61
*Action REC-8.2.1: Needs Assessment for Teens* ............................................ 4-61
##### Policy REC-8.3: Senior Citizens ..................................................... 4-61
*Action REC-8.3.1: Comprehensive Plan for Seniors* ........................................ 4-62
##### Policy REC-8.4: Disabled Persons .................................................... 4-62
*Action REC-8.4.1: Retrofitting of Facilities* ........................................... 4-62
##### Policy REC-8.5: Low Income Households ............................................... 4-62
##### Policy REC-8.6: Homelessness ........................................................ 4-63
##### Policy REC-8.7: Transit-Dependent Populations ....................................... 4-63
*Action REC-8.7.1: Information at BART Stations* .......................................... 4-63
*Action REC-8.7.2: Improved Transit Service to Regional Parks* ............................ 4-64
*Action REC-8.7.3: Transit Brochure* ..................................................... 4-64

#### Objective REC-9: Community Involvement ............................................... 4-64
##### Policy REC-9.1: Recreation Advisory Councils ........................................ 4-64
*Action REC-9.1.1: Recreation Advisory Council Coverage for Unrepresented Parks* ............ 4-65
##### Policy REC-9.2: Community Relations ................................................. 4-65
*Action REC-9.2.1: Outreach by Recreation Center Staff* .................................... 4-66
##### Policy REC-9.3: Involvement of Neighborhood Groups .................................. 4-66
*Action REC-9.3.1: Involvement of Local Artisans* ......................................... 4-66
##### Policy REC-9.4: Use of Media ........................................................ 4-66
*Action REC-9.4.1: Media Management Program* ............................................... 4-67
*Action REC-9.4.2: Funding Sources for Publicity* ......................................... 4-67
*Action REC-9.4.3: Leisure Referral Service* ............................................. 4-67
*Action REC-9.4.4: Park Visibility and Name Recognition* ................................... 4-67

<!-- page 18 -->
**Objective REC-10: Funding** ............................................................................................ 4-69
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Policy REC-10.1: *General Fund Support*** ................................................................. 4-69
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Action REC-10.1.1: Accounting Improvements and Funding Strategies*
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Report* .................................................................................................................... 4-69
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Policy REC-10.2: *Parkland Dedication and Impact Fee*** ......................................... 4-70
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Action REC-10.2.1: Adoption of Quimby Act Fee* .................................................. 4-71
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Policy REC-10.3: *East Bay Regional Park District Benefits*** ................................... 4-71
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Action REC-10.3.1: Access and Facilities at King Shoreline* .................................. 4-72
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Action REC-10.3.2: Dunsmuir Ridge* ........................................................................ 4-72
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Policy REC-10.4: *Private Sector Provision of Public Services*** ................................. 4-72
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Policy REC-10.5: *Other Local Funding Sources*** ...................................................... 4-73
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Action REC-10.5.1: Use of Tax Increment Funds* .................................................... 4-73
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Action REC-10.5.2: Special Assessments and Assessment Districts* ...................... 4-73
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Action REC-10.5.3: General Obligation and Revenue Bonds* ................................. 4-74
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Policy REC-10.6: *Gifts and Grants*** ........................................................................... 4-74
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;*Action REC-10.6.1: Joint Venture with Oakland Housing Authority* .................... 4-75
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Policy REC-10.7: *Legislation for Park Funding*** ....................................................... 4-75
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;**Policy REC-10.8: *Fee-supported, Market-responsive Service Emphasis*** ............... 4-75

<!-- page 19 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 20 -->
# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The OSCAR Element is divided into four major chapters (Open Space, Conservation, Recreation, and Area Plans). Each Chapter contains several sections.

## OPEN SPACE

This Chapter is divided into three major sections. *Open Space Land Uses* discusses the different types of open space within the city and presents basic principles for each. *Shoreline and Creeks* looks at ways to make these two assets more accessible. *Open Space for Community Character* examines open space as an element of Oakland's form and explores how it can be used to enhance the appearance and "sense of place" in the city.

The Open Space Land Uses section includes the following directives:

1. About 1,700 acres of existing parks and wetlands, including most of the rugged hill area parks, are assigned a new General Plan designation called "Resource Conservation Area" (RCA). A new zoning category will be created and applied to all RCAs except those within Port of Oakland. The new zoning will replace the existing residential (or unzoned status) that currently applies on the hill parks.

2. Specific, measurable criteria are established for the City to follow when acquiring new parkland in the hills and in the flatlands. A priority will be placed on flatland open space acquisition, with other means (conservation easements, less permissive zoning on steep slopes, EBRPD participation, etc.) used to maintain open space in the hills.

3. Conservation of ridges and knolls is promoted. Development regulations and density standards which protect the natural character of the Oakland Hills are supported.

4. Schoolyards are acknowledged as an underutilized open space resource in the flatlands. Policies and actions direct the City to work collaboratively with the Oakland Unified School District to make schoolyards more accessible and attractive.

5. The emerging community gardens movement is supported and promoted. A new community-based gardening program is recommended, with City staff providing technical support.

6. A variety of innovative options for open space dedication would be supported by the City, including land banking, donations of land to the City, transfer of development rights, land trusts, and street closures. The emphasis will be on increasing open space in underserved areas and protecting environmentally sensitive areas.

7. Retention of institutional open spaces (universities, military bases, etc.) will continue to be supported. Action programs include incorporation of open space as a major component of military base re-use planning; and designation of most of the University of California's landholdings as a Resource Conservation Area.

<!-- page 21 -->
8. As in the 1976 OSCAR, the Plan recommends that cemeteries and golf courses continue to be maintained as open space. A new zoning category for private open space is recommended. OSCAR suggests replacing residential zoning of cemeteries with this category.

9. Policies in the Element suggest that the City make the most of "functional open spaces," including freeway rights of way, EBMUD tank sites and watershed lands, large parking lots and storage areas, and the airport.

10. The rural "open space" character of large lot residential areas is to be conserved, with one-acre zoning considered in a number of existing rural areas now zoned R-10.

11. Private open space will continue to be required in multi-family residential development, although the requirements will be revisited. The Element also suggests that lot coverage requirements be explored to maintain some sense of openness and visual relief on single family lots.

12. The concept of a citywide linear park and trail system is endorsed. The system incorporates existing parks, creeks, the shoreline, and open space corridors such as freeway buffers, land under BART, grassland along transmission lines, and street medians.

13. In tandem with its linear park policies, the OSCAR Element supports an integrated network of bicycle and pedestrian trails in the City. The Element places a priority on links between the flatlands and the hills/ bay, and interconnections between the hill area parks. Priority trail segments are identified, including the Bay Trail, the Lake Merritt perimeter trail, and the Lake Merritt to Estuary connector. Maintenance of mid-block stairsteps and easements also is recommended, with an eye towards a future interconnected Urban Trails system.

14. Coordinated open space planning with EBRPD, adjacent cities and counties, and non-profit organizations is supported as a means of conserving regional open space resources.

The Shoreline and Creeks Section includes the following directives:

1. The Element establishes a policy framework for shoreline open space based largely on a 1992 report by the Oakland League of Women Voters. Policies and actions emphasize the Jack London to High Street waterfront as an opportunity area for improved public access, recreational amenities, and land uses which capitalize on the waterfront's presence.

2. The Element also encourages public access opportunities in the Airport and Harbor areas, although it recognizes that maritime and aviation uses preclude water access in most areas. It is noted that maritime and aviation activities are of interest to residents and visitors and that access points to view these activities are desirable. Vista points on the south side of the Bay Bridge approach and at the airport are recommended.

3. Construction of the Bay Trail is supported along the alignment already endorsed by the City Council.

<!-- page 22 -->
4. A priority is placed on access linkages between the waterfront and nearby flatland neighborhoods deficient in open space. Opportunities for connections are identified.

5. Oakland's major creeks are identified as the framework for a system of open space corridors linking the hills to the bay, while also providing much-needed open space in flatland neighborhoods. Specific access improvements to creeks on public properties (Sanborn Park, etc.) are recommended. On private properties, a variety of erosion control, vegetation management, and building setback requirements are recommended.

6. The concept of creek "daylighting" (unearthing buried creeks) is supported, where certain conditions are met. Consistent with existing City practices, storm drain stenciling and other projects which raise public awareness of creeks are promoted.

7. The City will encourage Alameda County Flood Control to incorporate recreation/ public access in any creek improvement/ flood control project.

8. Public input and community involvement is mandated in creek planning.

The Open Space for Community Character Section includes the following directives:

1. The basic elements of Oakland's landform (hills, canyons, shoreline, creeks, etc.) are to be respected and conserved as development occurs.

2. Where feasible, open space (or natural landscape features) will be used as a way to define the edges of the city and individual neighborhoods.

3. Development will be required to protect and enhance views and create new points of visual interest where appropriate.

4. Urban plazas and other civic open spaces, such as rooftop gardens, are encouraged downtown and at BART stations.

5. Current requirements for public art are supported and possible ways to expand the public art program are suggested.

6. A broad policy framework supporting street trees is presented. The OPR and OPB are directed to update the Street Tree Plan and pursue its adoption. The Street Tree Plan would prioritize planting projects and identify tree palettes that are appropriate and cost-effective. The Element also mandates public involvement in street tree selection, planting, maintenance, and removal and establishes general criteria for tree removal.

<!-- page 23 -->
# CONSERVATION

The Conservation Chapter consists of five sections, each dealing with a major natural resource area.

The Earth Resources Section includes the following directives:

1. Soil should be conserved, carefully managed, and considered a factor in building and road design. Grading, sedimentation, and erosion control ordinances should continue to be maintained and enforced.

2. General provisions for development are set forth to reduce landslide risks, seismic hazards, and subsidence in new construction.

3. Grading practices which minimize benching, removal of large vegetation, erosion, and adverse visual impacts are promoted.

4. Soil testing will be required for development on sites with a suspected history of soil contamination.

5. Archaeological resources will be safeguarded in areas known to contain such resources through pre-development survey requirements.

6. Oakland’s rhyolite (rock quarry) deposits will be conserved and carefully managed. Continued extraction at the Leona Quarry is permitted, subject to mitigation measures (to be established through the conditional use permit process) and an approved reclamation plan.

The Water Resources Section includes the following directives:

1. Measures to conserve groundwater will be supported, including maintenance of open space in high recharge areas and minimizing the risks of groundwater pollution from leaching pesticides, gasoline tanks, etc.

2. Water conservation and recycling strategies will be supported, consistent with EBMUD's Long Range Plan. Public education on water conservation is promoted, along with the use of drought-tolerant landscaping, and increased use of reclaimed wastewater for landscape irrigation. Adoption of a Water-Efficient Landscape Ordinance is recommended, consistent with State law.

3. A policy framework for implementing the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program is presented, including the following components:

    * Limited requirements for stormwater retention and pre-treatment, consistent with State and federal law but sensitive to local economic constraints;
    * Regular City maintenance of the storm drain system, collection of litter and household hazardous waste (to avoid illegal dumping), street sweeping, and hazardous spill control plans;

<!-- page 24 -->
* Continued requirements for new construction which mitigate potential impacts from runoff and erosion;
* Continued water quality monitoring by Alameda County and the Regional Board;
* Correction of runoff problems from the old sulfur mines near Ridgemont;
* Management of marina development and houseboats to minimize illegal discharges;
* Continued upgrading of the regional wastewater treatment plant;
* Continued public education on water pollution, including billboards and storm drain stenciling

4. Continued efforts to improve water quality in Lake Merritt are supported, including catch basins, monitoring, and replacement of cardboard garbage bins.

5. Development in the watershed of Redwood Creek/ Upper San Leandro Reservoir is discouraged. The OSCAR Element suggests that stormwater detention be used where development does occur in this watershed.

6. Flood control projects will be required to preserve the natural character of creeks rather than burying creeks or creating concrete culverts.

7. Dredging of the Estuary is supported, subject to mitigation of potential water quality impacts and close monitoring of dredge spoils disposal.

8. Management of San Leandro Bay and the Emeryville Crescent as estuarine sanctuaries is supported, and land or water activities which would impede this function without providing sufficient benefits are discouraged.

9. Preparation of a Creeks Master Plan is endorsed, along with development guidelines for properties abutting creeks and strengthening of the existing Watercourse Protection Ordinance. Also, stronger penalties for creek dumping, and additional creek maintenance, clean-up, and education campaigns are recommended.

The Plant and Animal Resources Section includes the following directives:

1. The Element calls for conservation of the city's remaining oak woodlands, redwood forests, native perennial grasslands, and riparian areas. Precise mapping of these plant communities is recommended. Standardized mitigation measures for development on properties containing these plant communities are suggested, and the use of conservation easements to protect these resources is encouraged.

2. Plant diversity in wildland areas is encouraged, and native and drought-tolerant plants are encouraged in the landscaping of developed areas.

3. Tree removal is discouraged without due cause; continued enforcement of the tree preservation ordinance is recommended.

<!-- page 25 -->
5. Pre-development surveys will be required where rare, endangered, and threatened species are potentially present, and (pursuant to CEQA and NEPA) potential adverse impacts will need to be mitigated. A list of these species and their habitat is included in the Element.

6. The Element emphasizes strategies for fire prevention on public properties (through vegetation management), private properties (through fire safety laws), and in new development (through landscaping and site planning practices). It suggests that grant funding be pursued for a demonstration garden showing fire-resistant landscaping. It also recommends that guidelines for fire-resistant landscaping be prepared and distributed to homeowners in high hazard areas

7. Wildlife corridors are designated on specific undeveloped (mostly public) properties in the hills. Where such corridors on in private ownership, habitat protection is recommended as new development occurs.

8. The Element promotes public education and programs on Oakland’s natural environment.

### The Air Resources Section includes the following directives:

1. The Element endorses a land use pattern which reduces auto dependency, minimizes vehicles miles traveled, and reduces the necessity of long commutes. The Element calls for a transportation system which reduces auto dependency by making ridesharing, transit, pedestrian, and bike circulation more viable.

2. Reduced air quality impacts in new development are to be pursued through landscaping, energy efficiency, transit-friendly design, and other measures.

3. Construction, demolition, and grading practices will be required to minimize dust emissions.

4. Coordinated air quality planning at the regional level is promoted, including increased monitoring of air contaminants in Oakland. An Air Quality General Plan Element is suggested.

### The Energy Resources Section includes the following directives:

1. Energy conservation in municipal operations, local businesses, and residences is promoted.

2. A land use and transportation pattern which conserves energy (by minimizing dependence on single passenger autos) is promoted.

3. The use of energy-efficient construction methods and materials is promoted.

4. Site planning which maximizes energy efficiency (solar access, etc.) is encouraged.

5. Alternative energy sources, particularly solar, waste-to-energy, and cogeneration, are supported and will be accommodated where feasible.

<!-- page 26 -->
# RECREATION

The Recreation Chapter consists of four major sections. The Park Land Use Section includes the following directives:

1. A classification system for parks is created based on their characteristics, function, and service areas. Ten categories are created (region-serving, community, neighborhood, active mini-park, passive mini-park, linear park, resource conservation area, special use park, athletic fields, schoolyard). Management and future development of each park should be consistent with its classification.

2. An "Urban Parks" zoning district is recommended, with a list of permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited uses developed for the zone. The list of uses will be different for each category of park.

3. The City will pursue a "no net loss" goal for its urban parklands. The total park area covered by buildings in the future must be less than the new park area created or enhanced through acquisitions and capital improvements.

4. An official process for changes in use within parks is established. This process ensures public input and requires that findings of fact be made by the PRAC or Planning Commission.

5. An Oakland Parks Master Plan is recommended, including a 5-year capital improvement program. Master plans for individual parks are also recommended, especially where land use issues or conflicts exist.

6. New non-recreational buildings in urban parks are strongly discouraged unless construction is a matter of necessity and no other options exist. For recreational buildings, OSCAR recommends that sites adjacent rather than within parks be considered to avoid loss of open space. In any case, park master plans are recommended prior to building construction.

7. The Element recommends that park activities be sited to minimize conflicts between uses, ensure compatibility with surrounding areas, respect the natural environment, and maintain a high standard of design.

8. Historic resources within city parks are to be conserved. Certain city parks, including the original city "squares", Clinton Square, and San Antonio Park, and certain park features, are recommended for designation as local landmarks. The Element recommends continued inventory of historic resources within parks.

9. Level of Service standards are formally adopted as a means of prioritizing where future park improvements and acquisitions should be located.

10. A commitment is made to prioritizing investment in underserved areas, as identified in a series of maps showing areas without access to parks.

<!-- page 27 -->
11. Basic principles to be followed in the design of new parks are established.

The Park Operations Section includes the following directives:

1. Park maintenance, rehabilitation, and safety are established as top priority concerns for budgeting purposes. Renovation of existing facilities is emphasized as a more cost-effective alternative to new construction in many instances.

2. On-going maintenance costs should be seriously considered when evaluating any new City park or recreation project.

3. A strategy for making parks safer is established. Components include increasing park activities and bringing new users to the parks; incorporating physical design changes (lighting, fencing, signage, emergency response features, etc.); using vandal-resistant construction; providing program alternatives for youth; improving law enforcement and neighborhood watches; promoting civic responsibility; and addressing equipment and environmental hazards.

4. The Element promotes sharing of facilities between OUSD and OPR to maximize service delivery to the community. It also identifies Peralta College facilities and major utility (EBMUD, PG&E) properties as having the potential for joint use.

5.. Private or non-profit projects which meet public recreational needs are encouraged, particularly where lower income communities are served.

6. Interagency coordination is recommended to avoid redundancies and to maximize cost-effective service delivery.

The Human Resources Section includes the following directives:

1. Recreational programs should be diverse and equitably distributed. Future recreation programs should be designed to meet the needs of the communities they serve and to reflect local priorities.

2. Adequate staffing of recreation centers is emphasized. The use of underutilized recreation centers for other social services is encouraged to increase activity levels in some underused parks.

3. Volunteer involvement will continue to be actively promoted.

4. Coordination with the school district (and other recreational service providers) in service delivery is promoted. Expansion of the After School Program is also suggested.

5. Recreational services which reflect the multi-cultural make-up of the city, including non-English speaking persons, are stressed. Festivals and other programs which celebrate diversity are promoted.

<!-- page 28 -->
6. Programs which meet the needs of certain target groups, including young children, youth-at-risk, seniors, very low income households, homeless, and disabled persons are established as priorities.

7. Increased citizen involvement and participation is encouraged, using the Recreation Advisory Councils as building blocks. Interaction between OPR staff, park neighbors, and community groups is encouraged. Community participation in park construction, landscaping, maintenance, and safety is encouraged. Involvement of the local arts community in park design and improvement is also encouraged.

8. The OSCAR calls for improved public information on Oakland's parks, including press releases, coordination with transit agencies, brochures, kiosks and maps, better signage, and information targeted towards children.

The Funding Section includes the following directives:

1. Adoption of a park impact fee is supported to cover the cost of recreational service delivery generated by new residential development. In theory, the cost of meeting recreational needs created by future growth would be provided by fees paid by that growth.

2. A diverse strategy is set forth for park funding, including use of the general fund, redevelopment funds, special assessments, public-private partnerships, gifts and donations, grants, state and federal program funding, user fees, bond financing, and EBRPD investment in Oakland.

<!-- page 29 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 30 -->
# Chapter 1

# Overview

<!-- page 31 -->
# OVERVIEW

### WHAT IS THE OSCAR?

The Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation (OSCAR) Element is the official policy document addressing the management of open land, natural resources, and parks in Oakland. The Element is part of Oakland's General Plan, the State-mandated document which serves as a "blueprint" for change over the next two decades. Collectively, the elements of the General Plan provide a statement of the community's values and aspirations for the future.

The OSCAR Element contains goals, objectives, policies, and actions on a diverse range of topics. The premise that binds these topics together is that Oakland can be a more attractive city and a better place to live by conserving and rediscovering its natural resources, growing in harmony with the environment, and meeting recreational needs in new and creative ways. Because of fiscal and physical constraints, the Element emphasizes innovation, resourcefulness, and flexibility. At the same time, it is specific enough to guide decisions on the future use of individual park and open space sites.

Oakland's open spaces and natural resources have inspired generations of Oakland residents and continue to be among the most positive aspects of life in the city. Oakland boasts more than 3,000 acres of parkland, a dozen creeks, 19 miles of shoreline, a magnificent salt water lake, some of the most dramatic topography and geology in the East Bay, and some of the Bay Area's most spectacular scenery.

Protecting these assets is essential and is one of the major themes of the OSCAR Element. Another equally important theme is to bring these resources closer to the many neighborhoods where they do not exist right now. This may be as simple as turning over an unused plot of dirt to create a community garden, or as ambitious as creating a brand new park or trail system.

Oakland's location at the geographic center of the Bay Area make it an important link in the on-going efforts to create a more environmentally sustainable Bay Area. Water quality concerns, air quality concerns, open space demands, and many other issues addressed in the OSCAR Element cross jurisdictional lines. The Element emphasizes Oakland's role within the larger region, and considers the ecological and recreational connections between the city and its neighbors.

This Element is also intended as a resource for the people of Oakland. It is a tool for understanding Oakland's environment and the factors that have shaped the city's development during the past 150 years. It provides a snapshot of Oakland in the mid-1990s, a vision for the next century, and a strategy for how to achieve that vision. It is an instrument for initiating and responding to the decisions that will shape parks and open spaces during the coming decades. It is intended to educate, to guide, and importantly, to inspire.

<!-- page 32 -->
### RELATIONSHIP TO PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

There are several policies and portions of the OSCAR Element text related to privately owned lands. Some of these policies and text specifically relate to development and open space considerations. These policies and text are in no way intended to establish absolute development criteria for specific parcels. Further, the OSCAR Element is not intended to and does not authorize or mandate the City to acquire any specific parcel.

All open space and conservation policies and actions in this document shall be subject to the legal maxim that City policies cannot deny an owner economically viable use of his or her land. Therefore, all policies and actions shall be interpreted to allow each landowner some economically viable use of each legal parcel owned by that landowner.

All designation of land for resource conservation purposes must comply with applicable federal and state laws. No such designation may be made on private property unless it is either voluntarily agreed to by the owner or if there is a reasonable legal basis for the designation and the owner still retains an economically viable use of his or her property. Nothing in the OSCAR Element is intended to or shall be interpreted as creating any right, legal or otherwise, in any citizen, third party, governmental entity, or other party.

### RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS AND PROGRAMS

#### Relationship to the Oakland General Plan

State law requires every California city and county to have a General Plan for its physical development. While the State provides flexibility in the organization and content of the Plan, seven basic "elements" or subject categories must be addressed. These elements can be combined in a single document or presented as a series of reports covering different topics or geographic areas. The State also encourages cities and counties to develop "optional" elements for topics of local importance.

The seven mandatory Plan elements are land use, circulation, housing, open space, conservation, safety, and noise. The OSCAR Element covers two of these seven, and adds the optional topic of "recreation." Thus, the OSCAR Element is actually three elements. However, the three topics overlap to a high degree and can be logically viewed together.

Most of Oakland's current General Plan was written in the mid-1970s. The Plan is being updated in stages, with the OSCAR Element among the first of the new elements to be completed. An optional Historic Preservation Element was adopted in early 1994. An update of the Land Use and Circulation Elements is underway, and the Safety and Noise Elements will be completed by 1997. The City updated its Housing Element in 1992. An optional "Urban Appearance" Element may be prepared in later in the 1990s.

State law requires the elements of the General Plan to be internally consistent. This means that policies within the OSCAR Element must be consistent with one another. It also means that OSCAR policies must be consistent with policies in the Land Use Element, the Housing Element, and so on. After all Elements of the new Plan have been adopted, it may be necessary to review each Element's policies and actions and make amendments to meet the internal consistency requirement.

State law also requires the elements of the General Plan to be comprehensive and long-range. The OSCAR Element is comprehensive both in the topics it covers and in the way it evaluates the relationship between the natural environment and all facets of life in Oakland. It is also comprehensive in its geographic scope, covering all parts of the City including the Port of Oakland, the military bases, and the University of California hill property. It is long-range, in that it looks far enough into the future to allow major changes in the city's form and appearance to occur. The Element's horizon year is 2015.

#### Relationship to the 1976 OSCAR Element

This document supersedes and replaces the 1976 OSCAR Element. Much of what is contained in the new Element is based on the old one; some of the policies from the earlier Element are even repeated here. However, the new OSCAR is more comprehensive than the previous one

<!-- page 33 -->
Overview

and is based on updated data on the state of the City. The new OSCAR responds to current issues and concerns like personal safety in City parks, public access to schoolyards, and urban water quality. The new document is also formatted differently than the old one. It includes specific action steps and measurable objectives. It focuses on policies and issues rather than discussions of existing conditions. This is also Oakland's first General Plan Element with an "Planning Area" section, presenting recommendations for sub-areas of the city.

### Relationship to "Oakland Sharing the Vision"

In 1993, Oakland adopted "Sharing the Vision," a strategic plan for achieving a broad array of goals for the future. Sharing the Vision was intended to provide a foundation for imaginative, bold strategies to make Oakland a better place to live and to break down the barriers to progress and improvement. In the Neighborhood Revitalization chapter, the General Plan Update was identified as a goal and the adoption of the OSCAR Element was identified as an objective.

Many of the basic principles embodied in the OSCAR were initially set forth in the Strategic Plan. These include the need for park zoning, passage of a park impact fee, improved access to school properties for recreation, creek restoration and protection, community involvement in neighborhood park development, street beautification, celebrating cultural diversity, decreasing environmental hazards, and erasing park inequities between neighborhoods. The OSCAR Element provides a vehicle for carrying out these actions.

### Relationship to Other Master Plans

The proposals in the OSCAR Element have been prepared within the framework of open space, conservation, and recreation plans adopted by higher levels of government. Plans prepared by State, regional, and county agencies have a significant influence on local conservation policies and also affect how regional open space resources are managed. Some of the documents used to develop the OSCAR are:

♦ *The State of California Recreation Plan*, prepared by the State Department of Parks and Recreation. The Plan provides basic principles for local governments in meeting the growing recreational needs of the people of California;

♦ *The Urban Water Management Plan*, prepared in 1991 by the East Bay Municipal Utility District. The Plan includes regional strategies for conserving water which require implementation at the local level, and also describes regional development principles based on water supply constraints;

♦ *The Stormwater Management Plan for the Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program*, prepared in 1991 by Alameda County. The Plan identifies specific steps to be taken by local governments to reduce water pollution from urban runoff;

♦ *The East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan*, and plans for individual regional parks within the City of Oakland. The overall master plan speaks to recreational needs in the East Bay and management of the District's 75,000 acres of parkland.

♦ *The San Francisco Bay Plan*, prepared by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. The Plan includes regional policies for shoreline access and protection of the bay ecosystem.

♦ *The Bay Area Air Quality Plan*, prepared by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in 1991. The Plan has many implications for how and where regional development takes place, as well as recommendations for improving air quality at the local level.

Other City of Oakland plans also were considered in the drafting of the OSCAR. These include the City's Comprehensive Plan for Seniors, the Cultural Resources Plan, the Port of Oakland's Public Access Plan, the 1979 Street Tree Plan, the North Oakland Hills Specific Plan, the 1995 East Bay Hills Vegetation Management Plan, and the 1981 Parks and Recreation Recovery Action Program, among others.

Adopted plans for individual open spaces within Oakland were incorporated where they existed and were still relevant. These included the University of California Long Range Development Plan, as well as master plans

<!-- page 34 -->
for specific parks like Dunsmuir House and Gardens and the Knowland Park Zoo. The OSCAR Element also incorporates open space and conservation recommendations from recent neighborhood planning studies, and from planning efforts like "Broadway Vision," the Shepherd Canyon Plan, and the Lake Merritt Community Assistance Team Plan. It also reflects recent State-mandated programs like the Water Conservation Ordinance requirement and Congestion Management Program.

### Relationship to Zoning

The OSCAR Element provides the basis for reconsidering zoning designations on the city's parks and open spaces. Up until now, Oakland has lacked a zoning designation specifically geared towards public open space. Most of the city's parks are zoned for residential development or are not zoned at all, creating confusion over the kinds of activities permitted in parks and the process for changing park land use. The OSCAR Element (Chapter 2) identifies three new zoning categories for open space and describes the kinds of activities that would be permitted in each zone.

### Relationship to the Capital Improvements Program

The OSCAR Element, along with other elements of the General Plan, should provide the basis for Oakland's five-year capital improvement program (CIP). While the OSCAR Element is not a CIP per se, it does contain "action" statements which recommend public works and parks projects for inclusion in future CIPs.

## THE PLANNING PROCESS

### Overview

By 1990, it had become apparent that the 1976 OSCAR was outdated and needed revision. More effective policy guidance was needed to address such controversial issues as new construction within parks, development setbacks along creeks, and the future of some of the remaining hill open spaces. In November, 1990, Oakland voters approved Measure K, a $60 million park and open space bond measure that included $160,000 for the update of the OSCAR Element.

The City began the update by retaining two limited-duration consultants and creating a 26-member OSCAR Advisory Committee through the Mayor's Office in March, 1992. The initial task was to identify the issues to be addressed in the Element, and to establish goals and objectives for the future. The Advisory Committee was convened for an initial workshop and bus tour during Spring, 1992. More than 30 focused interviews were conducted with community leaders. Three public workshops were held to gather community input on issues and priorities in the city's parks and open spaces. The task culminated in the preparation of an *Issues, Goals, and Objectives Report* in June, 1992.

The latter part of 1992 and most of 1993 were spent compiling the technical information which forms the basis for many of the OSCAR policies. An open space and environmental inventory was compiled for the city during late 1992, with Technical Reports prepared on eight major topics. The OSCAR Advisory Committee was convened twice during this period to hear the findings and continue the discussion of issues and policy options.

Another round of public meetings was held during Summer, 1993. This included two community workshops and question/answer sessions with the seven Community Development District Boards, as well as briefings to neighborhood groups and Commissions throughout Oakland. This input was supplemented by interviews with Staff and patrons at more than 20 Oakland parks, a mailback questionnaire administered to more than 100 neighborhood groups, and by a telephone survey that was administered to more than 420 Oakland households. The results of the survey were tabulated and presented in the August, 1993 *Resident Survey Report*. Park and recreational resources were inventoried during mid-1993. This culminated in the preparation of additional inventory reports.

The OSCAR Element itself was written during late 1993 and early 1994. An *Internal Review Draft* was circulated in the Offices of Planning and Building, City Attorney, and Parks and Recreation between June and October, 1994. Each department was given the opportunity to suggest revisions to the document. Minor changes were made to ensure the Element's legal adequacy and feasibility. The end result of the internal review was an

<!-- page 35 -->
*Administrative Draft*. That document was released in November 1994 and was circulated among members of the OSCAR Advisory Committee as well as City of Oakland departments and other impacted agencies. The OSCAR Advisory Committee was convened in December, 1994 and January, 1995 to discuss the document and suggest changes.

Editing of the Administrative Draft took place between February and April. Additional editing, including consolidation of the goals, objectives, policies, and actions, took place between April and August, 1995. During this time, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

The *Public Review Draft*, published in October 1995, incorporated most of the changes to the Administrative Draft requested by City Departments, other agencies, Advisory Committee members, and Staff. Copies of the Draft were made available to interested residents and were placed at libraries, recreation centers, and other public buildings around the City. The Planning Commission conducted a series of public hearings on the OSCAR Element during late 1995 and early 1996. Written and oral comments on the document were considered and the document was modified to reflect the Commission's recommendations. A number of important changes to the document were made during that process.

Ultimately, a revised version of the Element was forwarded to the City Council Cultural Services Committee for discussion and to the full City Council for adoption. The Council conducted additional public hearings and adopted the Element in June, 1996.

### Role of the General Public in Shaping OSCAR Policies

The OSCAR Element is largely a compendium of ideas and concepts provided by the residents of Oakland.

Over the project's two-year course, more than 1,000 Oakland residents participated in the OSCAR update on some level. More than 400 attended community meetings and briefings on the project, and another 500 participated in telephone or mail-back surveys. More than 100 persons were personally interviewed, including staff at most of the recreation centers, patrons in many of the parks, and representatives of more than 30 interest and neighborhood groups. A newsletter on the project ("In a Nutshell") was mailed to more than 400 interested households at four intervals over the course of the project, and display exhibits were prepared for the Festival at the Lake for two consecutive years.

Additional opportunities for public input were provided during the public review period and at Planning Commission and City Council public hearings.

Many of the objectives, policies, and actions in the OSCAR Element reflect suggestions made by residents at public workshops, respondents to surveys and questionnaires, and comments made during interviews. The Element was developed by combining technical data and state and federal mandates with the priorities expressed by Oakland residents.

### Role of the Advisory Committee

The OSCAR Advisory Committee was created by the Mayor's Office in 1992 to provide direction to staff in the identification of issues, setting of goals, and drafting of policies. The Committee consisted of a broad spectrum of Oakland residents with interests in park and open space issues. Representatives from Sharing the Vision, Oakland Design Advocates, the American Society of Landscape Architects, Sierra Club, Urban Creeks Council, Citizens for Oakland Open Space, Community Development Boards, Recreation Advisory Councils, Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission, Planning Commission, Cultural Services Commission, Commission on Aging, Port of Oakland, School District, Regional Park District, and Park Ranger Unit were included. The Advisory Committee was convened seven times over the course of the project.

The OSCAR policies and programs reflect the initial direction provided by the Advisory Committee, both collectively and as individuals, as well as input received from City and agency staff and participating residents.

<!-- page 36 -->
<<FIGURE>>

The OSCAR Advisory Committee, 1992

## ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAN

### Plan Content

The OSCAR Element is organized into four chapters. Each chapter contains an introduction and several section headings. The chapters contain text, tables, maps, and photographs. The two Technical Reports (Volumes 1 and 2) and the Mitigated Negative Declaration are under separate cover.

Plan contents are summarized below:

* The *Open Space Chapter* includes sections on *Open Space Land Uses* (parks, schoolyards, community gardens, etc.), the *Shoreline and Creeks*, and *Open Space for Community Character*.

* The *Conservation Chapter* includes sections on *Earth Resources, Water Resources, Plant and Animal Resources, Air Resources, and Energy Resources*.

* The *Recreation Chapter* includes sections on *Park Land Uses, Park Operations* (maintenance, safety, etc.), *Human Resources, and Funding*.

* The *Planning Area Strategies Chapter* presents open space and park recommendations for 12 sub-areas of Oakland, including *North Oakland, West Oakland, Central/Chinatown, San Antonio, Fruitvale, Central East Oakland, Elmhurst, Lower Hills, South Hills, North Hills, Airport, and Harbor*.

The Technical Reports contain the background materials used to prepare the OSCAR Element and are presented in two volumes. Volume One includes sections on Earth, Water, Plants and Animals, Air, Energy, Open Space, Visual Resources, and the Regulatory Framework. Volume Two includes sections on Park Planning Issues, the Park Inventory, the Needs Assessment, and the Resident and Neighborhood Survey results. The Technical Reports should not be considered part of the OSCAR Element and have not been officially adopted by the City Council.

<!-- page 37 -->
### Overview

#### Plan Format

The foundation of the OSCAR Element is the set of goals, objectives, policies, and actions within each chapter. These statements are numbered for easy reference.

Each chapter of the OSCAR Element begins with goal statements. The goals are broad, general statements about the things Oakland would like to see happen in the future. Each one depicts an ideal future condition or state. Under each goal are a series of objectives. These are more specific ends to be pursued.

Each objective is followed by one or more policies. The policies are specific enough to guide day to day decisions so that goals and objectives can be achieved. Some of the policies are accompanied by actions. These are specific measures that should be taken (usually by a specified party by a specified time) to implement the policies. Some of the actions require a commitment of public funds, others require continuation of programs that are already underway, and still others direct staff to carry out particular tasks during the coming years. Some of the actions can be implemented right away, others may take years to achieve.

The Element also contains maps and tables. In some cases, the maps depict existing conditions but in others they depict a long-range vision for the future. The "vision" maps graphically express the Plan's development policies and show desired changes or actions. These changes may take 10, 15, or even 25 years to achieve. For this reason, the maps usually show general concepts rather than specific projects. The projects which will move these concepts forward will develop over time, as funds becomes available and land use changes occur. Some of the maps and tables are incorporated by reference into policies and actions and should therefore be considered integral parts of these particular policies and actions.

### IMPLEMENTATION

The OSCAR Element should be used by City staff and officials on a regular basis in making decisions with open space or natural resource implications. An implementation matrix is included at the end of the document to initiate this process. The Element should also be used by other government agencies making decisions that could impact Oakland. The Element provides a framework for interjurisdictional coordination. It demonstrates where recreational and open space needs exist in the city, and in so doing may help qualify Oakland for grants, state bond allocations, and other funding sources which can address these needs.

The Element should be used by residents of Oakland, the business and development communities, and local landowners. Members of these groups may use the Element for direction on particular areas, or on particular subjects of interest. In all instances, the Element should be used comprehensively, with all objectives and policies viewed in the context provided by the others.

Like all elements of the General Plan, the OSCAR Element may be amended from time to time as conditions change. Amendments to OSCAR may be required when the Land Use and Circulation Elements are adopted (to ensure internal consistency) and would also be needed if open space designations for particular areas were changed. All amendments require public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council and the decisions must be based on findings of fact.

The OSCAR Element should not be seen as the "final" statement of Oakland's vision for its parks and open spaces. As years go by, the population will change, goals will be redefined, and new issues will evolve. At best, the Element represents a summary of the hopes for the future at this particular point in time. In order for the OSCAR Element to be useful, it must be periodically updated to respond to changing priorities and conditions. The State recommends a comprehensive review of the entire General Plan, including the OSCAR Element, about every five years.

<!-- page 38 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 39 -->
# Chapter 2
# Open Space

<!-- page 40 -->
# INTRODUCTION

Open space is vitally important to the quality of life in Oakland and is fundamental to our future as a healthy city. The city's open lands provide relief from the urban environment and are a source of beauty and recreational opportunity. They provide direct economic benefits by attracting tourists and visitors and indirect benefits by making the city a more attractive place to live and work.

At the most basic level, Oakland's open space provides habitat for plants and animals, areas for groundwater recharge and watershed protection, and even room for growing fresh produce. Open space is also one of the essential elements of Oakland's form. It defines the edges of the city and creates boundaries between neighborhoods. It is a place to breathe, a place to stretch, and a place to play.

The State of California Government Code defines open space as being "any parcel or area of land or water which is essentially unimproved or devoted to an open space use," including:

*   Land used for the preservation of natural resources. This includes areas required for the preservation of plant and animal life, ecologic or scientific study, watercourses and open waters, shorelines, and watershed lands. In Oakland, the marshes and mudflats along the shoreline would be included, as would the creeks and most of the hill area parks.

*   Land used for the managed production of natural resources. Statewide, this includes farms, forests, rangeland, groundwater recharge areas, quarries, and commercial fishing grounds. In Oakland, this could also include community gardens since they are used to produce food.

*   Land used for outdoor recreation. This includes parks and golf courses, but also encompasses areas of scenic, historic, and cultural value, public access points to shorelines and waterways, and linear features (trails, etc.) which link other open spaces together.

*   Land needed for public health and safety. This includes areas of unstable soils, high seismic risks, flood plains, and areas with high fire danger.

Probably the most common perception of open space in Oakland is one of pristine hills and ridges, redwood groves and oak woodlands, and deep ravines with untamed creeks. The cities of the East Bay have a long tradition of acquiring such areas and ensuring their permanent protection. Sixty years ago, in the midst of the Great Depression, residents of the East Bay created the Regional Park District and began buying large areas in the hills above Oakland for preservation. Complementing the parks, the East Bay Municipal Utility District acquired large areas for the construction of reservoirs and protection of the watersheds draining into those reservoirs.

The benefits of these efforts are plainly evident today; a permanent greenbelt comprised of thousands of acres of hills, canyons, and forests lies in the hills above Oakland. More than 73,000 acres of regional parkland lie at our doorstep. Although most of the greenbelt lies beyond the city limits, it has become an invaluable aesthetic, ecological, and recreational resource for Oakland.

The hillside parks may be the most familiar open spaces in the city, but they are by no means the only ones. Some 10,000 acres within the city limits, or about 28 percent of Oakland, consists of open space. Only about a quarter of this area is parkland. Other open areas include wetlands along the Bay and Estuary, the holdings of large institutions like the University of California and the US Navy, and functional uses like the Leona Quarry and Mandela Parkway median. Open space also includes some sizeable private properties with development potential, as well as thousands of small vacant lots scattered around the city.

<!-- page 41 -->
### Open Space Principles

The following six principles will guide the management of open space resources during the time horizon of the OSCAR Element:

1. Existing open space resources in the hills and along the shoreline will continue to be carefully managed, with conservation efforts focused on areas with the highest environmental and visual sensitivity and areas where development could pose a threat to life and property due to natural hazards.

2. Underutilized resources in urban neighborhoods will be enhanced, particularly schoolyards, community gardens, vacant lots, street and utility rights of way, creeks, and the shoreline. Where feasible, elements of the natural environment should be restored within urban areas.

3. Ultimately, connections between the regional parks and the flatlands should be created, with "fingers" of open space extending from the hills to the bay.

4. There should be no net loss of public open space in the city. In other words, more open space should be added through acquisition or enhancement than removed through construction of buildings and related facilities.

5. A broader variety of strategies must be used to conserve open space and to enhance underutilized resources. Due to constrained city finances, fee simple acquisition of parkland can no longer be the only approach to conserve open space. A wide range of regulatory strategies, including zoning, conservation easements, private initiative, and taxation strategies, must be used.

6. Greater public involvement must be achieved in open space management, particularly in the renewal and restoration of open space within urban neighborhoods. The public should be involved in the planning, construction, and on-going maintenance of open space resources.

<!-- page 42 -->
The balance of the Open Space Chapter outlines goals, objectives, policies and actions which are consistent with these principles. The discussion is organized into three major topic areas, each the subject of a separate section and each related to one of three Open Space Goals. The sections are:

*   *Open Space Land Uses.* This section addresses future activities on the city's open lands and is organized by open space type. A wide range of categories are covered.

*   *Shoreline and Creeks.* This section addresses the future of Oakland's shoreline and creeks, focusing on public access and recreation.

*   *Open Space for Community Character.* This section describes how open space can be used to shape and enhance Oakland's character. It addresses landform, street trees, vistas and views, gateways, downtown, and public art.

The sections are preceded by a definition of open space and a summary of open space distribution in the city. Further information is provided in OSCAR Technical Report Volume One.

### Defining Open Space

Open space means different things to different people. Depending on one's point of reference, it can be as small as one's front yard or as large as San Francisco Bay. It can be as obvious as a city park or as subtle as a storage yard. Even some developed areas may have an "open feeling" by virtue of their expansive views or wooded character.

The approach taken here is to apply as broad a definition as possible, recognizing that different types of open space require different types of policies. In built out areas, much of the emphasis is on underutilized resources, including those which may not match traditional open space definitions. Fifteen categories are identified in Table 1, with their acreages listed in descending order.

### Table 1: Open Space Land Uses in Oakland - 1993

| Land Use | Acreage |
| :--- | ---: |
| Parks | 2,554 |
| Airport Operations | 1,912 |
| Campus/Military | 1,123 |
| Vacant (private) Hillside Tracts | 931 |
| Functional Uses | 678 |
| Golf Courses | 603 |
| Vacant Lots in Hill Subdivisions | 554 |
| Urban Infill Lots | 495 |
| Parking lots | 290 |
| Cemeteries | 289 |
| School/Church Yards | 256 |
| Non-Park/ Non-Airport Wetlands | 109 |
| Land Adjoining Vacant Buildings | 79 |
| Partially Developed Parcels | 63 |
| Agriculture | 19 |
| TOTAL | 9,955 |

It is important to keep in mind that not all open space in the city can or should be conserved in perpetuity. Oakland must designate some of its open or underutilized land for development and growth if it is to remain an economically vital city with opportunities for new jobs and new housing. Other open spaces must be kept open to support a wide range of transportation and industrial activities. The key is to make the most appropriate choices when designating areas for development or conservation.

### Where Is Oakland's Open Space?

The most immediately apparent aspect of Oakland's open space is that it is concentrated in the hills and along the shoreline. Although the flatland neighborhoods contain about 80 percent of the city's population, they contain only about 15 percent of its open lands. The imbalance has resulted from the lack of natural constraints to building on the city's flattest lands, as well as a historical emphasis on preserving what were believed to be Oakland's most scenic and ecologically sensitive areas.

<!-- page 43 -->
As a result of historical patterns, many Oakland neighborhoods today appear to be completely built out. Opportunities to create open space exist within these areas, but it will take a shift in attitudes and priorities before they can be realized. This is most apparent along the city's buried creeks and industrial shoreline, but is evident in other places as well.

For example, there are over 130 acres of schoolyards in the city, many consisting of asphalt ringed by chain link fencing. Some of these areas might be "greened" and made much more hospitable. There are nearly 300 acres of free-standing parking lots in the city, most without trees or greenery and many with little or no activity after work hours. In West Oakland and Elmhurst alone, there are 50 acres of land surrounding dormant industrial buildings, including some properties which could link together existing parks.

There are also 500 acres of vacant properties in the flatlands. Most are well suited for development, but some could become community gardens or plazas. Even functional uses like flood control easements, wide street medians, freeway underpasses, and covered reservoirs could be enhanced. In downtown Oakland and in dense residential areas, the rooftops of office and apartment buildings offer almost similar possibilities.

Figure 1 indicates the location of major open spaces in the city. Table 2 shows the distribution of open space by Planning Area. The boundaries of the Planning Areas are shown in Figure 2.

Most of Oakland's open space is in the North and South Hills. The hill acreage consists primarily of parks (1,970 acres), institutional lands (944 acres), vacant private tracts (931 acres), subdivided lots (531 acres), golf courses (437 acres), and cemeteries (261 acres). A majority of these areas consist of passive open spaces which are too steep or remote for recreational facilities or development. The largest landholdings in the area include the UC Berkeley Hill property, City parks like Dimond Canyon, Joaquin Miller, and Knowland, and Regional Parks like Claremont Canyon, Leona Open Space, and Anthony Chabot.

### Table 2: Total Acreage and Open Space Acreage by Planning Area

| Planning Area | Total Land Area (in acres) | Total Acres in Open Space | Open Space as Percent of Total Area |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| West Oakland | 1,610 | 171 | 10.6 % |
| North Oakland | 2,324 | 108 | 4.7 % |
| Central/Chinatown | 1,607 | 211 | 13.1 % |
| San Antonio | 1,876 | 97 | 5.2 % |
| Fruitvale | 1,661 | 77 | 4.6 % |
| Central East Oakland | 2,870 | 388 | 13.5 % |
| Elmhurst | 3,871 | 443 | 11.4 % |
| Airport | 3,553 | 2,546 | 71.7 % |
| Harbor | 2,345 | 254 | 10.8 % |
| Lower Hills | 2,467 | 105 | 4.2 % |
| South Hills | 5,381 | 2,592 | 48.2 % |
| North Hills | 6,362 | 2,962 | 46.6 % |
| **CITY TOTAL** | **35,927** | **9,955** | **27.7 %** |

Most of the city's vacant privately-owned land is also located in the hills, particularly in the South Hills. Some of these areas are well suited for development, while others may be constrained by very steep slopes, seismic and landslide hazards, poor access, a lack of infrastructure, environmentally sensitive habitat, and high aesthetic value. Large private open spaces include Dunsmuir Ridge and the adjoining "Lands of Drinnen" above Dunsmuir House, the west-facing hills below Ridgemont, the area along Skyline Boulevard above Sequoyah Hills, the headwaters of Peralta Creek (north of Holy Names College), the Castle Canyon area of Piedmont Pines, portions of Caldecott Canyon (near Highway 24), and the Lands of Varney north of Hiller Highlands.

In terms of sheer numbers, the North Hills have both the largest area in open space and the greatest number of vacant parcels. There are more than 2,000 vacant lots in hillside subdivisions in this area, most between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet. The largest concentrations of vacant lots are in the Thorndale Tract and on Panoramic Hill.

<!-- page 44 -->
<<FIGURE>>

City of Oakland
Open Space, Conservation
and Recreation Element

### Figure 1: Location of Major Open Spaces

Office of Planning & Building, 1995

<!-- page 45 -->
<<FIGURE>>

City of Oakland
Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element
### Figure 2: Planning Area Boundaries
Source: Office of Planning & Building, 1995

<!-- page 46 -->
Interestingly, the largest single open space in Oakland is the International Airport. Open land associated with the airport, including clear zones, wetlands, and parking aprons, covers about 1,900 acres. Most of the city's largest flat developable parcels are located nearby, within Port of Oakland boundaries. Other large vacant parcels are located near the Fleet Industrial Supply Center and Oakland Army Base.

The seven flatland planning areas contain about 1,500 acres of open space, consisting mostly of parks (393 acres), functional uses (245 acres), vacant lots (200 acres), parking lots (193 acres), institutional land (163 acres), and schoolyards/ school athletic fields (143 acres). There is great variation in how this space is distributed. Fruitvale, San Antonio, and North Oakland have very little open acreage, while Elmhurst and Central East Oakland both have large open areas. In some cases, these open spaces have worked as liabilities rather than assets. This is especially true of weed-covered or trash-covered lots but may even be true at some of the area's parks due to vandalism and security concerns.

Within flatland neighborhoods, the parklands around Lake Merritt stand out as Oakland's most widely appreciated and heavily used open space. Other parks such as DeFremery, San Antonio, Brookfield, Mosswood, and Arroyo Viejo are large enough to provide a connection to nature and some appreciation for what Oakland must have been like 150 years ago. Reminders of the natural environment also persist along some of the creeks and in private yards and a few parks, but have disappeared in most other places.

Despite the absence of natural resources, many of the flatland open spaces are extremely important as places to play, relax, and enjoy the outdoors. Some of the city's most prized open areas are its community gardens, outdoor plazas, and small neighborhood parks. In high density neighborhoods, these spaces may be the only place to go for relief from city life.

### Open Space Plan

Figure 3 illustrates the Open Space Plan for Oakland. The figure identifies most publicly-owned hillsides, canyons, and wetlands as Resource Conservation Areas. It also identifies potential new conservation areas on portions of some privately-owned sites which contain very steep slopes, wetlands, or significant ecological resources. These include Dunsmuir Ridge, the Emeryville Crescent, Caltrans and City lands around the Caldecott Tunnel, and lands below Ridgemont.[^p46-1]

The Open Space Plan calls out "improved" private open space which should remain open in the future, primarily golf courses and cemeteries. It identifies existing urban parks throughout the city and also targets certain segments of the creeks and shoreline for restoration or improvement. Further detail on creek and shoreline restoration is provided later in this Chapter.

Figure 3 does not show the full range of future open space within the flatlands due to the scale of the map and the small size of many of these spaces. The intent in urban neighborhoods is to retain existing parks and other public open spaces and to create new spaces where land and money is available. The policies in this Chapter strive to enhance underutilized resources, improve access to the Oakland Estuary, promote community gardening and other activities which increase public appreciation of Oakland's environment, and improve linkages between flatland parks and the hill and shoreline parks. Later sections of this chapter describe the zoning changes needed to ensure that the plan can be carried out effectively.

The Open Space Plan presented here is supplemented by Planning Area Strategies at the end of the OSCAR Element. Each Area Plan contains more specific recommendations for open space management within various parts of Oakland.

[^p46-1]: All designation of private property as open space or potential open space includes an assumption that such lands will be zoned to allow the private property owner some reasonable, economically viable use of the designated property.

<!-- page 47 -->
<<FIGURE>>

Urban Parks
Resource Conservation Areas
Private Uses with Open Space Characteristics
Proposed New Resource Conservation Areas
Potential Opportunities to Improve Shoreline Access
Priority Areas for Creek Restoration, Conservation, or Access

City of Oakland
Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element

### Figure 3:
### Open Space Plan

Office of Planning & Building, 1996

<!-- page 48 -->
# OPEN SPACE LAND USES

| |
| :--- |
| GOAL OS-1: A CITYWIDE OPEN SPACE SYSTEM ACCESSIBLE TO EVERY OAKLAND RESIDENT WHICH PROVIDES LAND FOR RECREATION, NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, THE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, AND VISUAL ENJOYMENT (SEE FIGURE 3: OPEN SPACE PLAN). |

The following objectives, actions, and policies will guide the City towards achieving Goal OS-1:

### OBJECTIVE OS-1: RESOURCE CONSERVATION AREAS

To conserve and appropriately manage undeveloped areas in Oakland which have high natural resource value, scenic value, or natural hazards which preclude safe development.

### POLICY OS-1.1: WILDLAND PARKS

Conserve existing City and Regional Parks characterized by steep slopes, large groundwater recharge areas, native plant and animal communities, extreme fire hazards, or similar conditions. These areas are included in Figure 4 as Potential Resource Conservation Areas. Manage such areas to protect public health and safety and conserve natural resources.

Many of Oakland's parks consists of rugged terrain covered by woodland, grassland, or scrub vegetation. These areas tend to be highly visible and form a picturesque backdrop for individual neighborhoods and the city as a whole. They also provide important habitat for wildlife, areas for groundwater recharge, and in some cases serve as a fire break along the urban/wildland interface. Policy OS-1.1 proposes that such areas be designated as Resource Conservation Areas (RCAs).

Future activities in RCA parks will generally be limited to passive recreation and on-going vegetation management. Access in many areas is limited by steep slopes and dense vegetation, although new trails may be desirable where conditions permit. In a few cases, particularly on level ground adjacent to residential streets, some small-scale recreational facilities, picnic tables, or interpretive nature kiosks may even be appropriate. However, the basic character of the RCA parks as natural sanctuaries should not be compromised.

Table 3 lists the wildland parks proposed for designation as RCAs. In some cases, only a portion of a park may be so designated. For instance, Knowland Park includes both wildland areas and the Oakland Zoo. Only the areas outside the zoo's ultimate boundary would receive this designation.

The location of the proposed RCAs is shown in Figure 4.

<!-- page 49 -->
<<FIGURE>>

The Creation of Resource Conservation Areas on private property, as depicted in this figure, shall be subject to all applicable state and federal laws relating to private property. All designations of private land as open space or potential open space include an assumption that such property will be zoned to allow the owner some reasonable, economically viable use of the designated property.

| Parkland | Other Properties with Conservation Potential |
| :--- | :--- |
| 1. Anthony Chabot | 18. Caldecott Canyon (Caltrans/City) |
| 2. Beaconsfield Canyon | 19. Castle Canyon |
| 3. Claremont Canyon | 20. Dunsmuir Ridge |
| 4. Dimond Canyon | 21. Emeryville Crescent |
| 5. Garber | 22. Fan Marsh |
| 6. Grizzly Peak | 23. Damon Corridor |
| 7. Joaquin Miller (portion only) | 24. Peralta Creek Headwaters |
| 8. King Estates | 25. Ridgemont West Slope |
| 9. King Shoreline (marshes only) | 26. Lands of Varney |
| 10. Knowland (upper & lower slopes only) | 27. UC Hill property |
| 11. Lake Temescal (east shore only) | |
| 12. Leona Heights | |
| 13. Leona Open Space | |
| 14. Shepherd Canyon | |
| 15. Sibley | |
| 16. Sulfur Springs | |
| 17. Tilden | |

City of Oakland
Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element
# Figure 4: Potential Resource Conservation Areas
Office of Planning & Building 1995

<!-- page 50 -->
### Table 3: Proposed Resource Conservation Area Parks

| Area | Acreage | Owner | Comments |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Anthony Chabot | 116 | EBRPD | portion within City limits only, excluding horse stables |
| Beaconsfield Canyon | 5 | City | |
| Claremont Canyon | 227 | EBRPD | |
| Dimond Canyon | 41 | City | |
| Garber | 13 | City | |
| Grizzly Peak | 58 | City | |
| Joaquin Miller | 280 | City | Excludes activity areas along Skyline and Sanborn |
| Glenn Daniel/King Estate | 75 | City | |
| Martin Luther King Jr. Shoreline | 115 | EBRPD | Arrowhead/Damon Marshes plus former "Distribution Center" |
| Knowland | 291 | City | Area outside ultimate limits of the Oakland Zoo |
| Lake Temescal | 20 | EBRPD | Area designated for "Conservation" in new Master Plan |
| Leona Heights | 50 | City | |
| Leona Open Space | 293 | EBRPD | |
| Shepherd Canyon | 25 | City | Excludes neighborhood park/bike trail on canyon floor |
| Sibley | 57 | EBRPD | Portion within city limits only |
| Sulfur Springs | 2 | City | |
| Tilden | 18 | EBRPD | Portion within City limits only |
| TOTAL | 1,686 | | |

***

#### ACTION OS-1.1.1: RESOURCE CONSERVATION DESIGNATIONS FOR PUBLIC LAND

*Amend the Oakland General Plan Land Use Diagram to create a "Resource Conservation Area" land use designation. Apply this designation to the publicly-owned sites shown in Figure 4 (Potential Resource Conservation Area Parks). Amend the Oakland Zoning Regulations to create a corresponding "Resource Conservation" Zone. Specify land use standards and requirements for land use changes in the zoning text. Modify the zoning map so that the City and Regional parks listed in Table 3 (Proposed Resource Conservation Areas) are rezoned with this designation.*

This action would amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram to create a designation specifically for resource conservation. Such areas would thereby be distinguished from "developed" open spaces like neighborhood parks and golf courses. A corresponding "RC" zoning district would be created, replacing the existing residential zoning or unzoned status of most of these areas.

#### ACTION OS-1.1.2: WILDLAND PARK MASTER PLANS

*Prepare individual master plans for City-owned Resource Conservation Area parks. Assign first priority to Joaquin Miller Park due to its size, vegetation management concerns, and the extent of facilities in the developed portions of the park.*

#### ACTION OS 1.1.3: REGIONAL PARK LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS

*Encourage the East Bay Regional Park District to prepare Land Use and Development Plans for Claremont Canyon, King Regional Shoreline, and Leona Open Space before the year 2000.*

<!-- page 51 -->
### ACTION OS-1.1.4: CREATION OF OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

*Create a City of Oakland Open Space Advisory Council (OSAC), similar in stature to the Aquatics, Boating and Tennis councils now in existence. The group would advise the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission on ongoing management issues within the proposed Resource Conservation Areas. Structure membership on the OSAC to include local residents in the ecological, forestry, horticultural, and landscape architectural professions, as well as representatives of environmental and open space advocacy groups such as Citizens for Oakland Open Space.*

***

### POLICY OS-1.2: OPEN SPACE PROTECTION PRIORITIES FOR PRIVATE LAND

Conserve privately-owned areas with important natural resource values through a combination of land acquisition and development controls. Use the following criteria when developing priorities for acquisition or protection:

(a) steep hillside parcels over 10 acres in size;

(b) parcels with significant biological resources, including endangered species habitat and native plant communities;

(c) parcels which can potentially link together or expand existing open space areas;

(d) visually prominent properties, including ridgelines and other areas with high scenic value; and

(e) properties where the use of eminent domain is not required.

***

These criteria were first established to identify parcels to be acquired with Measure K bond money. Within the constraints of applicable laws, the City should utilize a creative mix of procedures and tools to achieve natural open space protection for sensitive land uses. These could include working with other agencies or organizations, creating voter-approved open space assessment districts, transferring development rights from environmentally sensitive sites to less sensitive sites, the use of conservation easements, and gifts and donations of land.

***

### ACTION OS-1.2.1: DUNSMUIR RIDGE

*Work with the landowner and other agencies to maximize the open space potential of Dunsmuir Ridge.*

***

Within the constraints of applicable state and federal laws, the City will work with the landowner and other appropriate agencies to maximize open space opportunities on Dunsmuir Ridge. Where feasible and legally permissible, this may include acquisition, open space dedication, and the designation of Resource Conservation Areas.

***

### ACTION OS-1.2.2: OTHER POTENTIAL OPEN SPACE SITES

*Within the constraints of existing laws, work to maximize the open space potential of the Joaquin Miller Park "extension" and the Redwood Creek site.*

***

These properties are mentioned because they were targeted as potential open space sites in the Measure K bond initiative (see page 1-4 for a discussion of *Measure K*). Within the constraints of applicable laws, the City will work with the landowners, private organizations, and other governmental entities, to maximize open space opportunities on these sites.

<!-- page 52 -->
Open Space Land Uses

### ACTION OS-1.2.3: EXPANSION OF LEONA OPEN SPACE

*Work with the landowner and the East Bay Regional Park District to maximize open space opportunities on the west-facing hills below Ridgemont, possibly including this area in Leona Regional Open Space.*

This action will require a collaborative effort by the City, the landowner, and the East Bay Regional Park District (see Action CO-3.2.4 on clean-up of the sulfur mines).

### ACTION OS-1.2.4: ADDITIONAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION AREA DESIGNATIONS

*To the extent allowed by law, explore the possibility of designating all or part of the following areas as Resource Conservation Areas: (a) Castle Canyon; (b) Lands of Varney; (c) Corridor across the lower "Lands of Drinnen" connecting Knowland Park with Dunsmuir Ridge; (d) Peralta Creek headwaters (north of Holy Names College).*

These four areas, identified in Figure 4, are privately owned and are now zoned for residential development. While development may be appropriate on portions of the sites, much of the terrain is very steep, close to the Hayward Fault, or prone to landslides. The sites also contain important wildlife habitat.

Action OS-1.2.4 would study ways to limit development on the most environmentally sensitive parts of these sites. Options like transfer of development rights, conservation easements, planned unit development, and rezoning should be considered. Outright acquisition might also be considered, either through local fundraising, the efforts of a land trust or conservancy, or a voter-approved open space assessment district. *Acquisition of these sites with City funds is not suggested at this time due to the lack of financial resources and the enormous need for additional open space in flatland neighborhoods.*

### ACTION OS-1.2.5: CONSERVATION OF EMERYVILLE CRESCENT

*Designate the Emeryville Crescent as a Resource Conservation Area and manage the area to preserve its value as an estuarine wetland. Encourage the Port of Oakland and the private sector to facilitate transfer of the Crescent to the California Department of Parks and Recreation.*

This action supports the extension of the new Eastshore State Park from the Emeryville City limits to the Bay Bridge toll plaza. This crescent-shaped area of just under 100 acres contains salt marshes, mudflats, and open water and is currently owned by Santa Fe-Pacific Realty (see Figure 4). At one time it was planned for a new marine terminal and was zoned for heavy manufacturing in anticipation of this use. Public attitudes and laws on bay fill have changed and today there is a much greater appreciation of this diverse and ecologically rich environment (see also Policy CO-8.2 on wetland parks).

<<FIGURE>>

Once planned for a new marine terminal, the Emeryville Crescent wetlands are now proposed as an extension of the Eastshore State Park.

<!-- page 53 -->
### ACTION OS-1.2.6: MANAGEMENT OF AIRPORT WETLANDS

***Encourage the Port of Oakland to retain wetlands within Oakland International Airport as Resource Conservation Areas, where compatible with FAA regulations.***

Oakland Airport contains wetlands which could potentially be impacted directly by airport expansion or indirectly by runoff from nearby areas. This action encourages the Port to designate Fan Marsh, the Central Basin, the area west of Galbraith Golf Course, and the area east of the south end of Runway 29/11 as Resource Conservation Areas. The action also supports the Port's planned dedication of about 70 acres at the Airport Distribution Center as a seasonal/ tidal marsh complex. To the extent permitted by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, the habitat value of these areas should be conserved.

***

### ACTION OS-1.2.7: EVALUATION OF CITY-OWNED REAL ESTATE

***Evaluate City-owned real estate against the criteria listed in Policy OS-1.2 to determine which sites should be retained as open space and which sites should be considered for sale and future development.***

### POLICY OS-1.3: DEVELOPMENT OF HILLSIDE SITES

**On large sites with subdivision potential, generally conserve ridges, knolls, and other visually prominent features as open space. Maintain development regulations which consider environmental and open space factors such as land stability, plant and animal resources, earthquake and fire hazards, and visual impacts, in the determination of allowable density. Where hillside development does occur, encourage creative architecture and site planning which minimizes grading and protects the natural character of the hills.**

***

The intent of this policy is to recognize that Oakland's hillsides have aesthetic values, natural resources (soil, wildlife, vegetation), safety hazards (susceptibility to landslides, erosion, and fire), infrastructure constraints, and access constraints (including evacuation and emergency vehicle access) that limit their capacity for urban development. This policy aims to achieve an appropriate balance between development and conservation on the remaining large undeveloped properties in the City.

Policy OS-1.3 is intended to apply to large, unsubdivided parcels in the hills, generally five acres or more. Oakland has over 900 acres of privately-owned vacant hillside tracts zoned for residential development. Many of these tracts have gone undeveloped in the past because the cost of providing roads and utilities was too great, or because the land was too steep or unstable to support development. Zoning of these properties presently bears little relation to access, infrastructure, slope, or any other site constraint.

Figure 5 identifies those areas with steep slopes, historically defined by the Oakland General Plan as slopes over 30 percent. In the past, development on these slopes has been addressed by grading, retaining walls, and pier and grade beam construction. These techniques have made construction possible on slopes well in excess of 50 percent. However, the construction methods have not always been effective in eliminating erosion and landslide risks and the visual impacts have often been significant. More consistent design standards are needed

<!-- page 54 -->
<<FIGURE>>

City of Oakland
Open Space, Conservation,
and Recreation Element

### Figure 5:
### Predominant Slope 30% +
Office of Planning and Building, 1995

Areas where predominant slope is 30 percent or more

<!-- page 55 -->
to ensure that hillside construction conserves soil and vegetation and does not adversely affect the open space character of the hills.

Once a site has been subdivided, areas set aside as open space can be managed in several ways. First, they can become portions of private yards, with conservation easements or deed restrictions used to ensure that the areas remain open. Second, they can become "common areas" that are owned by a Homeowners Association. Third, they can be dedicated to the City or to another agency or organization. This would maximize public access potential but could also place the burden of maintenance on the City. The appropriate choice should be determined on a case-by-case basis, depending on site conditions.

Policy OS-1.3 is not intended to eliminate the development potential of any site. Regardless of any subsequent action, hillside properties could still be developed with at least one house per existing parcel.

### ACTION OS-1.3.1: LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE

*Include a discussion of hillside development issues in the Land Use Element. The Land Use Element should address alternative ways to manage hillside development so that the City's open space and conservation goals can be achieved.*

The updated Land Use Element should address issues of density, design, and land use classifications on hillside sites. Alternative approaches to managing hillside development should be addressed by the Land Use Element's action programs. These could include a slope-density ordinance, which would use a table or mathematical formula to determine the number of units per acre that could be built on a given piece of property based on the average steepness of the land. An alternative action could entail revisions to the zoning map so that zoning designations more accurately reflect site constraints.

### ACTION OS-1.3.2: TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS

*During the next comprehensive revision of the zoning ordinance (after the Land Use, Transportation, and Safety Elements are completed), explore provisions which would allow the transfer of development rights for key open space parcels. The transfer would direct development away from the most environmentally sensitive parcels onto land in areas where new development or revitalization is desired.*

### ACTION OS-1.3.3: CONSERVATION EASEMENTS

*Establish a Standard Operating Procedure in the Office of Planning and Building which encourages the use of conservation easements on portions of privately owned properties which have significant aesthetic or environmental value.*

Conservation easements offer a less expensive alternative to fee simple acquisition. They also provide the owner with relief from state and federal taxes. Public access within such easements would be restricted in most cases, but the easements might be considered for trail connections between larger public open spaces.

### ACTION OS-1.3.4: HILLSIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES

*Following adoption of the Land Use Element, revise existing residential design requirements so that the goal of protecting the visual qualities and natural features of the Oakland Hills can be better achieved. These revisions should allow planned unit developments as a means of maximizing open space potential.*

Considering the very large number of vacant parcels that already exist in the hills, design guidelines or standards will be an important part of the strategy to protect views and conserve natural features. This action recommends an eventual overhaul of hillside design standards,

<!-- page 56 -->
possibly replacing standards from existing hillside overlay zones (S-10, S-11, S-14, etc.) with a more consistent, easier-to-administer set of standards that apply to a broader area. Implementing such an action should wait until after the Land Use Element is completed, since that Element will further address development issues on hillside sites.

***

### ACTION OS-1.3.5: CONSERVATION OF UNSTABLE PARCELS

*Use building code and environmental review requirements to ensure that development of hillside parcels will be structurally sound, that infrastructure will be provided, and that adequate access will be available.*

***

There are more than 2,000 small vacant lots in North Hill area subdivisions and several hundred more in the South Hills. Development of all of these parcels would have an enormous impact on the open space character of the hills. Some of these lots are severely constrained by landslide hazards, erosion potential, and a lack of sewer facilities. This action recommends continued adherence to Building and Fire Codes, restrictions on septic system use, requirements for soils and geologic reports, and other environmental review procedures to ensure that appropriate lots are maintained as open space if their development would create unavoidable public safety hazards.

### ACTION OS-1.3.6: PANORAMIC HILL SPECIFIC PLAN

*Following adoption of the new Land Use and Transportation Elements, prepare a Specific Plan for Panoramic Hill which resolves access and infrastructure issues and indicates the maximum number of units that can be built in the area.*

***

There are more than 200 small vacant lots on Panoramic Hill. Their development has been constrained by access and infrastructure problems, as well as non-conforming lot sizes. Full development of the hill would have significant visual impacts and would degrade an important open space resource shared by Berkeley and Oakland.

<<FIGURE>>

*Development of large tracts like this one in the North Hills has been inhibited by steep slopes, limited access, and a lack of infrastructure.*

<!-- page 57 -->
### OBJECTIVE OS-2: URBAN PARKS, SCHOOLYARDS, AND GARDENS

**To maintain an urban park, schoolyard, and garden system which provides open space for outdoor recreation, psychological and physical well-being, and relief from the urban environment.**

Urban parks are among the most valuable open spaces in the City. They accommodate athletic fields, playgrounds, swimming pools, tennis courts, basketball courts, picnic areas, performance spaces, and even golf courses and a zoo. They are probably the most familiar form of open space in Oakland, particularly in flatland neighborhoods where they may be the only form of open space. They are supplemented by nearly 80 schoolyards and school athletic fields and by a growing number of community gardens.

Because the OSCAR Element includes a major chapter on recreation, only the open space aspect of urban parks, schoolyards, and gardens are addressed here. Parks are described at much greater length later in the OSCAR Element.

### POLICY OS-2.1: PROTECTION OF PARK OPEN SPACE

**Manage Oakland's urban parks to protect and enhance their open space character while accommodating a wide range of outdoor recreational activities.**

There are more than 120 urban parks in the City, ranging from small mini-parks less than a half-acre in size to region-serving parks covering more than 100 acres. The parks will be managed to preserve and enhance their value as neighborhood, community, or regional open space. Natural features like creeks and large trees should be retained. Fields and landscaped areas should be well maintained and cared for. A variety of outdoor recreational activities should continue to be provided and activities should be compatible with the environment and character of the park. The park classification system found in the "Recreation" Chapter of OSCAR provides guidance on the kinds of activities that are appropriate in different types of parks.

Despite the large number and variety of parks, existing park acreage has been found to be inadequate to meet community needs. Opportunities to expand existing parks and create new parks should be pursued, particularly in the areas identified as deficient in the "Recreation" Chapter of the OSCAR Element *(see also policies under Objectives REC-1, REC-2, and REC-3).*

#### ACTION OS-2.1.1: URBAN PARK DESIGNATIONS

*Amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram to create an "Urban Park and Other Open Space" land use designation and apply this designation to urban parks. Amend the Oakland zoning ordinance to create an "Urban Park" (UP) zoning district. Specify land use standards and requirements for land use changes in the zoning text (see Table 12). Modify the zoning map so that appropriate portions of City and Regional parks are given this designation.*

This action should be pursued in tandem with Action OS-1.1.1. There is currently no zoning district for Oakland's parks. Parks are either zoned for some type of development (usually residential) or are not zoned at all. Public ownership provides some assurance that the land will remain open, but a mechanism to guide land use and activity changes is still needed. Rezoning with a new category establishing open space and recreation as primary uses is recommended.

A full description of the proposed Urban Park zone, including an outline of its text, is included under Policy REC-1.1.

<!-- page 58 -->
### POLICY OS-2.2: SCHOOLYARD ENHANCEMENT

**Enhance the availability and usefulness of Oakland's schoolyards and athletic fields as open space resources by (a) working with the Oakland Unified School District to make schoolyards and school athletic fields available to the public during non-school hours; (b) softening the harsh appearance of schoolyards by varying paving materials, landscaping, and restoring elements of the natural landscape, and (c) encouraging private schools, including church schools, to improve the visual appearance of asphalt yard areas.**

The Oakland Unified School District operates 59 elementary school playgrounds and maintains hardscape all-purpose areas at 12 junior high and six high schools. Most of the play areas consist of large asphalt surfaces with striping for basketball, kickball, dodgeball, four-square, and other children's games. The asphalt yards are typically surrounded by chain link fencing with lockable gates.

In most flatland neighborhoods, it would be impossible to create enough neighborhood parkland to meet local needs. By incorporating schoolyards and athletic fields as extensions of the park system, needs in many areas can be met without a massive land acquisition program. An important step in this process is to improve the appearance and accessibility of schoolyards.

<<FIGURE>>

The Havenscourt schoolyard is larger than most East Oakland parks and could be enhanced as a community open space.

Additional grass and turf areas could substantially improve schoolyard quality. Tree planting also could help. Several schools, including Whitton and Piedmont Avenue Elementary, are located on top of or adjacent to creeks. Creek restoration projects on such sites could provide aesthetic, ecological and educational benefits for students. Student gardening (vegetables, flowers, etc.) on reclaimed portions of the schoolyard would produce like benefits. The "greening" of asphalt private schoolyards and churchyards is also encouraged.

Rehabilitated schoolyards could potentially include on-site ecological study areas which could be incorporated in local curricula. This is already done at King Estate Junior High (where the school adjoins a large open space), but could be expanded to other flatland schools as well.

*(See also Policy REC-6.1 on schoolyard access.)*

### ACTION OS-2.2.1: SCHOOLYARD ENHANCEMENT PILOT PROGRAM

***Work with the Oakland Unified School District through the City-School Partnership Committee to select five Oakland public schools for pilot enhancement programs. The programs would entail partial removal of the asphalt and restoration of natural site features, possibly including daylighting of buried creeks and creation of student-run gardens.***

The schools selected should be in areas identified as being deficient in parkland (see the "Recreation" section of the OSCAR Element). Donations and grants to undertake the project should be pursued as soon as possible. However, City responsibilities for safety, maintenance, and liability would need to be resolved before starting any pilot project.

<!-- page 59 -->
<<FIGURE>>

*Harvesting beets at Temescal Community Garden in North Oakland.*

### POLICY OS-2.3: COMMUNITY GARDENING

**Maintain and support a viable community gardening program to foster an appreciation of local ecology, instill a sense of stewardship and community, and provide a multi-ethnic, multi-generational activity open to all.**

Community gardening is an Oakland tradition dating back to the period when orchards occupied Fruitvale and truck farms occupied East Oakland. Today, there are 11 community gardens in the city, seven of which are active. The recent formation of an East Bay Urban Gardeners (EBUG) league in Oakland is indicative of the growing interest in gardening.

A City-sponsored Community Garden Program (CGP) is recommended to assist EBUG in community organizing, volunteer recruitment, and site retention and improvements. A City Coordinator would work directly with EBUG and with neighborhood residents to establish and maintain the gardens. The Office of Parks and Recreation has identified approximately 20 city-owned parcels which could potentially become community gardens. Schools and EBMUD reservoir sites could also be considered.

#### *ACTION OS-2.3.1: COMMUNITY GARDENING PROGRAM*

*Fund an on-going Community Gardening Program and provide Office of Parks and Recreation staff assistance.*

#### *ACTION OS-2.3.2: DEVELOPMENT OF SCHOOL GARDENS*

*Create a working group comprised of teachers, City Staff, and Oakland residents to promote gardens or "mini-farms" for student use and instruction at Oakland's public schools.*

### POLICY OS-2.4: LAND TRUST PROPERTIES

**Retain existing land trust properties as open space and enhance these properties as neighborhood amenities.**

Non-profit land trusts amassed large numbers of vacant lots in West Oakland, East Oakland, Elmhurst, and Fruitvale during the 1960s and 1970s for community gardening, park development, and open space retention. As the trusts fell on economic hard times or as volunteer interest waned, some of the lots were sold for development or acquired by the City. A number of properties, including some with the potential to become neighborhood parks or new garden sites, still remain under land trust ownership. If re-organized and managed, the land trusts could make major inroads in

<!-- page 60 -->
reducing open space shortages in Oakland neighborhoods.

The main obstacle facing the trusts is the lack of financial, informational, and human resources needed to maintain and improve their properties. An umbrella organization coordinating the trusts would enable them to pool their resources and operate more effectively. Such an organization could assist in the development of new community gardens, mini-parks, or landscaped open spaces within flatland neighborhoods. Where such projects proved infeasible, land trust properties might be sold with the proceeds used to expand existing parks.

### ACTION OS-2.4.1: COALITION OF OAKLAND LAND TRUSTS

***Create a volunteer-based "Coalition of Oakland Land Trusts" (COLT) which enables Oakland's land trusts to network, share resources and ideas, recruit volunteers, and undertake projects more effectively.***

<<FIGURE>>

"Jungle Hill", owned by the Santa Rita Land Trust, is one of the largest open spaces in the Fruitvale District.

### POLICY OS-2.5: URBAN PARK ACQUISITION CRITERIA

Increase the amount of urban parkland in the seven flatland planning areas, placing a priority on land with the following characteristics (not in priority order):

(a) Land in areas with limited public open space, as identified in the Recreation Chapter of OSCAR;

(b) Land adjacent to existing parks which has the potential to accommodate park expansion or to link together existing parks;

(c) Land with the potential to provide creek or shoreline access;

(d) Land with visual or historic significance;

(e) Land that can be acquired at no cost or at a reduced cost, or land where matching funds for acquisition are available;

(f) Land in areas with dense concentrations of people, especially children; and land in areas with large concentrations of workers or pedestrians;

(g) Land that is highly visible from major streets, or that is adjacent to existing public buildings, particularly police and fire stations.

Several flatland areas could experience substantial redevelopment during the next two decades. In most cases, public open space in these areas is deficient and should be augmented as redevelopment occurs. Likewise, as live-work and other forms of housing become an increasing presence in industrial areas, the need for new parks will be created in areas where it has not existed in the past. New public open spaces should be provided if they are not already located nearby. The acreage and design of these spaces should relate to the size and characteristics of the population in the surrounding area.

<!-- page 61 -->
Central to this policy is the recognition that a balance is needed between development and preservation of the remaining flatland open spaces. For larger parcels that are vacant or being redeveloped, it may be possible to accommodate both development and park uses. Dedication of a portion of a site as a park or other usable open space can be required as a condition of development approval where feasible.

***

### ACTION OS-2.5.1: USE OF CITY-OWNED SITES

*Evaluate City-owned property in the flatlands to determine which parcels meet the criteria listed in this policy. These parcels should be identified as possible sites for new or expanded City parks.*

***

### ACTION OS-2.5.2: USE OF SALES PROCEEDS FOR PARK DEVELOPMENT

*Adopt a City Council Policy and issue an Administrative Instruction which authorizes the proceeds from the sale of City real estate to be used to improve or acquire open space meeting the criteria in this policy where appropriate and feasible.*

***

### ACTION OS-2.5.3: USE OF ABANDONED GAS STATION SITES

*Inventory abandoned gas station sites and examine their suitability as plazas, mini-parks, or development sites. Fully consider problems associated with clean-up of contaminated soil in any assessment.*

### ACTION OS-2.5.4: LAND BANKING

*Create a "land banking" program to encourage voluntary dedications, grants of land, monetary contributions, or gifts in kind to the City for parks and open space. Only accept land donations if provisions for on-going maintenance are included in the dedication agreement or if a reliable long-term funding source for maintenance is available. Banked land should generally meet the acquisition criteria in Policies OS-1.2 and OS-2.5 and should be free of soil contamination problems.*

***

Action OS-2.5.4 encourages the City or a local non-profit to create a mechanism for voluntary donations of land. Environmentally sensitive or vacant lots in park-deficient areas could be deeded to the City and retained as open space. Lots in other areas could be deeded to the City and sold with the condition that the proceeds are used to acquire open space in deficient areas.

Criteria for acceptance of donations should generally follow those in Policy OS-1.2 and OS-2.5. Criteria should also include improvement costs, the long-term availability of funds for maintenance, requirements for soil clean-up, and the site's ability to meet an area's needs.

<!-- page 62 -->
### POLICY OS-2.6: STREET CLOSURES FOR PARKS, PLAZAS, AND GARDENS

Where there is broad community and local support and where legally permissible, allow local street closures as a way of creating new parks, plazas, and garden sites in urban neighborhoods.

In high density areas that are deficient in parkland, street rights-of-way can supplement the open space system. This might be accomplished by narrowing the pavement and increasing the landscaping strip, restricting through-traffic on a block, or removing vehicular access altogether. In the latter case, the street can effectively be made a "front yard" for nearby residences, with landscaping, gardens, or play equipment.

Street closures for open space would be most appropriate in very high density neighborhoods where residents do not have access to private yards, where there are large numbers of children, and where there is no land available for future park development. Examples include the Adams Point and Grand/ Lake districts. Opportunities may also exist on streets adjacent to schools, in redevelopment areas (where the opportunity to alter the street pattern exists), and downtown or in other areas of high pedestrian activity.

### OBJECTIVE OS-3: INSTITUTIONAL AND FUNCTIONAL OPEN SPACE

To retain major institutional and functional open space areas and enhance their recreational and aesthetic benefits.

"Institutional" open space includes the grounds of college campuses, military bases, hospitals, and religious establishments, and comprises more than 1,100 acres in Oakland. The University of California property on the hill above the Berkeley campus encompasses about 700 acres alone, making it the single largest open space in the city excluding open water and the airport runways. Other large institutional open spaces include the hillsides above the Oak Knoll Naval Hospital, some of the land within the Fleet Industrial Supply Center and Army Base, and the undeveloped portions of Mills, Holy Names, Holy Redeemer, and St. Albert's College. The Peralta District colleges also provide an important open space and recreational resource for Oakland neighborhoods.

"Functional" open space refers to land kept clear of buildings to support specific open air activities. Examples include the clear zones around Oakland Airport, the blasting area around the Leona Quarry, and the fenced areas around EBMUD's covered storage reservoirs. Functional open space is usually thought of as being "committed" to other land uses; usually industry, utilities, or transportation. However, many of these spaces have the potential to supplement Oakland's network of parks and resource conservation areas. Several are adjacent to the regional parks and others include amenities like the Estuary shoreline or spectacular vistas. Others are located in areas severely deficient in parks.

In other cases, functional open space may already provide a cultural or recreational resource. This is the case with the City's cemeteries and private golf courses, which together comprise more than 500 acres of land.

<!-- page 63 -->
### POLICY OS-3.1: UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE, AND INSTITUTIONAL OPEN SPACE

Retain open space at Oakland's universities, colleges, and other institutions where such open space provides recreational, aesthetic, conservation, or historic benefits to the community. Where such spaces are publicly owned, as at the community colleges, support the permanent retention of athletic fields and other recreational areas as open space, provided that the long-range needs of the institution can be met and that the space can be made accessible to the general public. Such areas should not be converted to development unless they are replaced in kind with comparable areas or facilities in the immediate vicinity.

Oakland's college and university campuses are widely regarded as public amenities. Many contain spacious lawns, large trees, and natural features such as creeks, hillsides, and meadows. Some, such as UC Berkeley and Mills College, provide hiking or jogging areas accessible to the public. Even private campuses and institutions like the Mormon Temple provide visual and sound buffers for nearby residences and are often lushly wooded or landscaped.

An effort should be made to retain vegetation and other natural features as new buildings are added at Oakland's colleges and institutions. If such establishments should close or become available for re-use, efforts should be made to retain the features which have made the properties desirable neighbors in the past.

### ACTION OS-3.1.1 CONSERVATION OF UC HILL PROPERTY

*After creating the new Resource Conservation Zone, work with the University of California to include in the zone portions of the campus designated for conservation in the Campus Long Range Development Plan.*

The UC Hill property is unique among Oakland's institutional open spaces because of its sheer size, its rugged, wild character, its continuity with Tilden Park and Claremont Canyon, and its relatively unrestricted public access. It is widely perceived and used as an extension of the regional park system. Although small portions of the hill area have been designated for development in the University's Long Range Development Plan, about 90 percent of the site has been designated for ecological study and resource conservation.

Although the University is technically exempt from local land use controls, the rezoning will provide a clearer statement of the City's vision and expectations for the area.

<<FIGURE>>

The University of California hill property is one of the largest open spaces in Oakland.

<!-- page 64 -->
### ACTION OS-3.1.2: CONSERVATION OF PERALTA COLLEGE OPEN SPACE

*Establish a working group consisting of representatives from the Peralta College District, the City of Oakland, and other appropriate interest groups and commissions, to discuss long range plans for Laney and Merritt Colleges. The working group would address the use of campus open space by the public as well as the future of underutilized resources such as the Merritt College west parking lot.*

---

The two Peralta College Campuses--Laney and Merritt--are located in very different settings. Laney College adjoins Oakland's densest neighborhoods. Its athletic fields and tennis courts are part of a larger network of linear parks that extends from Lake Merritt almost to the Oakland Estuary. Merritt College is located in the hills and is adjoined by regional parkland, low-density development, and private open space. Merritt encompasses a much larger site than Laney and includes wooded hillsides as well as large graded areas used for parking and recreation.

Because of its proximity to downtown, as well as major transit and traffic routes, the Laney athletic fields have come under increasing pressure for development with other uses. Their importance for college athletics and value as a large open space in a neighborhood deficient in park acreage are critical. Consequently, the site should be retained in its current use for the foreseeable future.

Much of Laney College is located within the Peralta College Project Urban Renewal Plan Area. Since the Urban Renewal Plan limits the range of uses on the Laney campus to those related to the College's educational objectives, development with non-College uses would require amendment of that Plan. If land is needed for expansion of the college, the parking area should be considered as a construction site before the athletic fields (with replacement parking provided in a structure or off-site).

Merritt College has significant room for growth. A special effort should be made to improve the visual condition of the Merritt College west parking lot and possibly develop new recreational or educational amenities there. The lot occupies a spectacular promontory above the city and could be used as a site for picnicking, outdoor performances, or other uses which take better advantage of the unique location.

### POLICY OS-3.2: MILITARY BASE OPEN SPACE

Support provisions for park and open space areas in plans for military base re-use. At Oak Knoll Naval Hospital, designate undeveloped areas with high natural resource or scenic value as Resource Conservation Areas. Consider using existing athletic fields and recreational facilities at Oak Knoll as a new Urban Park site.

---

There are three major military installations in Oakland. The Oak Knoll Naval Hospital in the South Hills is scheduled for closure within five years, while the Fleet Industrial Supply Center and Army Base (both in the Harbor Area) face uncertain futures. All three facilities, particularly the Naval Hospital, contain large open space areas.

The Hospital site includes about 100 acres of sloping fields, wooded hillsides, and a riparian creek corridor. It also includes athletic fields and picnic areas used by base personnel. Open space at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) and Oakland Army Base (OAB) generally consists of open storage yards and parking lots, but also includes athletic fields and playgrounds for military families. Both the FISC and the OAB have shoreline access, although the shoreline is used for shipping rather than recreational uses. In all cases, public access to the military open spaces is restricted.

The closure of Oak Knoll Naval Hospital will present the opportunity for a major new development in the South Oakland Hills. As re-use plans for the site emerge, an effort should be made to retain the steepest slopes, creek corridor, and native oak woodlands as open space. The creek corridor could become a linear park

<!-- page 65 -->
connecting Leona Open Space on the west with the Sequoyah Country Club area on the east. The possibility of re-using the existing athletic fields and officer's club as a community park for the South Hill area should also be explored.

When the FISC or OAB become available for redevelopment, opportunities to provide recreational facilities should be studied. Improved shoreline access should be pursued, provided that it does not interfere with the development and operation of new maritime and transportation facilities *(see also Policy OS-7.2 on shoreline access)*.

<<FIGURE>>
*About 100 acres of the Oak Knoll Naval Hospital consists of sloping fields and wooded hillsides. Rifle Range Creek also bisects the site.*

### ACTION OS-3.2.1: DESIGNATION OF NAVAL HOSPITAL OPEN SPACE

**Work with the agencies and commissions developing re-use plans for Oak Knoll Naval Hospital to designate steep slopes, significant oak woodlands, and riparian areas as Resource Conservation Areas.**

### ACTION OS-3.2.2: SHORELINE ACCESS PROVISIONS AT FLEET INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CENTER AND OAKLAND ARMY BASE

**When the Fleet Industrial Supply Center and Oakland Army Base become available for redevelopment, encourage the Port of Oakland to include opportunities for public access along the shoreline. (see also policies under Objective OS-7).**

### POLICY OS-3.3: GOLF COURSE AND CEMETERY OPEN SPACE

**Retain golf courses and cemeteries as open space areas.**

The Claremont and Sequoyah Golf Courses occupy about 245 acres in the North and South Hills. They provide a buffer for nearby residences, a visual amenity for the city, and a unique recreational resource. Existing City policy specifies that if the land should become available for sale or redevelopment, the sites should be retained as open space. Re-use as public golf courses, parks, or other outdoor recreational areas should be considered if the opportunity ever arises.

There are five cemeteries in Oakland, including three which adjoin each other in the North Hills, and two others in Central East Oakland. In addition to their role as an open space resource, the cemeteries are an important cultural, spiritual, and historic resource for the city.

<!-- page 66 -->
### ACTION OS-3.3.1: PRIVATE OPEN SPACE DESIGNATIONS

*As described in Action OS-2.1.1, amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram to create an "Urban Park and Other Open Space" land use designation. Apply this designation to cemeteries and golf courses. Amend the Oakland zoning ordinance to create a "Private Open Space" (P-OS) District. Specify land use standards and requirements for land use changes in these areas in the zoning text. Work with owners of local cemeteries to facilitate their rezoning to this new category.*

***

In the past, the cemeteries have been zoned for residential development. A new zoning category for private open space is proposed. The designation would not increase public access or change the current land use; rather, it would ensure that the cemeteries are retained as open space if the land is ever sold.

***

### POLICY OS-3.4: EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT OPEN SPACE

**Retain East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) watershed lands and reservoirs as open space and promote their joint use for recreation.**

***

EBMUD's Oakland properties include undeveloped watershed lands, covered reservoirs, and water tank sites. The *watershed lands* are limited to a handful of properties along Grizzly Peak and Skyline and in the Dunsmuir Ridge/Lake Chabot area. The *covered reservoirs* include some of the largest open spaces in the flatlands and Lower Hills, including the Central Reservoir on 23rd Avenue, the 39th Avenue Reservoir in Redwood Heights, and the Seneca Drive Reservoir in Toler Heights. The *water storage tanks* are located in the higher elevations of the hills, often on individual residential lots.

<<FIGURE>>

*Even where public access to EBMUD's covered reservoirs is infeasible, the sites can still be enhanced as neighborhood open spaces.*

While the potential for use of the covered reservoir "lids" is limited due to security concerns, the reservoirs themselves are located on large wooded parcels. Jogging trails (around reservoirs), community gardens, dog-walking areas, picnic areas, and mini-parks or play equipment might be accommodated in these areas. If public access is infeasible or undesirable, the land should continue to provide a wooded buffer within various neighborhoods.

The same is true with the smaller EBMUD water tank sites. Many of the tanks are located on relatively level sites in hillside residential areas. These areas often lack recreational facilities, and may be the only publicly-owned level sites in the neighborhood. Some are large enough to accommodate picnic tables or children's play apparatus adjacent to the water tanks. Joint recreational projects by EBMUD and the City should be pursued in these areas, with the active involvement of neighborhood and community groups. A priority should be placed on areas that are not currently well served by park facilities.

<!-- page 67 -->
### ACTION OS-3.4.1: RESOURCE CONSERVATION ZONING OF WATERSHEDS

*Rezone East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) watershed lands within the City limits for Resource Conservation.*

The EBMUD properties adjacent to Chabot Regional Park and Dunsmuir Ridge are highly visible from East Oakland and San Leandro. These properties serve an important open space function by protecting water quality in Lake Chabot and providing habitat for plants and animals. Once the new Resource Conservation Zone is created, the land should be rezoned accordingly.

### ACTION OS-3.4.2: JOINT USE OF TANK SITES

*Establish a City - East Bay Municipal Utility District task force to develop designs, programs, and management policies for joint use recreational projects on reservoir and water tank properties.*

### POLICY OS-3.5: JOINT USE OF PARKING AND OPEN STORAGE AREAS

Encourage the joint use of parking lots and open storage areas for recreation or special events. Such areas should be regarded as potential links in the citywide open space system.

Some of the largest open spaces in the flatland neighborhoods are parking lots and open storage areas. Wherever feasible, parking lots should be enhanced as neighborhood open spaces through landscaping, tree planting, and variations in pavement materials. The joint use of parking areas for other uses during non-peak hours also should be explored. Typical uses could include flea markets and neighborhood fairs.

Open storage areas may also hold the potential for enhancement as neighborhood open space. In some cases, such areas are used to stockpile junk and scrap and may have a blighting influence on nearby residential areas. Where they fall within residential areas, these spaces should be regarded as potential sites for new neighborhood parks or extensions of existing parks.

### ACTION OS-3.5.1: PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE STANDARDS

*Adopt landscape standards for new surface parking lots.*

### ACTION OS-3.5.2: RE-USE OF OPEN STORAGE YARDS

*Update the Land Use Element in a manner which considers open storage yards within predominantly residential areas as potential sites for new land uses, including neighborhood parks.*

<!-- page 68 -->
# Open Space Land Uses

<<FIGURE>>

LEFT: Trees along the Warren Freeway provide an amenity for motorists and nearby residents. RIGHT: Three miles to the west, surplus land inside the I-580/I-980 interchange is used as a neighborhood park.

### POLICY OS-3.6: OPEN SPACE BUFFERS ALONG FREEWAYS

**Maintain existing open space buffers along Oakland's freeways to absorb noise and emissions and enhance the scenic quality of the roadways. Manage steeply sloping or wooded parcels adjacent to highways owned by the State of California (Caltrans) to conserve natural resources and protect open space. Where compatible with adjacent land uses, support the use of land along, under, or over freeways in urban settings for greenbelts, recreation, public art, or other activities which enhance the usefulness and appearance of such land.**

Wooded and vine-covered embankments add greatly to the visual quality of Oakland's freeways and provide a view and sound buffer for nearby neighborhoods. New development on parcels adjacent to freeways like Highway 13 should retain the existing landscape screening to the maximum extent feasible.

Elsewhere in the City, there may be opportunities for new parks at interchanges and underpasses along Oakland's freeways. Such parks already exist at the Claremont undercrossing of Highway 24 (Hardy Park), and beneath the I-980/I-580 interchange (Grove-Shafter Park). Because of noise, air quality, traffic, and sunlight constraints, the options for such spaces are limited.

In Seattle, New York, and other US cities, some of the most desirable and attractive parks are actually located on "podiums" over freeways. Development of such parks in Oakland would be very attractive, but the options are limited by cost and physical design factors. The best possibilities may be along I-980 west of downtown and along the 12th Street/ 14th Street viaduct at the foot of Lake Merritt. A podium park over I-880 at Broadway could achieve the longtime goal of unifying downtown and Jack London Square. High costs make such projects infeasible at this time, but the possibilities should be kept in mind if new funding sources become available.

More immediate steps can be taken to make the most of freeway open spaces. Public art has been added to many of the underpasses on I-580 and should continue to be supported in the future. Landscaping of some of the large areas underneath elevated freeway sections (along I-980 and I-880 near downtown) should be encouraged, along with regular maintenance of such spaces by Caltrans.

<!-- page 69 -->
### ACTION OS-3.6.1: LANDSCAPE SCREENING ALONG FREEWAYS

*Require retention of existing landscape screening as a condition of development approval for any property adjacent to Highway 13, Highway 580 (east of Grand), or Highway 24 (above Broadway). Encourage Caltrans to include landscape screening for any sound wall project in these areas.*

---

### ACTION OS-3.6.2: CALDECOTT CANYON OPEN SPACE

*Rezone the City- and State-owned hillsides adjacent to the Caldecott Tunnel for Resource Conservation to ensure their retention as open space. Seek funding for a fire-resistant landscape demonstration project in this area.*

---

The Caldecott Canyon area includes more than 100 acres of City- and State-owned open space on either side of Highway 24 just west of the Caldecott Tunnel. The canyon provides habitat for wildlife, a buffer between the freeway and nearby neighborhoods, and a visual feature of regional importance. It is the major gateway to Oakland from the east and forms the first impression of the Central Bay Area for thousands of motorists each day. The City and Caltrans properties extend far up the canyon slopes to Hiller Highlands, and also over the tunnel itself as far east as Skyline Boulevard. The open space above the tunnel provides an important wildlife corridor as well as a connector between Tilden Park, EBMUD watershed lands, and Sibley Park.

This action recommends rezoning the public lands for Resource Conservation (they are currently zoned for residential development). In the future, the area should be managed to restore native vegetation, reduce future fire hazards, and minimize hazards associated with landslides and erosion. Trail access should be provided across the property to link the existing public open space areas on either side.

The action also recommends a fire-resistant demonstration garden. The garden has been proposed by local residents as a means of educating visitors on landscaping options in high fire hazard areas. The project would include botanical displays and interpretive facilities. A variety of state, federal, and private funding sources, including Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) funds, should be pursued for the project.

---

### ACTION OS-3.6.3: FREEWAY BUFFERS

*Encourage Caltrans to plant and maintain additional landscaping along Oakland's freeways, particularly those stretches of Interstate 880 adjacent to residential neighborhoods and other sensitive receptors.*

---

Landscape buffers provide a means of reducing noise and air pollution, especially carbon monoxide and particulates. Additional planting along I-880 in West Oakland, San Antonio-Fruitvale, and East Oakland could reduce exposure to these pollutants.

<!-- page 70 -->
### OBJECTIVE OS-4: PRIVATE OPEN SPACE

To supplement public open spaces with outdoor open space for private use.

***

### POLICY OS-4.1: PROVISION OF USEABLE OPEN SPACE

Continue to require new multi-family development to provide useable outdoor open space for its residents.

***

The Oakland Zoning Regulations currently require new residential development of two or more units to provide private or group useable open space. This usually takes the form of decks, patios, courtyards, or balconies. The spaces are generally not accessible to the public and serve residents of the development in which they are located.

Private open space should continue to be provided at no cost to building residents. These spaces should be relatively flat, located close to the units that are served, and screened from abutting property where appropriate. Wherever possible, the spaces should receive sunlight and be open to the sky. In high density areas, the use of rooftop terraces and gardens should be encouraged, both to create new open space and to provide points of visual interest. The use of narrow planting strips or other marginally useable spaces to meet the useable open space requirement should be discouraged.

Square footage requirements for open space vary within each zoning district. Currently, the requirement per unit becomes smaller as the allowable density becomes higher. Different requirements apply for rooming houses, efficiencies, and conventional units. Alternate methods of calculating open space requirements should be considered, possibly related to the number of bedrooms in each unit, or to the extent of park deficiencies in the neighborhood.

### ACTION OS-4.1.1: CHANGES TO USEABLE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS

*Consider changes to the useable open space requirements for new development, including the use of a sliding scale based on the number of bedrooms in multi-family development, and higher requirements for areas with severe parkland deficiencies. Establish conditions for lowering or waiving the requirement in certain areas, and for allowing more of the requirement to be fulfilled on rooftops.*

### ACTION OS-4.1.2: DESIGN OF PRIVATE OPEN SPACE

*Establish design standards or guidelines for private or group open space in new multi-family development.*

### POLICY OS-4.2: PROTECTION OF RESIDENTIAL YARDS

Recognize the value of residential yards as a component of the City's open space system and discourage excessive coverage of such areas by buildings or impervious surfaces.

***

Residential yards provide a feeling of openness in many Oakland neighborhoods and create an almost park-like setting in some locations. This policy suggests that yards be protected from overbuilding and acknowledged as an important part of what makes Oakland neighborhoods unique.

<!-- page 71 -->
### ACTION OS-4.2.1: LOT COVERAGE LIMITS

*Prepare a study of lot coverage or floor area ratio limits for single family residential zoning districts, with assistance from local architects, builders, and residents.*

---

Currently, the City regulates open space on single family lots by prescribing setbacks in each zoning district. The larger the setback, the more open space is retained around a structure. While setbacks are effective in preserving a minimum "envelope" of open space around each dwelling unit, they bear little relationship to the area of the lot. Consequently, development on some lots may appear inordinately bulky or massive, particularly for lots that are small relative to others nearby.

Lot coverage requirements supplement setbacks by setting the maximum percentage of a lot that may be covered by structures. For instance, a 6,000 square foot lot with a 50 percent lot coverage limit could have no more than 3,000 square feet of building "footprint" on the property. Floor area ratio (FAR) limits achieve the added objective of controlling bulk, as they relate the allowable floor area on a parcel to the square footage of the parcel. The actual limits to be set could vary depending on the zoning district, lot size, or both.

### POLICY OS-4.3: PROTECTION OF RURAL CHARACTER

Conserve the rural, open character of areas which have historically developed at very low densities, particularly those areas where the prevailing lot size is one acre or larger.

---

This policy addresses concerns over lot splits and minor subdivisions in several Oakland neighborhoods known for their rural character. The areas are characterized by wooded lots larger than one acre with ranch-style homes and occasional horse barns. Because zoning in these areas allows lot sizes of 25,000 square feet, many of the properties have the potential to be further subdivided. Incremental splitting of lots could have a "creeping" effect on the area's character and could ultimately impact traffic, community services, and emergency access.

---

### ACTION OS-4.3.1: MEASURES TO PRESERVE RURAL CHARACTER

*Conduct a study of existing low density residential zoning classifications to determine if they are adequate to safeguard the rural character of large lot residential areas. The study should examine alternatives to existing zoning, including a one-acre minimum lot district, as well as other approaches (tree preservation, design guidelines, enforcement of CC&Rs, etc.) to implement this policy.*

<<FIGURE>>

*Large lots, ample setbacks, and abundant trees contribute to the rural character of several Oakland neighborhoods, including Hillcrest Estates.*

<!-- page 72 -->
### POLICY OS-4.4: ELIMINATION OF BLIGHTED VACANT LOTS

Discourage property owners from allowing vacant land to become a source of neighborhood blight, particularly in residential areas with large numbers of vacant lots.

While other OSCAR policies deal with the positive aspects of open space, this policy deals with situations where open space has a negative impact on a neighborhood. The policy applies primarily to vacant, debris- or weed-covered lots and abandoned buildings. Some of these properties are used for illegal dumping; others convey an image of disinvestment and neglect.

On-going measures should be taken to use these properties productively and to eliminate the blighting influence they have on the neighborhood. The City currently has weed abatement penalties (and fire abatement penalties in the hills) for vacant lots with excessive weeds or brush.

### *ACTION OS-4.4.1: CHANGES TO BLIGHT ORDINANCE*

*Modify the existing blight ordinance to create incentives for development or park dedication, or tax disincentives for keeping property vacant.*

The action is intended to encourage owners of vacant lots to develop potentially blighting properties or to improve them as neighborhood open spaces. The Offices of Planning and Building and Housing and Neighborhood Development would draft ordinance revisions to achieve this goal.

## OBJECTIVE OS-5: LINEAR PARKS AND TRAILS

To develop a system of linear parks and trails which (a) links existing parks together; (b) provides safe, convenient access to open space from residential areas and employment centers; (c) provides places to hike, bike, and experience Oakland's scenery; and (d) provides a means of moving from one place to another without an automobile.

Oakland could have a truly magnificent network of integrated hiking trails, waterfront promenades, and urban paths. Many elements of the network are already in place, including an acclaimed regional trail system in the East Bay hills. Ironically, it is very difficult to get to the trailheads without a car, making the trails inaccessible to a large segment of Oakland's population. Few of the trails extend down the canyons and creeks into the flatlands of Oakland.

Through a combination of advanced planning, public information, and capital improvements, the city can create a trail system which links its parks to each other and the communities they serve. In addition to its recreational benefits, a successful trail system can reduce automobile dependence and provide a safe, convenient means of transportation for persons without cars.

<<FIGURE>>
The Dimond Canyon Trail provides one of the few trail links between the flatlands and the hill area parks.

<!-- page 73 -->
### POLICY OS-5.1: PRIORITIES FOR TRAIL IMPROVEMENT

**Improve trail connections within Oakland, emphasizing connections between the flatlands and the hill and shoreline parks; lateral trail connections between the hill area parks; and trails along the waterfront (see Figure 6).**

A combination of footpaths, sidewalks, and signed pedestrian crossings should be used to link the flatlands with the hill and shoreline parks and improve the linkages between the hill parks. Natural features such as creeks form a logical route for trails, particularly on public lands where access can be provided. Previous general plans for Oakland called for hill-to-bay trails along Sausal Creek, Arroyo Viejo, and San Leandro Creek. Other linear features like flood control easements, street medians, and power line easements should be considered for trail connections.

Potential trail links are shown in Figure 6. Construction of trails as shown in the Figure would only be implemented if allowed by applicable state and federal laws and if the owner is provided with economically viable use of the property, or if the owner voluntarily agrees or undertakes trail construction.

Figure 6 identifies the following potential improvements to link the flatlands to the shoreline and hills:

*   *Channel Park to Estuary.* This link involves a crossing of the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific railroad between Channel Park and Estuary Park. It would join the Lake Merritt neighborhoods to the shoreline. A crossing of the Tidal Channel using the old Union Pacific rail bridge might also be considered.

*   *Castlemont to Knowland.* Arroyo Viejo runs on mostly public and institutional lands between Castlemont High School and Knowland Park. A trail along the creek and in the right-of-way of Fontaine/ Golf Links Roads would link the Castlemont area with the large open spaces in the South Hills.

*   *Temescal Creek.* The feasibility of a Temescal Creek trail should be studied. The trail would run in the flood control easement from Emeryville to West Street, then follow local streets to the vacant site at 51st and Telegraph. The trail would continue up to Temescal Creek Park, extend to Hardy Park, and follow local streets and the right-of-way of Highway 24 through Rockridge to Lake Temescal.

*   *Glen Echo Creek.* The existing trail segments in Glen Echo and Oak Glen Parks could be extended. There are opportunities to extend the Oak Glen Park trail north to MacArthur Boulevard and south to 29th Street. Future connections south towards Lake Merritt and north towards Pleasant Valley Road could be explored.

*   *Greenman Field to Curt Flood Field.* This trail would follow Lion Creek and 66th Avenue to provide a connection between the Havenscourt Area, the Coliseum, and King Regional Shoreline. It might also follow the street right-of-way to Arroyo Viejo Park.

*   *Sausal and Peralta Creeks.* Trail proposals along these creeks have appeared in previous Oakland master plans but have yet to be built due to lack of funding and land ownership issues. The feasibility of extending existing trail segments along the creeks should be further explored, possibly with alignments along parallel streets where direct creek access is impossible.

*   *Claremont Canyon.* Joint projects with Berkeley could provide better access from the Elmwood and Rockridge neighborhoods to the hill trails via Claremont Canyon and the UC Hill property.

*   *Hegenberger to 98th.* This would extend the existing trail along San Leandro Channel from its current terminus to 98th Avenue, connecting Columbian Gardens to the shoreline. Possible extension of the trail across I-880 should be explored, providing a link to Brookfield Park.

<!-- page 74 -->
<<FIGURE>>

City of Oakland
**Open Space, Conservation**
**and Recreation Element**
# Figure 6: Citywide
# Pedestrian Trail System

| | |
|---|---|
| —— | Existing Trails or Promenades |
| ...... | Proposed Trails or Promenades |
| -> -> | Corridors for Potential Trail Connections |
| * | Areas for Improvement |

Note: Trail connections and/or designations on private property, as depicted here, shall only be implemented where allowed by applicable state and federal laws.

Source: EBRPD, Oakland Fire Dept., & Office of Planning & Building.

<!-- page 75 -->
Extension of existing trail segments along Courtland Creek and Seminary Creek also should be pursued as opportunities arise.

In addition to trails connecting the hills and the flatlands, trail linkages between the various hill area parks within the city also should be improved. The ultimate goal should be a continuous "Oakland Hills Scenic Trail" from Tilden Park to Lake Chabot, connecting the existing parks of the Oakland Hills. The trail could complement the City's 52-mile Scenic Drive and might be similarly looped to include the Bay Trail along the shoreline.

The following connections should be pursued to link the hill area parks:

*   *Claremont Canyon to North Oakland Soccer Field.* This would incorporate the existing fire trail leading uphill from the North Oakland Soccer Field, with an extension to Sibley Regional Park, and an extension north across the Grizzly Peak Open Space to Claremont Canyon and the UC Hill property.

*   *Shepherd Canyon Trail extension.* This would extend the existing Shepherd Canyon trail to Skyline Boulevard, possibly using the PG&E right of way. The trail could also extend west to Montclair Park via the old railroad trestle. A further extension to Lake Temescal might be explored, using a combination of the abandoned railroad trestle and street rights of way. The feasibility of a connection between the Shepherd Canyon and Dimond Canyon trails (across public land on Scout Road) also should be explored.

*   *Beaconsfield Canyon.* A trail could extend from Beaconsfield Canyon through Sulphur Springs ("Painted Rock") Park to Montera Junior High School. A link to Joaquin Miller Park might be created from Ascot Drive, through Castle Canyon.

*   *York Trail.* This historic but overgrown trail above Merritt College should be restored and maintained jointly by the City and the Regional Park District.

*   *South Hill Area.* Trail connections should be established from Leona Open Space through the redeveloped Oak Knoll Naval Hospital to Mountain Boulevard and then into Knowland Park. A further connection could join Knowland to Dunsmuir House and Gardens, Dunsmuir Ridge, and finally Chabot Regional Park. Additional trail connections to Chabot Park could be provided along the creek from Sheffield Village and from the zoo across the upper part of Knowland Park.

(See Policy OS-7.5 and Actions OS-7.5.1 through OS-7.5.4 for a discussion of the Bay Trail.)

***

### ACTION OS-5.1.1: TRAIL FUNDING

*Establish an Interdepartmental Committee (including the Offices of Planning and Building, Parks and Recreation, and Public Works, and the City Manager's Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance Unit) to seek State, federal, and East Bay Regional Park District funding for urban trail improvements, including improved access for the disabled.*

Alternatives to fee simple acquisition such as trail easements and shared rights of way should be considered to minimize the cost of trail development. When major new transportation routes are developed, such as the extension of the Embarcadero, trails should be incorporated into the design or built off-site as a mitigation measure.

***

### ACTION OS-5.1.2: DESIGNATION OF CREEK TRAILS

*Where appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, require dedication of trail easements for new development proposed along open sections of Oakland's creeks.*

<!-- page 76 -->
### ACTION OS-5.1.3: DESIGNATION OF URBAN TRAILS

*Explore the feasibility of designating sidewalks along certain Oakland streets as elements of an "urban trails" system.*

Signage and pavement markings would be used to differentiate these sidewalks from others. The designated routes would provide pedestrian connections from population and employment centers to major City parks, the shoreline and the hills.

### ACTION OS-5.1.4: TRAIL DEDICATION IN NEW DEVELOPMENT

*To the extent permitted by law, require the dedication of trail easements for new development projects located in the corridors identified in Figure 6 (Citywide Pedestrian Trail System), including Oak Knoll Naval Hospital. (Note: proposed trail alignments in Figure 6 are conceptual only.)*

This action should be communicated to the Military Base Conversion Team for consideration in Base re-use planning.

### ACTION OS-5.1.5: PARK TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS

*Encourage local community groups, environmental groups, youth organizations, and (where appropriate) the Regional Park District to undertake trail improvement or enhancement projects in Claremont Canyon, Caldecott Canyon, Shepherd Canyon, Beaconsfield Canyon, and Knowland Park.*

### POLICY OS-5.2: JOINT USE OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY

Promote the development of linear parks or trails within utility or transportation corridors, including transmission line rights-of-way, abandoned railroad rights-of-way, and areas under the elevated BART tracks.

Because Oakland is a mostly developed city, a major component of its trail system would need to consist of transportation and utility corridors. Freeways, boulevards, transmission lines, and other corridors often contain open space for buffering or aesthetic purposes. Many of these linear areas have the potential for trails or bikeways. Even where access is infeasible, these spaces still provide a valuable part of the City's open space system.

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) operates high voltage transmission lines in corridors along I-880, in Caldecott, Shepherd and Dimond Canyons, and near Lake Chabot. Land within the corridors must be kept free of obstructions for safety and security reasons. These restrictions do not preclude the use of the corridors for recreation, particularly for trails. Both the Caldecott and Shepherd Canyon rights-of-way have the potential for trails connecting City parks to the regional park system.

Opportunities for trails in abandoned railroad rights-of-way and under the elevated BART tracks are limited but could be pursued in the future if rail lines are abandoned or areas along BART are redeveloped. Federal "Rails to Trails" legislation provides a possible funding source for converting abandoned rail corridors to trails. In the case of BART, joint use of the right-of-way between Fruitvale Avenue and High Street might be considered as part of the Fruitvale BART Station redevelopment effort.

<!-- page 77 -->
<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

*TOP: The Bancroft median, once a streetcar line, could be enhanced with a bike path and additional landscaping. BOTTOM: The PG&E right-of-way provides a potential connection between the North Oakland Sports Center and the regional parks.*

### ACTION OS-5.2.1: BANCROFT PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS

***Pursue funding through the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) for development of a landscaped path and bike trail in the Bancroft median. Consider changing the street name from "Avenue" to "Parkway."***

The Bancroft Avenue median was created after the streetcar line was removed in the 1950s. The strip is planted with street trees and minimal ground cover. The potential exists for additional landscaping and a linear bike path or trail within the median.

### ACTION OS-5.2.2: MANDELA PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS

***Include at least one option in the re-use planning for Mandela Parkway which retains the entire parkway as landscaped open space. Retain at least some continuous open space between the two ends of the corridor in all options to accommodate the Bay Trail and to offset the deficiency of parkland in West Oakland. Extend connector trails from the Bay Trail east to Lowell and DeFremery Parks and west to Raimondi Field.***

The Mandela Parkway median was created after the collapsed section of I-880 was cleared from West Oakland following the 1989 earthquake. The future of this 20-block long strip has yet to be determined. The community has expressed interest in developing a memorial garden, planting oak trees, and completing a Bay Trail link between Emeryville and the West Oakland BART station. Other options have included an African marketplace, landscaped parking (north of Grand Avenue), and reconfiguration of the blocks to allow new development.

No matter what development scenario is chosen, at least some linear open space and trail connection should be maintained between the two ends of the parkway. Creative design solutions on this unique and important corridor should be strongly encouraged.

### ACTION OS-5.2.3: PG&E RIGHT-OF-WAY JOINT USE

***Work with Pacific Gas & Electric (and East Bay Regional Park District, where appropriate) to study the feasibility of linear trail connections using the existing transmission line rights-of-way between: (a) the North Oakland Sports Center and Sibley Regional Park; and (b) the Shepherd Canyon Trail and Skyline Boulevard.***

<!-- page 78 -->
### ACTION OS-5.2.4: TRAFFIC ISLAND AND MEDIAN ENHANCEMENT

*Inventory traffic islands and medians under City jurisdiction and evaluate possible enhancement measures for these spaces. Develop planting guidelines for such spaces which require low maintenance, drought-tolerant landscaping.*

Oakland's landscaped medians serve an open space function in addition to their function as traffic separators. The city's medians include Mandela Parkway, Bancroft Avenue, Edgewater Drive, Skyline Boulevard (east of Redwood), Hegenberger Road (I-880 to East 14th), 14th Avenue (at Foothill), Upper High Street, and a number of smaller streets in Oakland. There are also landscaped traffic islands along many of the city's arterials, such as Park Boulevard in the Glenview District and Pleasant Valley Road east of Broadway.

In most cases, the medians or islands are ornamentally landscaped and are too small, narrow, or hard to reach to be useful for recreation. In other cases, the medians could be enhanced as linear parks.

Elsewhere in the city, medians and traffic islands should continue to be attractively landscaped and maintained. Where excess right of way exists, the possibility of trails should be explored. This has already been done along Shepherd Canyon Road, which was once slated to become a new freeway. The surplus right-of-way has been developed as a linear park and bike trail.

### POLICY OS-5.3: TRAIL DESIGN PRINCIPLES

**Plan and design all new trails in a manner which: (a) minimizes environmental impacts; (b) fully considers neighbor privacy and security issues; (c) involves the local community in alignment and design; and (d) considers the needs of multiple users, including pedestrians, bicycles, and wheelchairs.**

Policy OS-5.3 addresses basic issues to be considered as new trails are planned and developed. Standards for trail design should be prepared, addressing such issues as width, surfaces, signs, safety, access, and accommodation of multiple users.

New trails in the hills and along creeks should be designed with sensitivity to the areas they traverse. Grading and tree removal should be minimized and erosion control measures should be taken where needed. Where natural resources could potentially be destroyed by public access, as at San Leandro Bay's wetlands, the use of elevated boardwalks or railings should be required.

The trails should be aligned in a way that highlights local points of interest, provides diverse scenery and outstanding vistas, and showcases areas of natural beauty. In urban settings, the trails should highlight interesting architectural features, historical landmarks, and cultural features along their routes.

Trail design also should address issues of disabled access and multiple users. Where feasible, particularly on urban trails and boardwalks, provisions for wheelchairs should be made. On the most heavily traveled trail sections, separation of bicycle and pedestrian traffic should be achieved through lane striping and signage.

To the maximum extent possible, trails should not compromise the privacy and security of adjoining residences. Landscape screening and fences should be used to avoid the loss of privacy by neighbors and a variety of design measures (possibly including gates) should be used where needed to prevent the use of trails after sunset.

<!-- page 79 -->
Public involvement should be solicited in the planning and maintenance of trails. Where feasible, maintenance agreements should be set up with specific groups like the East Bay Youth Conservation Corps, the Sierra Club, and local neighborhood organizations.

---

### ACTION OS-5.3.1: PREPARATION OF URBAN TRAILS PLAN

*Prepare an Urban Trails Master Plan. Prior to the development of this Plan, designate a staff person as the City's Trail Coordinator.*

---

The Plan would include specific proposals for new trails, along with design standards. A committee including various interest group representatives, citizens, and agency representatives would be formed to help route, plan, and prioritize the trails. After the Plan was completed, the committee might continue to oversee its implementation.

The "trail coordinator" would be an existing staff person in the Office of Parks and Recreation or Office of Planning and Building. In addition to regular planning assignments, this person's on-going responsibility would be to coordinate trail planning, acquisition, development, and management with various agencies and jurisdictions.

---

### ACTION OS-5.3.2: PREPARATION OF BICYCLE TRAIL PLAN

*Develop a Bicycle Trail Plan as part of the Land Use and Transportation Element Update.*

---

In 1994, the City received a $75,000 Transportation Development Act grant to prepare a bikeways component of its Transportation Element. The Plan should address cycling both as a recreational activity and as an alternative to driving. Specific new bike route designations should be included.

---

<<FIGURE>>

Mid-block paths like this one near the Claremont Hotel provide shortcuts for pedestrians and are an important part of neighborhood character.

### POLICY OS-5.4: MAINTENANCE OF MID-BLOCK PATHS

**Maintain a network of mid-block paths and stairsteps in Oakland to enhance neighborhood character and provide pedestrian "short-cuts" through developed areas.**

---

Mid-block paths and walkways consist of city-owned strips of land, usually parallel to residential side yards. Most are between 10 and 20 feet wide and are several hundred feet long. The pathways were originally intended to provide pedestrian short cuts, especially in areas where the terrain was too steep for roads. In the hill neighborhoods, some of the pathways consist of stairsteps, often dropping as much as 100 feet in a single

<!-- page 80 -->
block. Some of the more distinctive stairsteps include the Cleveland Cascade near Lake Merritt and the Eucalyptus Path near the Claremont Hotel.

Most of the land set aside for mid-block pathways was never improved and has since been unofficially "absorbed" by adjoining properties. Many of the strips are heavily overgrown by brush or are blocked by fencing and would be almost impossible to reclaim. The cost of improving the pathways and adding new stairsteps would be substantial, and the loss of privacy by adjoining owners could be significant. A citywide inventory should determine which paths are already improved, which have the potential for improvement, and which should be sold to adjoining property owners.

Where mid-block paths already exist, they should be maintained and kept in good condition. The paths play an important recreational, transportation, and aesthetic role in some neighborhoods. Some may even be historically significant.

Where paths were never developed in the easements, the decision to sell or retain the land should be based on a number of factors. These include: (a) the easement's potential to become part of a larger trail system which connects to nearby parkland or commercial areas; (b) the easement's proximity to adjacent neighbors and the extent to which they have already been "claimed"; and (c) the feasibility of building steps or a path in the strip.

Where improvements are infeasible, it may be appropriate to sell the land to adjoining property owners. Proceeds from these sales might then be used to improve or renovate other segments of the path system. Where paths have been previously vacated, law may require that the former rights-of-way be given to the neighboring properties.

### *ACTION OS-5.4.1: MID-BLOCK PATH INVENTORY*

*Inventory and assess all mid-block pedestrian paths and determine which should be retained and which should be declared surplus.*

***

The Offices of Planning and Building, Parks and Recreation, and Public Works should undertake an inventory of all mid-block paths in the city, noting which are developed as stairsteps or pathways, which have the potential for improvement and enhancement, and which should be given or sold to adjoining landowners as surplus property.

<!-- page 81 -->
### OBJECTIVE OS-6: REGIONAL PLANNING

**To integrate Oakland's open spaces with a larger system of open spaces serving the entire Bay Area, emphasizing the creation and maintenance of a regional greenbelt.**

Oakland's open space is part of a larger network that extends well beyond city boundaries. The regional open space system provides the framework for a metropolitan land use pattern that concentrates growth in existing cities while conserving open space for recreation, resource management, and agriculture. The City should be pro-actively involved in regional open space planning, both to protect regional resources and to create new recreational opportunities which benefit Oakland residents.

For several decades, government agencies and non-profit organizations have endeavored to create a greenbelt surrounding the Bay Area's urban core. Creation of a regional greenbelt would benefit Oakland by directing growth and investment into the region's central cities and conserving the scenic and natural resources that make the Bay Area a desirable place to live and work.

It is in the city's best interest to ensure that new open spaces are acquired and new recreational opportunities are created beyond the Oakland city limits. Open space in Oakland is a finite resource, and one that should not be overloaded with too many facilities and activities.

### POLICY OS-6.1: INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION

**Coordinate Oakland's open space planning with other agencies, including adjacent cities and counties, the Port of Oakland, and the East Bay Regional Park District.**

The City will coordinate its open space planning efforts with Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, and with the cities of Alameda, Berkeley, Emeryville, Piedmont, San Francisco, and San Leandro. Regular communication with local planning and parks departments will be maintained on matters of interjurisdictional concern. The University-Oakland Metropolitan Forum, Association of Bay Area Governments, and other groups can facilitate coordination between East Bay cities.

Regional and sub-regional open space planning will be supported and encouraged in the future. The City will work with existing agencies like the Regional Park District and the Port of Oakland, and emerging groups like the Bay Area Open Space Council to facilitate the achievement of regional open space goals.

### ACTION OS-6.1.1: COMMUNICATION WITH EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

*Strengthen the City's communication with the East Bay Regional Park District by holding periodic coordination meetings between City (Offices of Planning and Building and Parks and Recreation) and Park District staff.*

The EBRPD manages 73,000 acres of parkland in 47 East Bay parks. The parks complement those provided by the City of Oakland by providing larger park areas, more isolated and wild settings, and an emphasis on naturalist activities as opposed to active recreation.

Four of the regional parks are located entirely within Oakland and another five are located just over the ridge, mostly outside the city limits. Local park planning, programming, land acquisition, and capital improvements must be coordinated with the EBRPD to maximize the effectiveness of the City's parks and open space programs.

<!-- page 82 -->
_Open Space Land Uses_

***

*ACTION OS-6.1.2: PARK DISTRICT ACQUISITIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS IN OAKLAND*

*Strongly encourage the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) to take the lead in acquiring open space that is adjacent to the existing regional parks in the City of Oakland, particularly along the perimeter of Redwood, Sibley, Claremont Canyon, Leona and Chabot Regional Parks. Support EBRPD plans for expanding its Oakland landholdings, particularly for properties or capital improvements which provide stronger linkages between EBRPD parks and the Oakland flatlands.*

***

*ACTION OS-6.1.3: CITY/ PORT LIAISON*

*Designate a City of Oakland Office of Planning and Building staff person as liaison to the Port to maintain regular contact on matters concerning airport and harbor expansion.*

<!-- page 83 -->
# SHORELINE AND CREEKS

| GOAL OS-2: AN ATTRACTIVE, ACCESSIBLE SHORELINE AND CREEK SYSTEM WHICH COMPLEMENTS THE CITY'S PARKS AND OPEN SPACES. |
| :--- |

The following objectives, actions, and policies will guide the City towards achieving Goal OS-2:

### OBJECTIVE OS-7: SHORELINE ACCESS

To increase physical and visual access to the Oakland shoreline and create new opportunities for shoreline recreation.

Stretching 19 miles from San Leandro to Emeryville, the Oakland shoreline is a study in contrasts. It is diverse and eclectic in character, alternately displaying the energy of shoreline commerce, the excitement of waterfront recreation, and the calm of a natural sanctuary. While the value of the waterfront for industry and transportation has been recognized for decades, its value as a recreational open space has only recently been acknowledged.

Shortly after Oakland incorporated, the State of California passed the shoreline and tidelands to the City in land grants to be operated under the State's public trust doctrine. In 1926, the Port of Oakland was created to control the tidelands, with the specific mission of promoting development of the harbor. While the clear definition of the Port's mission produced one of the finest intermodal transportation facilities in the world, it may have prevented Oakland from realizing its full potential as a waterfront city.

The fate of the waterfront was further sealed by early city plans. The 1915 Plan for Oakland, prepared by Werner Hegemann, called for industrial uses along all but two small segments of the shoreline. Some years later, the city's first zoning maps designated the entire area between the Airport and the Bay Bridge for manufacturing and shipping. Later decisions such as construction of the Nimitz Freeway (1949), the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (1941), and the International Airport (1955) reinforced the dominance of transportation along the waterfront. The freeway in particular created a formidable physical barrier that divided the waterfront from the residential neighborhoods to the east. At the same time, the decline of the ferry and trolley systems, the dwindling number of fisheries and shipyards, and the closure of canneries and other industries caused public activity along the waterfront to decline.

Attitudes and priorities towards the shoreline began to change during the 1960s, with park acquisition along San Leandro Bay and redevelopment studies recommending new residential, commercial, and recreational uses along the Estuary shore. A 1968 Plan proposing new open spaces and commercial uses near Jack London Square resulted in Estuary Park and the waterfront promenade. More recently, the League of Women Voters completed a study of the Waterfront which made specific recommendations for economic development, land use changes, increased public access, and joint planning between the City and the Port.

Two major open space challenges stand out along the waterfront. First, new recreation areas, public access points, and amenities need to be provided without interrupting active and essential maritime uses. This will require action by both the public and private sectors, and can be achieved through a combination of new water-oriented development, land acquisition, joint planning, and capital improvements. Second, linkages are needed to bring the people of Oakland back to the water. This will require a combination of physical changes, such as

<!-- page 84 -->
bridges and signs, and non-physical changes such as better public information and transit.

The following policies and actions will guide the City's open space planning efforts in this area. These policies and actions are not intended to place another layer of regulatory review on Port land use planning. They are a statement of the City's expectations for the shoreline and an affirmation of support for existing state, federal, and regional agency requirements. These requirements govern such issues as public access, wetlands, and endangered species protection. At this time, there is no intent to duplicate these regulatory functions with new City requirements.

***

### POLICY OS-7.1: PROMOTION OF BENEFICIAL WATERFRONT USES

**Require land uses along the shoreline which promote the beneficial uses of the Estuary and Bay waters, including a balanced mix of commercial shipping facilities; water-dependent industry, commerce, and transportation; recreation; water-oriented services and housing; and resource conservation.**

***

A variety of uses will be encouraged along the Oakland shoreline, with the goal of creating a vibrant, economically viable, attractive, and accessible waterfront. Commercial shipping and industry have historically dominated the waterfront. There are other viable uses which can comfortably co-exist with port operations. For instance, the shoreline could potentially support a commercial fishing vessel marina and a range of seafood processing, storage, and exporting operations. The potential for additional fishing piers, marinas, charter boats and excursion cruises has been documented in recent studies and could be promoted in the future.

Outside the maritime and Airport areas, the City will encourage the conversion of obsolete shoreline uses to new uses which are more integrally related to the water. Development in such areas should be required to incorporate design and landscape features which make the shoreline more useable and attractive.

### ACTION OS-7.1.1: COORDINATED WATERFRONT PLANNING

***Maintain coordinated planning and economic development efforts between the City and the Port. Coordinate the update of the Land Use and Transportation Elements with the Port to achieve the desired mix of land uses along the waterfront.***

***

Joint planning efforts should be undertaken to ensure that Port activities are compatible with City objectives, to collaborate on ideas and projects for the shoreline, and to undertake the physical improvements needed to improve public access to the waterfront.

One of the first steps in improving waterfront access is to update the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The 1980 Land Use Element designated nearly the entire Estuary shore for industrial uses. This is inconsistent with both the existing land use pattern and the desired future land use pattern. New designations should seek to maximize the economic, recreational, and aesthetic potential of the waterfront. This should include opportunities for new housing, parks, and public access points; an appropriate mix of commercial and industrial uses; and buffers between incompatible uses.

***

### POLICY OS-7.2: DEDICATION OF SHORELINE PUBLIC ACCESS

**Support the BCDC requirements which mandate that all new shoreline development designate the water's edge as publicly accessible open space where safety and security are not compromised, and where access can be achieved without interfering with waterfront industrial and maritime uses. Where such conflicts or hazards would result, support the provision of off-site access improvements in lieu of on-site improvements. In such cases, the extent of off-site improvements should be related to the scale of the development being proposed.**

***

The Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) requires that shoreline access be provided on

<!-- page 85 -->
any new development site fronting San Francisco Bay (and its estuaries) unless the access would interfere with operations or pose a public safety hazard. Where access is provided, it usually takes the form of a shoreline trail or boardwalk, sometimes accompanied by landscaped open space and seating areas. Examples include the restaurants at Jack London Square and the motels at Embarcadero Cove.

Public access in maritime and aviation areas is much more restricted. The Army Base and Fleet Industrial Supply Center are security-controlled and the marine terminals involve heavy rail and truck traffic, maneuvering of equipment and shipping containers, and other operations which are not conducive to public access. At the Airport, shoreline access is further limited by Federal Aviation Administration regulations. Generally, when new development occurs at the Harbor, public access improvements are made off-site. For example, construction of the Port's newest marine terminal was accompanied by development of a 2,000-foot shoreline trail on Port property along 7th Street.

### ACTION OS-7.2.1: BCDC ACCESS REQUIREMENTS

***Encourage the Port to develop Shoreline access and design standards which are consistent with BCDC requirements and which reflect local maritime and aviation needs.***

### ACTION OS-7.2.2: MITIGATION BANKING REQUIREMENTS

***Encourage the Port and BCDC, with City input, to explore ways to eliminate restrictions on "banking" of environmental credits for Port activities along the waterfront.***

<<FIGURE>>

*Shoreline access in development at Embarcadero Cove.*

Mitigation for Port development typically takes place concurrently with project construction. Typical mitigation measures might include shoreline access, wetlands restoration, or open space dedication. This action encourages the BCDC to allow the Port to mitigate its projects in advance and then "bank" mitigation credits for future use. Mitigation banking would allow shoreline access to be improved more rapidly and could be more cost-effective for the Port by avoiding the need for incremental projects. The City will work with the Port and BCDC to establish a process for mitigation banking and guidelines for its implementation.

<!-- page 86 -->
### POLICY OS-7.3: WATERFRONT APPRECIATION

Promote a greater appreciation of the Oakland waterfront by preserving and enhancing waterfront views, promoting its educational value, and, exploring new and creative ways to provide public access to the shoreline without interfering with transportation and shipping operations or endangering public safety.

***

Appreciation of the Oakland waterfront can start by improving its visibility. Water views can enhance the identity of Oakland as a port city and convey the message that Oakland is a dynamic center of international trade and commerce. Views also provide a source of scenic beauty and a chance to experience the natural environment, particularly in the marshland areas around San Leandro Bay and the Emeryville Crescent.

Along I-880, views to the water should be retained and enhanced wherever feasible. View corridors down major thoroughfares ending at the water should be retained and possibly accented with landmarks or public art at the water's edge. On the frontage roads adjacent to I-880 and along the Embarcadero, a greater effort should be made to maintain and enhance views of the Estuary and Bay. Shoreline development should be limited to water-oriented or water-enhanced uses.

Opportunities to view Oakland's diverse array of waterfront activities also should be provided. This might even include shoreline access within areas used for transportation, shipping, and industry, provided that such access does not interfere with operations or endanger public safety. Inroads for visitor access could showcase the activities of the Port and increase the visibility of this important part of the city's economic base. Possibilities could include visitor centers at new marine terminals and overlooks or vistas along the shoreline.

### ACTION OS-7.3.1: IMPROVEMENTS TO BAY BRIDGE APPROACH

*Work with Caltrans to develop and implement an enhancement plan for the south side of the Bay Bridge, focusing on improved views to the water.*

***

A 1986 workshop sponsored by the Bay Area Partnership developed a number of proposals for this area, including the development of a vista point. The recommendations of this group should be revisited. The area adjacent to the eastbound anchorage could be landscaped and illuminated to draw attention to the water and "Trojan horse" cranes nearby. Even if a designated vista point is not provided, views to the water should be protected. Foreground activities which clutter or block views from the freeway should be prohibited.

### ACTION OS-7.3.2: OAKLAND SHORELINE CURRICULA

*Work with the Oakland Unified School District and local non-profit organizations (like the Aquatic Habitat Institute) to create an "Oakland Shoreline" Curricula which fosters an appreciation of the ecological, historical, and economic functions of the waterfront among Oakland students.*

***

The waterfront provides a living laboratory for Oakland students. It is a place to learn about the history of the city; local heritage, culture, and folklore; and the city's economy and environment. Its educational assets have not been fully appreciated in the past. They should be capitalized upon through interpretive facilities at waterfront open spaces and educational curricula in Oakland schools.

### ACTION OS-7.3.3: USE OF PLAQUES AND EVENT MARKERS

*Use plaques and historic markers, public art, and other measures to commemorate historical events on the waterfront.*

<!-- page 87 -->
### ACTION OS-7.3.4: PROMOTION OF MARITIME MUSEUM

*Launch a public information and marketing campaign to make the new maritime museum at Portview Park a major visitor attraction for the City.*

***

### POLICY OS-7.4: WATERFRONT PARK ENHANCEMENT

**Expand and enhance the City's waterfront park areas. Signage and access provisions to existing waterfront parks should be improved. Opportunities for new shoreline parks as depicted in Figure 7 (Shoreline Access) should be pursued as redevelopment along the waterfront occurs. A variety of park environments should be created, including active recreation areas, fishing piers and boating facilities, natural areas, and small "pocket" parks with landscaping and benches, all linked by linear parks or pedestrian paths emphasizing shoreline views and access.**

Existing shoreline parks include Radio Beach, 7th Street (Portview) Park, Middle Harbor Park, Estuary Park, Fruitvale Bridge Mini-Park, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Regional Shoreline. Recreational amenities also exist at Jack London Square, where a promenade follows the water for about a mile, and at San Antonio Pier along Embarcadero Cove. Public awareness of these parks is low and could be improved through better signage, access, and marketing.

Opportunities for new shoreline parks exist at several locations along the waterfront and are shown in Figure 7. The following paragraphs describe the various segments of the shoreline and identify possible areas for improvement.

* *Emeryville Crescent.* The expanse of wetlands between Emeryville and the Bay Bridge forms a highly dramatic but neglected gateway to the East Bay. Due to its environmental sensitivity, the Crescent should be used for passive recreation, with minimal disturbance to the wetland habitat. Access and signage improvements to Radio Beach Park are recommended. The possibility of an interpretive boardwalk on the spit of land extending to the defunct rod and gun club should be explored.

* *Oakland Army Base.* On the south side of the Bay Bridge Toll Plaza, the shoreline consists of rip-rap and rubble and for the most part is not publicly accessible. When the Army Base is redeveloped, the City will encourage the Port to explore opportunities for shoreline access that are compatible with planned maritime activities.

* *Outer Harbor.* Beyond the Army Base, the Outer Harbor Container Terminal occupies the shoreline for about two miles. Large mechanized container facilities dominate the skyline. There are currently no public access opportunities. Future access will continue to be limited due to concerns over public safety and security.

* *Seventh Street Terminal.* This extremity provides fine views across the water, but public access is again restricted due to shipping activities. Near the end of Seventh Street, Portview Park provides the first major recreational opportunity beyond Radio Beach. The 4.5-acre park features fishing, strolling, picnicking and special events. A maritime and railroad museum recently opened, along with rest rooms, a snack bar and bait shop, fishing pier, and a shoreline path.

***

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 88 -->
<<FIGURE>>

BERKELEY

PIEDMONT

SAN LEANDRO

EMERYVILLE

Incorporate shoreline access as area redevelops

San Antonio Pier

Embarcadero Cove

Estuary Park

Fruitvale Bridge

M.L. King Jr. Shoreline Park

Include in East Shore State Park link; access to protect wetlands

Include shoreline access in redeveloped Clinton Basin Area

Long term potential for shoreline access within redeveloped Army Base

Radio Beach

Jack London Waterfront

ALAMEDA

Connect Channel Park to Estuary

Potential for new shoreline access compatible with maritime uses within redeveloped FISC Oakland

Middle Harbor Park

Shoreline Trail

Airport operations preclude access to water

Improve access to U.P. mole

Portview Park

| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| ![symbol] | Existing Shoreline Access |
| ![symbol] | Potential Opportunities to Improve Shoreline Access |
| ![symbol] | Conservation Area |
| ![symbol] | Restricted Access due to Port/Airport Operations |
| ![symbol] | Bay Trail |

City of Oakland
Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element

### Figure 7: Shoreline Access

<!-- page 89 -->
*   *Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC)*. The 400-acre FISC wraps around the Middle Harbor, with two finger piers extending into a deepwater ship basin. The waterfront is inaccessible for security reasons and is not visible from nearby public streets due to buildings, fences, and stored equipment within the depot.

    Closure of the FISC and redevelopment of the site may provide an opportunity for public access. Although the Port's lease agreement with the Navy requires that the wharf faces be preserved for maritime uses, the possibility of a waterfront park on the edge of the site should be considered. Another opportunity exists at the Union Point Mole, the historic lighthouse at the mouth of the Estuary.

*   *Middle Harbor*. The first mile of Estuary shoreline is occupied by the Union Pacific railyards. The area is planned for redevelopment with an intermodal rail terminal that will provide better connections between the shipping terminals and the intercontinental railroads. Due to potential safety hazards, public access to the shoreline is infeasible. Middle Harbor Park provides the only public access point between 7th Street and Jack London Square.

    East of the park, the Middle Harbor marine terminals, intermodal rail facilities, and Schnitzer Steel occupy the shoreline. Beyond Schnitzer, another large area has been cleared and redeveloped with the Charles Howard Marine Terminal. Public access through this area is currently non-existent.

*   *Downtown Waterfront*. This stretch of shoreline extends for about a mile, from the FDR Fishing Pier to Estuary Park. Public access is almost continuous and shoreline land uses are very diverse. The heart of the area is Jack London Village/ Jack London Square, a commercial and recreational area featuring shopping, dining, marinas, offices, a promenade, special event areas, a fishing pier, and a ferry terminal.

    As the lower edge of downtown Oakland and the location of Oakland's wholesale produce district, the area is rich in character, ambiance, and architectural heritage. Yet there is a widely held consensus that the full potential of the Jack London waterfront has not been realized. Considering its proximity to downtown and its unique attributes, the area still lacks intense pedestrian activity. Views from nearby streets are dominated by parking and there is little awareness that the water is so close.

    Activity along the waterfront should be increased by adding more intense and varied uses, providing additional public access and open space opportunities at the water's edge, and improving the linkages to downtown. Among the specific improvements recommended in a 1992 Planning Study for the area are piers at Harrison, Webster, and Alice Streets, replacement of old boat berths with new ones, construction of a new boat basin at the foot of Jackson Street, and addition of an improved promenade along the water between Harrison Street and Estuary Park. A further improvement might entail relocating the Jack London parking lots away from the water and developing their sites with more intense water-oriented uses.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 90 -->
*   *Clinton Basin/Ninth Avenue Terminal.* Across the Tidal Channel from Estuary Park is an eclectic mix of drydocks, marinas, rotted pilings, houseboats, and marine terminals, with little or no public water access. Pacific Drydock occupies the shoreline at the mouth of the channel. The site may be available for redevelopment, although toxics and dredging issues limit the variety of future uses which might be considered.

Moving east, a private sand and gravel yard occupies several hundred feet of shoreline. Just beyond, Clinton Basin is home to a mix of port and private enterprises, with a private marina (including live-aboards) at the end of 5th Street and a public marina (Seabreeze) in the basin itself. The Ninth Avenue Marine Terminal occupies the next 2200' of shoreline, extending to the mouth of Brooklyn Basin. The Terminal has some value as a bulk cargo facility.

The Ninth Avenue area is in transition and has the potential for redevelopment and improvement. Because of the width and depth of the Estuary shipping lanes, new container terminals are less feasible here than they are to the west. At the same time, proximity to downtown, I-880, and the residential neighborhoods of Lake Merritt and San Antonio, make this area a candidate for new water-oriented mixed uses. A site for a shoreline park should be considered if large-scale redevelopment is proposed. The Marine Terminal itself has historic value and should be preserved as part of any new development.

*   *Embarcadero Cove.* Beyond the 9th Avenue Terminal, a shoreline path runs along the Embarcadero Cove, linking restaurants, offices, boat dealerships, marinas, mini-parks, and businesses along the way. The North, Central, and South Basins are public marinas owned by the Port, with the latter also used for commercial fishing. A number of small private marinas are also located in this area.

Further down, between two motels, the San Antonio Pier provides fishing facilities and benches. Rounding the bend of Brooklyn Basin, shoreline access is interrupted by a commercial fishery and then by the Dennison Street Bridge to Coast Guard Island. Access picks up again beyond the bridge, with a dead-end path to the newly developed Union Point Marina. A vacant site on the Embarcadero, contaminated by past use, adjoins the marina. Beyond the mouth of Brooklyn Basin, Con Agra mills and a series of other private industrial uses block waterfront access as far down as the 29th Avenue bridge.

Although just a block from the Nimitz Freeway and a few blocks from crowded neighborhoods with only a handful of parks and open spaces, this area is not well known and is somewhat difficult to reach without a car. The 16th and 23rd Avenue overpasses are the only connections to the flatlands and they are narrow with no provisions for bicycles.

There are several vacant or underutilized parcels on the water which offer opportunities for housing and mixed use development, possibly with recreational uses along the shoreline. The possibility of a small waterfront park near the Dennison Street Bridge should be explored.

*   *Tidal Channel.* East of Brooklyn Basin, the Estuary becomes a narrow, man-made waterway through a transitional industrial district. Between the 29th Avenue and Fruitvale Bridges, there is no public access to the water. The shoreline is developed with storage yards and industrial buildings, some of which do not require water access.

At the Fruitvale Bridge, a pedestrian ramp extends down to a fishing pier and mini-park, providing the lone public access point in this vicinity. For the next 800 feet, Alameda Avenue runs parallel to the water's edge, with a narrow band of unimproved open space beside the road. The next stretch of shoreline is inaccessible to the public. A variety of welding, paint spraying, and other uses are located here, in some cases with fences or blank building walls backing on to the water. A bascule bridge at High Street provides the final Estuary crossing to Alameda.

<!-- page 91 -->
Private industrial uses, including a gravel crusher, extend for 800 feet or so past the High Street bridge. From this point to San Leandro Bay, the shoreline has been acquired by the East Bay Regional Park District. A gravel trail extends west from Lesser Street to the shoreline, following the water's edge to a bridge across East Creek Slough.

While the prevailing industrial character of the area between 29th Avenue and San Leandro Bay may preclude certain uses, there is some potential here for infill and recreational development. Some of the land and buildings could be used for more intensive industrial or commercial uses. Some sites may have potential for live-work space or residential use. Redevelopment of any of the waterfront sites in this area offer an opportunity for improved public access to the shoreline and enhanced conditions along the water's edge.

* *San Leandro Bay.* Once described as a potential second Lake Merritt, this shallow bay is bordered by landfilled areas and tidal wetlands. Virtually the entire Oakland perimeter of the Bay is contained within Martin Luther King, Jr. Regional Shoreline Park. In many cases, the park band is very narrow, extending less than 100 feet back from the water's edge.

Major development opportunities exist adjacent to the park on open storage and maintenance yards owned by EBMUD and PG&E, and on vacant land owned by the Port. New development should capitalize on the park buffer as an amenity and should include views to the water and direct access to the park area.

Trail connections are planned across Damon Slough. The parkland adjacent to the Tidewater Business Park also should be improved. Beyond Damon Slough, the shoreline trail continues along San Leandro Channel. A narrow band of parkland follows the perimeter of the Edgewater Industrial Park.

Most of the uses in the industrial park have no functional relationship to the park or waterfront. Some are fenced off and are not visible from the park at all. As the remaining vacant parcels are developed, a greater emphasis should be made to orient buildings towards the water.

Moving south, the Arrowhead Marsh Picnic Area includes picnic facilities, restrooms and a fishing pier. On the other side of the marsh, the park continues to the Alameda City limits. This area includes a fishing pier, boat launch, restaurant, picnic area, and shoreline trail.

The opportunity to create a more well-used recreational and aesthetic amenity exists along San Leandro Bay. A greater awareness and appreciation of the marsh ecology should be fostered through development of a nature center at Arrowhead Marsh. There are also a number of unimproved upland sites in the park that could support active recreational facilities. Additionally, the Port of Oakland will be restoring a wetland/ marsh on a portion of the Airport Distribution Center, providing an opportunity to expand the Regional Shoreline Park.

Along the sloughs and creeks which flow into this area, there are opportunities for linear park connections back into the flatland neighborhoods east of the Coliseum. At the very least, access improvements, better signage, and marketing should be undertaken to make the public more aware of this large recreational resource.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Regional Shoreline would benefit from higher visibility, additional facilities, and improved access. Its facilities, particularly Curt Flood Field, are underutilized despite their close proximity to a residential area that is grossly deficient in parks.

* *Airport.* The remaining segment of shoreline consists of diked fill along the southern and western edges of the airport. The area is remote, largely inaccessible, and is most often seen by passengers on planes taking off and landing at Oakland Airport.

The only public access is parallel to the northern edge of the main runway, where a short shoreline path extends from Harbor Bay Parkway along the

<!-- page 92 -->
<<FIGURE>>

About 40 percent of Oakland's Bay Trail has been developed so far. Pictured here is a trail bridge over Elmhurst Slough.

top of the airport dike. The path skirts a tidal pond and provides viewing access to a least tern nesting area. Past the south end of the runway and along Oyster Bay, there is no public access to the water until the regional shoreline picks up again in San Leandro.

### ACTION OS-7.4.1: POTENTIAL NEW PARK AREAS

*Work with the Port of Oakland and the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) to explore the feasibility of establishing new parks, habitat protection areas, or recreational amenities along the Oakland shoreline, particularly at: (a) the Emeryville Crescent; (b) the Union Point Mole; (c) Harrison Street to Estuary Park; (d) the Pacific Drydock/ Clinton Basin area; (e) the Fruitvale and Dennison Street Bridge areas; (f) the EBRPD acquisitions in the Tidewater Business Park; (g) the Curt Flood Field area; (h) Arrowhead Marsh; and (I) the Oyster Bay shoreline adjoining Galbraith Golf Course.*

### POLICY OS-7.5: LATERAL ACCESS AND LINKS TO THE FLATLANDS

Improve lateral access along the Oakland shoreline and linkages between the shoreline and nearby neighborhoods by creating a "Bay Trail" along the length of the Oakland waterfront. Where an alignment immediately along the waterfront is not possible, site the trail as close to the water as possible, with spur trails leading to the water's edge. In the transitional areas between Jack London Square and High Street, interim alignments may be designated along local streets but the ultimate goal should be an unbroken trail along the water's edge between Jack London Square and Martin Luther King, Jr. Regional Shoreline.

The Bay Trail is a 400-mile network of recreational trails proposed to encircle San Francisco Bay. When completed, the trail will consist of a "spine" around the bay, "spurs" providing access to points of interest along the shoreline, and "connectors" providing access to environmentally sensitive areas along the Bay and inland

<!-- page 93 -->
urban areas nearby. The preliminary trail alignment through Oakland is shown in Figure 7. A total of 21 miles of trail are planned in Oakland; 8.5 miles of the trail are in place now.

In the area between Jack London Square and High Street, "interim" and "ultimate" trail alignments are recommended. The interim alignment would incorporate the existing promenades and would add temporary trail markings in street rights-of-way where development blocks direct access to the water. The ultimate alignment would hug the water's edge and would be achieved as land along the Estuary shore redevelops. Temporary trails between the water and nearby streets may be needed where parcels not contiguous to the existing trail are redeveloped.

West of Jack London Square, industrial and maritime uses prevent a direct waterfront alignment. In these areas, the trail will be developed within street rights of way. Striping and road widening may be required, both to ensure the safety of trail users and to make the trail attractive and useable. On all segments, the trail itself should be wide enough to accommodate both bicycles and pedestrians, and should be designed to maximize views of waterfront activities.

A critical factor in planning the Bay Trail has been improving connections between the waterfront and nearby flatland neighborhoods. Some of Oakland's densest and most park-deficient neighborhoods are less than 10 blocks from the shoreline. Getting to the water from these areas can be both difficult and daunting. On foot or bicycle, it may require long, circuitous routes along busy, industrial streets. The most direct routes to the water are blocked by imposing barriers like the Nimitz Freeway or Southern Pacific Railroad.

Improvements are needed to bridge these barriers, both physically and psychologically. The following specific improvements are recommended:

* *West Oakland.* A trail on Mandela Parkway, extending north through the East Bay Bridge Center into Emeryville, would connect West Oakland to the new Eastshore State Park.

* *Broadway.* Stronger connections are needed between City Center and Jack London Square. This could involve:

    √ shuttle bus or historic trolley service between the two activity areas.

    √ public art, murals, water features, and other measures which make the I-880 underpass more hospitable for pedestrians.

    √ thematic signage, streetscape, and sidewalk improvements pointing the way to the water.

    √ more intense land uses along Lower Broadway (Embarcadero to 5th Street) to enhance the continuity of the corridor.

* *Estuary Park to Lake Merritt.* A connection between Estuary Park and the linear park along the Lake Merritt Channel has been planned since the 1960s but has yet to be funded. The connection requires a bridge spanning two sets of railroad tracks between I-880 and the Embarcadero. It would provide a means of bringing thousands of Lake Merritt visitors to the Estuary and would complete the trail connection between the waterfront and the Lake neighborhoods. A further connection might utilize the Union Pacific rail tracks to bridge the Tidal Channel near Estuary Park.

* *16th Avenue overpass.* Widening of the overpass is recommended to accommodate a bicycle/ pedestrian trail from San Antonio Park to Embarcadero Cove. The overpass is the major link between the San Antonio District and the water and is currently too narrow to safely accommodate bicycles.

* *Fruitvale BART to Fruitvale Pier.* In conjunction with the major redevelopment proposed in the Fruitvale BART area, provisions should be made for a trail in the street right-of-way from the BART Station to the existing mini-park at the water's edge. The trail would follow Fruitvale Avenue and would continue across the bridge into Alameda.

* *66th Avenue overpass.* Improvements to this overpass should be made to connect the Lockwood/

<!-- page 94 -->
Havenscourt area of Central East Oakland to Curt Flood Field and Martin Luther King, Jr. Regional Shoreline. Provisions for pedestrians and bicycles should be made on the bridge and along Oakport Avenue.

*   *Hegenberger to 98th trail extension.* The existing trail along San Leandro Channel should be extended to 98th Avenue as the truck farms along the channel are developed. This will link the Columbian Gardens neighborhood to the waterfront.

### ACTION OS-7.5.1: BAY TRAIL CONSTRUCTION

*On an on-going basis, work with the Port, the EBRPD, the State Coastal Conservancy, and the Association of Bay Area Governments to coordinate construction of the Bay Trail on its adopted alignment through Oakland. Wherever feasible, the on-site segments of the Trail should be constructed as part of site development.*

### ACTION OS-7.5.2: IMPROVEMENTS TO BROADWAY UNDERPASS

*Consider sponsoring a design competition to enhance the I-880/ Broadway underpass. Allocate downtown redevelopment funds towards improvement of the downtown to waterfront connection.*

<<FIGURE>>

Lake Merritt—Oakland's "crown jewel"

### ACTION OS-7.5.3: IMPROVEMENTS TO LAKE MERRITT TRAIL

*Develop the Lake Merritt Trail as a continuous landscaped promenade.*

The 3-mile Lake Merritt Trail varies from an urban promenade with handsome amenities (such as the El Embarcadero pergola) to a worn footpath across bare soil. Some segments of the trail are not marked at all and others follow parking lots or sidewalks.

As the most heavily used segment of Oakland's trail system and one of the city's greatest amenities, the lake trail should be completed and enhanced. A combination of striping, trail widening, paving, signage, street furniture, and landscaping are needed. These improvements should have as little impact as possible on the lake itself and should prohibit the use of landfill to increase park borders. Specific design and routing recommendations for the perimeter trail should be included in a Master Plan for the Lake Merritt parklands, to be prepared by the Office of Parks and Recreation as funding allows.

### ACTION OS-7.5.4: IMPROVEMENTS TO 16th AND 66th AVENUE OVERCROSSINGS

*Work with Caltrans to program pedestrian/ bicycle lanes on the 16th and 66th Avenue overcrossings of Interstate 880.*

<!-- page 95 -->
### OBJECTIVE OS-8: CREEK CONSERVATION

**To conserve open space along Oakland's creeks, restoring the creeks where feasible and enhancing creek access on public lands.**

When Oakland was first settled, a dozen or so creeks flowed from the Oakland Hills across the flatlands to the Bay and Estuary. Early city plans saw the creeks as critically important to the city's landscape, with the potential to define neighborhood edges on the one hand and weave neighborhoods together on the other. The 1915 Plan for Oakland called for interconnecting linear parks along Temescal Creek, Glen Echo Creek, Trestle Glen, Sausal Creek, Peralta Creek, and Seminary Creek. The parks were to link the shoreline to the hills, providing continuous greenbelts across the developing city. Oak Glen Park along Richmond Boulevard was the only part of the creekside park plan which was actually carried out.

Without an aggressive acquisition and capital improvement program, only a few creek segments were actually preserved. During Oakland's boom growth years, the creeks were more likely to be regarded as an inconvenient interruption to the street grid than an environmental resource or recreational amenity. At best, they became a logical means for setting property lines; at worst, they became the dumping grounds for bulky items and trash. Many were placed in pipes, paved over, and built upon.

The creeks were further compromised from the 1960s to the 1980s as part of a massive countywide program to curb flooding and erosion problems. Many sections were re-routed into concrete and earthen channels, while other sections were buried in fenced easements. Not until the mid-1980s did public sentiment become strong enough to shift the emphasis to non-structural means of flood and erosion control.

Unfortunately, the shift came too late. By 1992, only a fraction of Oakland's creeks still flowed in their natural channels. Throughout the city, the only remnants of many creeks were tall eucalyptus trees along the buried streamcourses. Where the creeks were not channelized or buried, they were often contained in private, fenced backyards. Few homeowners have been receptive to the idea of selling or giving up portions of their yards for public access. Security and loss of privacy have been expressed as concerns, as well as noise, illegal dumping, and public safety.

<<FIGURE>>

Arroyo Viejo provides a good example of conditions along Oakland's creeks.
LEFT: The creek is in its natural channel near Golf Links Road.
CENTER: Two miles downstream, in a semi-natural but littered state in Arroyo Viejo Park.
RIGHT: Another half-mile downstream, in a concrete box culvert.

<!-- page 96 -->
Despite these obstacles, there is still plenty of room for improvement. Oakland's creeks can still become a defining element for neighborhoods and a means of linking communities together (visually and psychologically, if not physically). Many reaches of the creeks are on public lands and could be made much more accessible than they are at present. Some sections could be transformed into linear parks. Others might be maintained as conservation areas. In commercial areas, creeks could be transformed from liabilities into assets, or even deeded to the City as parkland.

The following policies address public access and open space issues along Oakland's creeks. Policies pertaining to creek maintenance, development along creeks, and creek education are contained in Conservation Chapter Policies CO-6.1, CO-6.2, and CO-6.3.

***

### POLICY OS-8.1: PUBLIC ACCESS TO CREEKS

**Pursue additional public access to creeks at feasible locations, including city parks, schools, flood control easements, and City-owned properties along creeks. Encourage the development of trails or linear parks within creek corridors, with priority placed on creeks traversing public, commercial, or institutional properties and creeks traversing vacant properties that may be developed in the future.**

***

Figure 8 identifies those areas with the potential for creek access and trail improvements. Due to ownership constraints on private property, most of the areas shown are located on school grounds, in city parks, and in flood control easements. OSCAR Technical Report Volume One describes existing conditions along each of Oakland's creeks, highlighting those areas where access can be improved.

Creeks within City parks should be treated as amenities to be integrated into the park's design rather than areas to be gated off or covered. In the past, creeks on park properties have been treated with varying levels of sensitivity. The creek at Coliseum Gardens Park is depressed in a gated concrete ditch, while the creek at Peralta Hacienda Park has been turned into a landscaped amenity. In a number of cases, creeks have become the focal point of Oakland parks, with trails provided and natural vegetation maintained or restored.

Public access to the creeks can take a variety of forms. It might include small clearings surrounded by natural vegetation, a picnic table or bench near the stream, a terraced area within a park or schoolyard. Access does not necessarily require physical contact with the water; in some cases, this may not even be desirable due to safety concerns or the need to protect streambank vegetation. On some sites, it might simply mean that the creekbed is visible or that the sound of water is audible.

Water Resource Policies in the Conservation Chapter of the OSCAR Element provide more specific recommendations for protecting creeks, including mandatory setbacks, conservation of creekside vegetation, and stronger penalties for illegal dumping.

***

### ACTION OS-8.1.1: FLOOD CONTROL EASEMENT JOINT USE

*Form a City - Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Working Group to investigate opportunities to use existing creek easements as linear trails or permanent open space areas.*

***

In their lower reaches, long segments of Oakland's creeks are contained in gated flood control easements. With public investment and community support, some of these easements might be made publicly accessible. Some could even support trails, if privacy and security concerns could be fully addressed. In other cases, landscaping or gardening might be feasible, with continued restrictions on public access.

<!-- page 97 -->
<<FIGURE>>

City of Oakland
Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element
### Figure 8: Potential Areas for Creek Improvement
Source: Office of Planning & Building, 1995

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Creek |
| \* | Creek buried under schoolyard; daylighting possible |
| ◯ | Potential enhancement areas |

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 98 -->
Opportunities for trails or landscape improvements may exist in the following flood control rights of way:

* Temescal Creek
    * *Hardy Park to Clifton Street, linking to existing creek trail*
    * *West Street to San Pablo Avenue, linking to Emeryville's Temescal Creek Park*
* Glen Echo Creek
    * *North of Glen Echo Park to Glen Avenue*
* Sausal Creek
    * *Logan Street to Sanborn Park*
* Peralta Creek
    * *Brookdale Avenue to Davis Street*
* Arroyo Viejo
    * *Bancroft Avenue to MacArthur Blvd.*

The options are fewer where the creeks have been depressed in concrete channels. Aesthetic improvements might be made to moderate their "concrete ditch" appearance. This could involve landscaping, as on Arroyo Viejo down the center of Hegenberger Road. It could also entail the use of materials other than concrete (such as gabions) along the channels.

### ACTION OS-8.1.2: MITIGATION OF ACCESS CONFLICTS

*Develop new approaches to mitigate potential conflicts between public access to creeks and impacts on adjacent properties. Describe and illustrate these approaches in a Creek Master Plan, as discussed in Action CO-6.1.1.*

Creek access has the potential to affect privacy, security, and aesthetics on adjacent private properties. Because so many Oakland creeks abut residential backyards, this has been the major impediment to trail development. This action suggests that ways to mitigate these concerns be explored in a Creeks Master Plan *(see Action CO-6.1.1 for further discussion of the Plan)*.

### POLICY OS-8.2: CREEK DAYLIGHTING

**Support programs to restore or "daylight" sections of creek that have been culverted or buried in the storm drain system, provided that the following conditions exist: (1) broad-based community support for the project; (2) availability of financial resources for the project; and (3) no significant health, safety, flooding, or erosion hazards would result from the project. Place priority for daylighting on properties where additional opportunities for recreational access would be created.**

Oakland's creeks currently flow beneath city streets, under schoolyards and parking lots, below houses and buildings, and in subterranean pipes within flood control easements. "Daylighting" the creeks would uncover and restore them where feasible, using modern engineering and landscape methods to mitigate potential flooding and erosion problems.

While a program to daylight all of Oakland's buried creeks might have great ecological and aesthetic benefits, it would be infeasible due to its enormous cost, maintenance requirements, and the existing patterns of development in the city. The following types of sites should receive first priority for creek daylighting:

* *Schoolyards.* Daylighted creeks on schoolyards can have great educational value and create an adventure play area for students. Creeks pass beneath or adjacent to schoolyards at the following locations: Thornhill Elementary (Temescal Creek); Piedmont Avenue Elementary (Glen Echo Creek); Westlake Junior High (Glen Echo Creek); Hawthorne/ Whitton Elementary (Sausal Creek); Hamilton Junior High (Peralta Creek); Fremont High (Courtland Creek); Havenscourt Junior High (Lion Creek); and Castlemont High (Arroyo Viejo).

* *Urban Parks.* In Oakland's parks, restored creeks can enhance wildlife habitat, provide a source of visual interest, and become an adventure play area for children. Daylighting should be encouraged unless it would interfere with a park activity. Creeks are buried beneath Hardy Park (Temescal Creek); Shepherd Canyon (Shepherd Creek); Montclair Golf

<!-- page 99 -->
Course (Sausal Creek); Sanborn Park (Sausal Creek); Mosswood Park (Broadway Branch of Glen Echo Creek); and Greenman Field (Lion Creek).

*   *Commercial areas.* In neighborhood commercial districts, daylighted creeks can potentially become an amenity to draw patrons and make the area more attractive for business. Potential enhancement areas include Temescal Creek at Telegraph (Temescal District), Glen Echo Creek in the Piedmont Avenue District and in the area near Broadway and 29th, Sausal Creek at MacArthur (Dimond District), Peralta Creek at MacArthur (Laurel District), and Seminary Creek at Foothill (Fairfax District).

---

### ACTION OS-8.2.1: PILOT CREEK DAYLIGHTING PROJECTS

***Pursue grants and other funding sources to daylight Sausal Creek in Sanborn Park and Glen Echo Creek north of Oak Glen Park, and to undertake a pilot program to daylight a creek beneath an Oakland Unified School District schoolyard.***

Lower Sausal Creek probably represents the best opportunity for a daylighting project due to its proximity to Sanborn Park and two adjacent elementary schools, and the short length of the creek segment. Daylighting Glen Echo Creek between Oak Glen Park and MacArthur Boulevard would solve a traffic problem (excessive street width), improve the visual quality of the neighborhood, and create additional habitat for wildlife in the Richmond Boulevard neighborhood.

---

### ACTION OS-8.2.2: INTERDEPARTMENTAL/ INTERAGENCY COORDINATION

***Coordinate major creek restoration programs with the Oakland Offices of Public Works, Parks and Recreation, Planning and Building, Housing and Neighborhood Development, Police and Fire Departments, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Countywide Clean Water Program, US Army Corps of Engineers, State Departments of Water Resources and Fish and Game, and any other directly involved agencies or organizations.***

Such coordination is necessary to implement any major creek restoration project. When such projects are proposed, a committee of staff representatives from the various departments and agencies should be established and meet as needed as the project is designed and carried out.

---

### POLICY OS-8.3: COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

**Encourage community involvement in the construction and maintenance of creek improvement projects, and in the planning and design of such projects.**

Community involvement is essential to the success of creek restoration projects. Participation has occurred in the past and will continue to be encouraged in the future. There also are opportunities to involve the public in revegetation and erosion control projects, as well as litter and debris removal projects.

---

<<FIGURE>>

*An opportunity for creek daylighting exists here at Sanborn Park. Sausal Creek is buried beneath this trough, as well as the asphalt schoolyards to the east.*

<!-- page 100 -->
# OPEN SPACE FOR COMMUNITY CHARACTER

| GOAL OS-3: A BEAUTIFUL CITY WITH OPEN SPACES, PARKS, AND STREETS THAT CREATE A POSITIVE, WELL-DEFINED CIVIC IMAGE. |
| :--- |

The following objectives, policies, and actions will guide the city towards achieving Goal OS-3:

### OBJECTIVE OS-9: LANDFORM
**To retain Oakland's natural features and topography wherever possible and recognize their important role in defining the character and image of the city and its neighborhoods.**

### POLICY OS-9.1: PROTECTION OF NATURAL LANDFORMS
**Design new development to preserve natural topography and terrain. Enhance prominent topographic features where appropriate by parks, plazas, or architectural expressions.**

The policy has been in effect since the mid-1970s and still applies today. It pertains both to individual buildings and to new subdivisions. While some "cutting" and "filling" may be inevitable on hillside sites, such activities should be kept to a minimum. Artificial terracing or benching of hillsides, including mass pad grading for new homes, is discouraged.

Figure 9 illustrates the city's prominent topographic features. The alteration of these features, for instance through the filling of canyons or the "skylining" of development along ridgelines, should be strongly discouraged. New structures should highlight or accent these features rather than ignoring them. Rock outcroppings and other unique geologic features within development sites also should be protected. These features often have scenic value and, in the case of serpentine rock, may be indicators of land instability.

<<FIGURE>>
_The combination of vegetation and topography provides orientation in many Oakland neighborhoods, including this one on Ivy Hill._

<!-- page 101 -->
<<FIGURE>>

| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| --- | Subareas defined by natural features |
| ▬ | City Edges |
| ✠ | Visual Landmarks |
| ][ | Major Gateways |
| ░ | Areas with Suburban or Open Space Character |
| ▨ | Areas with Functional Open Space Character |

City of Oakland
**Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element**

# Figure 9: Urban Form
Source: Office of Planning & Building, 1995

<!-- page 102 -->
### ACTION OS-9.1.1: UPDATE OF LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENTS

***Prepare the updated Land Use and Transportation Element in a manner which recognizes the natural and visual resource value of ridgelines, hillsides, and canyons, and strengthens their roles as features which define the character of the city.***

### POLICY OS-9.2: USE OF NATURAL FEATURES TO DEFINE COMMUNITIES

Use open space and natural features to define city and neighborhood edges and give communities within Oakland a stronger sense of identity. Maintain and enhance city edges, including the greenbelt on the eastern edge of the city, the shoreline, and San Leandro Creek. Use creeks, parks, and topographical features to help define neighborhood edges and create neighborhood focal points.

Edges are natural or man-made features that create boundaries within a city. They provide definition and form and add to the sense of the city as a unique and special place. In Oakland, Skyline Ridge and the Oakland Estuary provide clear edges on the east and west. These features will be maintained in the future through continued use of public land east of Skyline Ridge as open space and continued restrictions on bay fill along the shore. Where development occurs on private land east of Skyline Ridge, it should be as unobtrusive as possible and should be screened to maintain the sense of separation between the city and the regional parks.

Oakland's edges with San Leandro, Emeryville, Berkeley, and Piedmont are less well defined. Much of the San Leandro edge is formed by San Leandro Creek, which is understated since the creek is depressed in a flood control ditch. The edge is barely noticeable along the freeways and major arterials and might be enhanced with landscaping and tree planting.

At the neighborhood level, edges are absent in much of Oakland. Many flatland neighborhoods were developed without regard to natural features, and others were completely reshaped by freeways. Far East Oakland in particular is perceived as monotonous and lacking form, an impression made worse by the lack of street trees and parks. Future neighborhood planning efforts should emphasize the role of creeks, ridges, knolls, canyons, and other natural features in shaping neighborhood character and defining neighborhood boundaries. Such features (particularly the creeks) already create strong edges in the hill areas, but are less noticeable in the flatlands.

### POLICY OS-9.3: GATEWAY IMPROVEMENTS

Enhance neighborhood and city identity by maintaining or creating gateways. Maintain view corridors and enhance the sense of arrival at the major entrances to the city, including freeways, BART lines, and the airport entry. Use public art, landscaping, and signage to create stronger City and neighborhood gateways.

Gateways are the points of entry into the city and its neighborhoods. Because they provide the first impression of the community, gateways provide an opportunity to convey a positive and lasting visual image. They can provide a clear sense of neighborhood boundaries, engender neighborhood pride, establish a stronger sense of community, and create a more interesting texture within the city.

Oakland's more dramatic and memorable gateways include the Bay Bridge and the Caldecott Tunnel. Other gateways are more subtle and may not convey as positive a statement as they might. Entrances to the city on I-80, I-880 and I-580 are marked by small city limit signs and non-descript bridges over invisible creeks. Likewise, many surface streets enter the city with a lack of positive visual images; the gateways are non-descript at best and sometimes create a negative image. There are opportunities for significant improvements here, both in terms of streetscape and the character of adjacent development.

Gateways to the City, particularly those in heavily traveled corridors, should be managed to create positive and distinct visual images of Oakland. This can be achieved through a combination of public art, landscaping, streetscape improvements, signage, and

<!-- page 103 -->
guidelines for development adjacent to the gateways. Development should incorporate landscape and design elements which emphasize the gateway.

At the neighborhood level, the distinction from one neighborhood to the next is often blurred. As a result some neighborhoods feel amorphous, with no center, no distinguishing edges, and no prevailing character. Again, a combination of signage, public art, streetscape improvements, and landscaping can be used to create stronger gateways. This is particularly true for neighborhood commercial centers.

***

### ACTION OS-9.3.1: IMPROVEMENT OF AIRPORT GATEWAY

***Improve the visual quality of Hegenberger Road between Oakland Airport and Interstate 880.***

***

As the city's international gateway, Hegenberger Road has great potential to create a positive impression of the city. A priority should be placed on improving the visual quality of this particular gateway.

*(See also Action OS-7.3.1 regarding the Bay Bridge "gateway")*

<<FIGURE>>

*This double row of eucalyptus form a dramatic and memorable gateway to the Grass Valley neighborhood in the South Hills.*

***

## OBJECTIVE OS-10: SCENIC RESOURCES

### To protect scenic views and improve visual quality.

***

Views and vistas of some sort are afforded from almost everywhere in Oakland. The city's topography and setting provides a variety of interesting and panoramic views. From open hillsides, one can see as far south as San Jose, as far north as the Napa Valley, and as far west as the Farallones. Views from the flatlands may be equally dramatic, taking in the broad sweep of hillside on the eastern horizon and features across the water like San Francisco and Mount Tamalpais.

<!-- page 104 -->
<<FIGURE>>

The view from the Merritt College parking lot is typical of the panoramas found throughout the Oakland Hills.

Between the extreme of the flatlands and Skyline Ridge there are countless scenic views afforded from the slopes and canyons of the Oakland Hills, the undulating terrain and gulches of the lower hills, the gentle slope above the MacArthur Freeway, and the high density areas around Lake Merritt. The Lake itself is a foreground focal point for views of downtown. Likewise, downtown is a visual landmark, creating both interesting and dramatic vistas from within and an interesting and memorable horizon point for vistas from the hills and flatland neighborhoods as far south as San Leandro and as far north as Richmond.

### POLICY OS-10.1: VIEW PROTECTION

Protect the character of existing scenic views in Oakland, paying particular attention to: (a) views of the Oakland Hills from the flatlands; (b) views of downtown and Lake Merritt; (c) views of the shoreline; and (d) panoramic views from Skyline Boulevard, Grizzly Peak Road, and other hillside locations.

The four types of views listed in Policy OS-10.1 probably contribute more to the character and ambiance of Oakland than any others. Such views should be protected through a combination of development review, zoning (including height limitations in appropriate zones), design review, and proper management of park and open space areas. In some cases, as on Dunsmuir Ridge, property may need to be acquired to protect visual quality. In other cases, good site planning and architectural design may be sufficient to mitigate potential visual impacts. Documents like the North Oakland Hills Area Specific Plan (NOHASP) provide a good example of how view protection can become a major element of design policy.

<!-- page 105 -->
Even where land has already been acquired as open space, on-going maintenance and management may be needed to preserve visual quality. For instance, views of the new Glenn Daniel/ King Estate Open Space should not be marred by excessive controlled burning of the open hillside.

Development should also be managed to avoid visual intrusion into the regional parks. This is particularly true for properties visible from Sibley, Huckleberry, Redwood, and Chabot Parks, which offer a near-wilderness experience very close to the city. Development in the viewsheds of these parks can greatly diminish the character of trails and other park amenities.

### POLICY OS-10.2: MINIMIZING ADVERSE VISUAL IMPACTS

**Encourage site planning for new development which minimizes adverse visual impacts and takes advantage of opportunities for new vistas and scenic enhancement.**

Good site planning can minimize many negative visual impacts and can also create opportunities for vistas within new development. Development can be more visually sensitive by screening unsightly uses, using landscaping, retaining the natural character and features of a site (including trees and other vegetation), and incorporating architectural details which are attractive and compatible with the surrounding area.

#### ACTION OS-10.2.1: VISUAL ANALYSIS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT

*On an on-going basis, the Office of Planning and Building will require visual analysis for new developments which could significantly impact views and vistas.*

#### ACTION OS-10.2.2: PREPARATION OF URBAN APPEARANCE ELEMENT

*Prepare a General Plan Urban Appearance Element which includes policies on scenic resource protection and enhancement as well as the visual quality of new development.*

### POLICY OS-10.3: UNDERUTILIZED VISUAL RESOURCES

**Enhance Oakland's underutilized visual resources, including the waterfront, creeks, San Leandro Bay, architecturally significant buildings or landmarks, and major thoroughfares.**

Oakland has a number of underutilized visual resources, some natural and others man-made. Hidden natural resources include San Leandro Bay, which is difficult to see from almost anyplace in the nearby flatlands. Man-made resources include many of the other industrial areas along the waterfront. As new development occurs in these areas, efforts should be made to increase their visibility. *(See also Policy OS-7.3 on shoreline views.)*

On another level, many non-descript Oakland streets could be much more memorable with the addition of new buildings and focal points. San Pablo, Telegraph, Broadway, East 14th, and other streets radiating from downtown have never realized their full potential as great urban boulevards. Given the length and width of these streets, they could become dramatic corridors rather than sprawling commercial strips.

<!-- page 106 -->
### POLICY OS-10.4: RETENTION OF CITY-OWNED OPEN SPACE IN SCENIC CORRIDORS

Retain City-owned parcels adjacent to Skyline Boulevard, Shepherd Canyon Road, and other scenic roadways to preserve panoramic views, vegetation, and natural character.

***

Several decades ago, the City acquired land along Skyline Boulevard in the Montclair District with the intent of widening the road to four lanes. Likewise, Caltrans acquired land along Shepherd Canyon Road for construction of a freeway to Moraga. Both proposals were abandoned due to community opposition and arguments over the projects' environmental impacts. Both roads have since been designated local scenic routes, with a special zoning overlay zone created to minimize the visual impacts of new development in the corridor. This policy recommends that City-owned parcels along Skyline and Shepherd Canyon be retained as open space and incorporated into nearby parks where possible. Where the terrain allows, the development of scenic overlooks and pullouts should be explored.

### OBJECTIVE OS-11: CIVIC OPEN SPACES

To maintain and develop plazas, pocket parks, pedestrian walkways, and rooftop gardens in Oakland's major activity centers and enhance the appearance of these and other public spaces with landscaping and art.

***

Plazas, pocket parks, pedestrian arcades, and roof gardens already enhance the character of downtown Oakland and provide lunch spots and recreation areas for downtown workers and residents. There is still a need for additional civic open space, and more importantly, a need for connections and linkages to make existing civic open space more useable. This is true not only downtown but also in some of the outlying neighborhood commercial districts and around Oakland's BART stations.

A variety of approaches should be used to create new civic open space. These include public investment, and also contributions by the private sector as new developments are built. Follow-up studies to the OSCAR should determine whether these contributions should be voluntary and promoted by incentives like density bonuses, or mandatory, similar to the group useable open space requirements now used for residential development. A number of cities in the US, including Seattle and San Francisco, require civic open space within large new downtown offices.

<<FIGURE>>
Rooftop plazas and gardens like this one at the Kaiser Center provide an attractive addition to the downtown landscape.

<!-- page 107 -->
### POLICY OS-11.1: ACCESS TO DOWNTOWN OPEN SPACE

**Provide better access to attractive, sunlit open spaces for persons working or living in downtown Oakland. The development of rooftop gardens is encouraged, especially on parking garages.**

The open space needs of the downtown workforce and downtown population are presently not being met. This is only partially due to the lack of downtown open space, as there are a number of underutilized parks and plazas in downtown Oakland. Those spaces adjacent to new office towers tend to be very heavily used, while those a few blocks away may be empty at lunch hour. On the other hand, there are parts of downtown (particularly the northwest quadrant) that lack open space altogether.

A variety of new or enhanced downtown open spaces should be provided, offering a diverse range of experiences. The design of individual spaces should vary depending on the setting and such factors as sunlight, views, and pedestrian activity. Some spaces might be landscaped gardens, others might be hardscape plazas. Some might contain lawn area for relaxing or playing volleyball, others might contain sitting areas or performance stages. Downtown open space should accommodate those who desire a quiet contemplative location, as well as those who enjoy crowds and people watching.

Above all, new downtown open spaces should be designed to be safe and useable. They should be relatively sunny and wind-protected and sited in a manner which encourages regular daytime use. Where appropriate, designs which restrict night access or use may be appropriate. New rooftop gardens similar to those adjoining the Kaiser Center should be encouraged, provided that the spaces are publicly accessible and can be easily reached.

Care should also be taken to protect the positive qualities of existing downtown open spaces. The downtown parks can become focal points for surrounding development, but they should not be overburdened with new facilities or extensively shaded by adjacent buildings.

Another challenge downtown is to improve pedestrian access to existing open spaces. Lake Merritt and the Jack London waterfront are invaluable resources, but neither is particularly easy to get to from the 14th and Broadway commercial core. Likewise, Madison Square, Jefferson Square, and Harrison Square are all large historic green spaces but receive very little use by the nearby daytime population. A combination of signage, graphic symbols, lane or sidewalk markings, and new pedestrian arcades should be used to create stronger linkages between downtown open spaces and activity centers.

#### *ACTION OS-11.1.1: PREPARATION OF DOWNTOWN OPEN SPACE PLAN*

***Prepare a Downtown Open Space Plan identifying specific sites to be improved, enhanced, or created; provisions for pedestrians; guidelines for rooftop gardens, and proposals to link existing downtown parks and open space areas.***

#### *ACTION OS-11.1.2: DOWNTOWN OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS AND BONUSES*

***Study the feasibility of (a) useable open space requirements for downtown commercial development (or an in-lieu fee for downtown open space); and (b) density bonuses for developers providing plazas, rooftop gardens, and other amenities within new development projects.***

<!-- page 108 -->
### POLICY OS-11.2: NEW CIVIC OPEN SPACE

Create new civic open spaces at BART Stations, in neighborhood commercial areas, on parking garages, and in other areas where high-intensity redevelopment is proposed.

Most of Oakland's more successful neighborhood centers would benefit from improved public open space for the benefit of shoppers and area residents. This could be achieved through new pocket parks created by the City or it could be achieved by the private sector in the design of new development. New projects might incorporate common outdoor open space used for sunning or dining, or might include a larger than usual setback with seating or other landscape improvements provided at the front of the lot.

The BART Stations offer some unique opportunities for plaza development, particularly since there are large concentrations of pedestrians passing between the platform and parking areas, and between the Station area and nearby neighborhoods. Any future mixed use project developed at a BART site should include provisions for plazas. These spaces should be designed so that they provide pedestrian connections between major destinations such as the stations, bus transit stops, nearby residential projects, office buildings, and shopping districts.

#### ACTION OS-11.2.1: DEVELOPMENT OF FRUITVALE BART PLAZA

*Develop an urban plaza at the Fruitvale BART Station in conjunction with the redevelopment activity planned there.*

#### ACTION OS-11.2.2: URBAN PLAZA DESIGN GUIDELINES

*Develop guidelines for siting and designing urban plazas as part of commercial development projects.*

### POLICY OS-11.3: PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENTS

Continue to require public art as a part of new public buildings or facilities. Consider expanding the requirement or creating voluntary incentives to private buildings with substantial public spaces.

The City's public art program was initiated in 1989, creating a means for the City to expand public awareness of the visual arts and the process of creating art. The program authorizes the allocation of 1.5 percent of the City's capital improvement project costs for the commissioning of public artwork. One of the express purposes of the program is to enliven, enrich, and enhance the quality of Oakland's visual environment. The program seeks to integrate the work of artists into the planning, design, and development of the city. The City has adopted a Cultural Arts Plan which further discusses provisions for public art.

The City will continue to dedicate 1.5 percent of the budget for public buildings and facilities to public art. The City also will encourage the State and federal governments to include public art in their projects, including transportation improvements. Mural projects along freeway underpasses and other infrastructure will be supported.

#### ACTION OS-11.3.1: EXPANDED PRIVATE ROLE IN PROVIDING PUBLIC ART

*Study possible approaches to expanding the private sector's role in the city's public art program. Options should include development incentives (density bonuses) and an in-lieu fee based on square footage for major downtown development.*

<!-- page 109 -->
<<FIGURE>>
Public art in Oakland City Center.

### POLICY OS-11.4: SITING PUBLIC ART

**Site public art with sensitivity to its surroundings. Locate public art in a manner which does not reduce useable open space in City parks or impede recreational activities.**

Although public art is highly desirable, it should not be sited in a manner which negatively impacts city parks and open spaces. Many parks are already quite small and large art pieces could potentially reduce their usefulness for recreation. Siting of any public art piece, whether permanent or temporary, should be done in a manner which considers site context, impact on existing uses, and visual impact. When art is to be placed in an existing park or open space area, public involvement should be solicited to ensure that the art is appropriate for the space.

### ACTION OS-11.4.1: SITING GUIDELINES FOR PUBLIC ART

*Develop general guidelines for siting public art*

The guidelines could be developed collaboratively by City staff, local artists and landscape architects, interested Public Art Commissioners, and community representatives.

## OBJECTIVE OS-12: STREET TREES

**To "green" Oakland's residential neighborhoods and commercial areas with street trees.**

Street trees positively affect the character and quality of many of Oakland's neighborhoods. Properly selected and maintained, they can turn a barren street into a park-like setting. In addition to their visual and psychological benefits, street trees have positive ecological impacts. They can provide habitat for wildlife, reduce noise levels, and help improve air and water quality.

While street trees are abundant in some Oakland neighborhoods, they are conspicuously absent in most of the flatlands. The city began a massive street tree planting program in the early 1980s and planted more than 7,000 new trees in ten years, mostly in lower income flatland neighborhoods. Efforts to "green the flatlands" proceed today, although the lack of funding for tree maintenance and care have impeded progress.

Although the scope of the OSCAR Element is too broad to include specific policies for tree selection, planting, and maintenance, the following general policies and actions are presented. Foremost among the recommended actions is the updating and adoption of the 1979 *Street Tree Plan. Additional information on street trees, including specific recommendations, can be found in OSCAR Technical Report Volume One.*

<!-- page 110 -->
### POLICY OS-12.1: STREET TREE SELECTION

Incorporate a broad and varied range of tree species which is reflected on a city-maintained list of approved trees. Street tree selection should respond to the general environmental conditions at the planting site, including climate and micro-climate, soil types, topography, existing tree planting, maintenance of adequate distance between street trees and other features, the character of existing development, and the size and context of the tree planting area.

The City encourages street tree planting to the greatest extent possible. Street trees should be used to enhance the appearance and quality of Oakland's built environment. They should create a distinct visual image on Oakland's major streets and should unify and harmonize neighborhoods with diverse architectural styles, building heights, and setbacks.

### ACTION OS-12.1.1: ADOPTION OF STREET TREE PLAN

*Formally adopt a City of Oakland Street Tree Plan which addresses species selection for major streets and neighborhoods and contains criteria for tree planting, maintenance, and removal. Within the Plan, include a clear procedure for implementing, amending, and updating the Plan, including changes to tree selection.*

The 1979 *Street Tree Plan* and the 1984 *Central District Street Tree Study* should be updated and amended so that they can become the official basis for Oakland's street tree program. These documents each contained tree "palettes" (species recommendations) for Oakland's major streets and neighborhoods as well as provisions for planting and maintenance. The revised street tree plan should update this information. This would include reassessing such concepts as "rotational management" to determine whether they are still appropriate.

Specific instructions for street tree planting also should be included in the new plan. These should address planting area sizes ("cutouts"), irrigation design, relationships to curbs and sidewalks, tree spacing, view preservation, root control, provisions for streets in naturally wooded areas and streets with sidewalk basements, and the use of tree grates and tree containers. Such instructions are needed to ensure the health and attractiveness of new trees and to minimize future maintenance requirements. It may also be appropriate to add provisions in the Street Tree Plan for shrubs, vines, flowers, and other landscaping materials for medians, traffic islands, and other right-of-way areas.

The revised Plan should be presented to the City Council for adoption after review and recommendation by the City Planning Commission (CPC) and Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC). Once adopted, planting of street trees consistent with the street tree plan would be required for all street improvement projects and for street segments adjacent to new development projects. Major amendments to the plan would be made by the CPC or PRAC, while minor amendments would be made by staff with notice of changes provided to the CPC and/or PRAC.

### ACTION OS-12.1.2: PRIORITIES FOR PLANTING

*Identify streets and neighborhoods with the highest priority for street trees and establish a planting program targeting these areas.*

In developing its planting program, the City will place top priority on those areas which are most deficient in street trees.

<!-- page 111 -->
### ACTION OS-12.1.3: PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP CHANGE

*Consider changing future required membership on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC) to include at least one horticulturist or landscape architect. Alternatively, consider creating a new Advisory Committee or Commission governing street trees and relieve the PRAC of street tree responsibilities.*

***

The expanded PRAC or new Street Tree Advisory Committee would be the logical implementing body for the Street Tree Plan and would relieve the City Planning Commission of this responsibility.

***

### ACTION OS-12.1.4: NEW FUNDING SOURCES FOR MAINTENANCE

*Conduct a study of additional funding sources for street tree maintenance.*

Existing funding sources for tree maintenance are inadequate. As part of the Street Tree Plan Update, new sources such as grants, assessment districts, and general obligation bonds should be explored.

***

### ACTION OS-12.1.5: REVIEW OF APPROVED STREET TREE LISTS

*Review, consolidate, and amend as necessary the approved street tree lists in the Street Tree Plan for Oakland and the Central District Street Tree Study.*

***

The street tree lists in these studies are between 10 and 15 years old and may be outdated. The lists should be reviewed and updated where necessary. The street tree selection guidelines for various environmental factors also should be revisited and updated as needed.

<<FIGURE>>

*Street trees on Havenscourt Boulevard lend character and beauty to the neighborhood.*

***

### POLICY OS-12.2: STREET TREE MAINTENANCE

Maintain street trees to promote their natural forms, eliminate hazardous conditions, provide adequate vertical clearance over streets and sidewalks, and abate pest and disease problems.

***

The Tree Maintenance Section of the Office of Parks and Recreation provides complete maintenance for about 40,000 "official" street trees (i.e., trees planted or approved by the City) and limited maintenance for about 150,000 "unofficial" trees. The Section would benefit from formally adopted maintenance specifications as well as an increase in manpower. Despite the addition of many new street trees in Oakland, the Tree Maintenance Section has not had a commensurate increase in staff. In some cases, staffing levels have been reduced. As a result, there is a three to five year backlog of trees requiring maintenance and sidewalks needing repair. New funding sources are needed to reduce this backlog.

<!-- page 112 -->
*ACTION OS-12.2.1: ADOPTION OF MAINTENANCE SPECIFICATIONS*

*Adopt formal maintenance specifications for newly planted trees and established trees.*

***

These specifications should include provisions for pruning (branches and roots), staking, vertical clearance, cabling, and bracing. Special strategies should be developed to avoid or mitigate conflicts between street trees and utility wires. The specifications would also identify street sections where street trees would be maintained to promote artificial growth forms such as pollards.

***

*ACTION OS-12.2.2: FIVE-YEAR MAINTENANCE CYCLE*

*As funding permits, establish a five-year maintenance cycle for established street trees and a once-a-year maintenance cycle for young trees.*

### POLICY OS-12.3: STREET TREE REMOVAL

**Remove street trees only if they are hazardous, severely and incurably infested with insects or blight, or are severely and irreversibly damaged and deformed. Provide replacement trees in all cases where the site is suitable for street trees.**

***

This policy emphasizes the city's commitment to maintaining its street trees and exploring new solutions to problems like sidewalk breakage and view obstruction. Previous policies promoted the removal of official street trees after three sidewalk breaks and unofficial street trees after just one break. Presently, most tree removal requires public notification, opportunities for public input, and a 25-30 day waiting period for appeals.

When sidewalk breakage occurs, repairs should incorporate measures to reduce the probability of such damage in the future. These measures could include root barriers, flexible or permeable sidewalks, and enlargement of the planting area. As a preventive measure, an integrated pest management program should be used to control street tree pests and diseases.

***

*ACTION OS-12.3.1: SPECIFICATIONS FOR SIDEWALK, CURB, AND GUTTER REPAIR*

*Develop procedures and specifications for sidewalk, curb, and gutter repair related to street tree damage. Assign responsibility for these repairs in the procedures and specifications.*

***

These should identify techniques to minimize future damage to infrastructure and should promote the health and longevity of street trees. The specifications would also address issues of financial responsibility for repairs, and tree replacement in the event a tree must be removed (see also Policy CO-7.4 on tree removal).

<!-- page 113 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 114 -->
# Chapter 3

# Conservation

<!-- page 115 -->
# INTRODUCTION

| GOAL CO-1: NATURAL RESOURCES THAT ARE CONSERVED AND PRUDENTLY USED TO SUSTAIN LIFE, SUPPORT URBAN ACTIVITIES, PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, AND PROVIDE A SOURCE OF BEAUTY AND ENJOYMENT. |
| :--- |

This section of the OSCAR Element addresses the conservation, development, and utilization of Oakland's natural resources. Cities and counties have been required to include conservation elements in their general plans since 1973. The requirement came in response to a growing concern that Californians were depleting the State's resources faster than they were being renewed.

The Element is divided into five sections, each focusing on a different aspect of the City's natural resources. The sections are:

√ "Earth Resources," including soil, land stability, and minerals;

√ "Water Resources," including water supply, water quality, and surface waters;

√ "Plant and Animal Resources," including plant communities, wetlands, rare and endangered species, vegetation management, and wildlife;

√ "Air Resources;" and

√ "Energy Resources."

A single goal statement, shown above, applies to all topics in this chapter.

<!-- page 116 -->
# EARTH RESOURCES

Some of Oakland's most important natural assets are "earth resources," including soils and minerals, archaeologic and fossil remains, and the geologic formations that define the city's topography. Soil and rock are literally Oakland's foundation. They provide a physical base for urban development and an ecological base for plant and animal life. In some cases, earth resources also have direct economic value or are a source of scenic or scientific interest. Earth resources have shaped Oakland's development in some cases and have been dramatically altered by development in others.

Hillsides, ridges, and canyons provide beauty and add variety and character to the city. However, these features have not always been treated sympathetically. In some instances, excessive grading and development on steep slopes has had negative visual impacts. Grading and erosion control ordinances have been developed to help mitigate these impacts, but a policy framework for these ordinances does not exist.

Geologic conditions, including slope and land stability, are especially important factors in determining the suitability of land for new development. Much of the city's vacant land supply is subject to erosion and landslide hazards. Soil characteristics, particularly shrink-swell potential and performance during earthquakes, are also critical in evaluating land suitability.

Oakland's earth resources include commercially valuable volcanic rocks, namely basalt, andesite, and rhyolite. For years, these rocks were mined in quarries and open pits around the city, providing materials for many of Oakland's early streets, curbs, and building foundations. Today, only one quarry still remains in operation. It has been designated a "Regionally Significant Construction Aggregate Resource" by the State Mining and Geology Board, indicating its prime importance in meeting future mineral needs in the East Bay.

The following objectives, policies, and actions have been developed for earth resources:

## OBJECTIVE CO-1: SOIL CONSERVATION

### To protect and preserve soil as a resource for healthy plant, animal, and human life.

Soil is one of the primary elements in the support system of all terrestrial life and is one of Oakland's most valuable natural resources. Soil also affects the capability of land to support various human activities, including development, agriculture, and groundwater recharge.

The primary local soil types are the bay muds located along the shoreline and in the landfilled areas, the alluvium and dune sand deposits located in the flatland and hill areas, and the sandstones and shale fragments of the hill areas. Soils in the flatlands tend to be the best-suited in the city for both agriculture and urban development. Although large-scale agriculture may no longer be feasible in Oakland due to its urbanized character, these soils also lend themselves well to home and community gardening. In gardens and parks throughout the city, they support a thriving variety of native, exotic, and even tropical plants.

Soil erosion is a naturally occurring phenomena in the Oakland Hills and one that is ordinarily not hazardous. However, the rate of erosion can be easily aggravated by development. As vegetation is removed and impervious surface coverage increases, stormwater runoff flows across the soil in greater volumes and at higher velocities. Until the disturbed areas are revegetated, exposed areas may be subject to topsoil loss, ultimately resulting in higher slide hazards, silting of streams, blocked stream channels, fish kills, and reduced water clarity. Soil conservation policies address these potential hazards.

<!-- page 117 -->
<<FIGURE>>

*This vegetable field on 98th Avenue provides a reminder of Oakland's agricultural heritage. At one time, the City's productive soils supported many farms and orchards.*

### POLICY CO-1.1: SOIL LOSS IN NEW DEVELOPMENT

**Regulate development in a manner which protects soil from degradation and misuse or other activities which significantly reduce its ability to support plant and animal life. Design all construction to ensure that soil is well secured so that unnecessary erosion, siltation of streams, and sedimentation of water bodies does not occur.**

Good soil management practices include soil enrichment, drainage improvements, covering or creating drainage ditches around exposed slopes during the rainy season, and planting of exposed soils to control erosion. Within new construction areas, development should minimize soil removal, grading, and the removal of vegetation, and should stabilize and revegetate those areas where soil is disturbed. The City currently uses its Grading Ordinance and its Sedimentation and Erosion Control Ordinance to protect soil resources and will continue to do so in the future. Further protection is provided by the Clean Water Act, which also require erosion and sediment control during construction.

***

### ACTION CO-1.1.1: SOIL-RELATED DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS

*Maintain, enforce, and periodically review development controls affecting soil removal, including the Grading Ordinance and the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Ordinance.*

<!-- page 118 -->
### ACTION CO-1.1.2: PUBLIC EDUCATION ON SOIL CONSERVATION

*On an on-going basis, cooperate with the Alameda County Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and other agencies encouraging soil conservation and education regarding soil resources in Alameda County.*

***

The County's Soil Conservation Service Office is responsible for maintaining data on soil conditions and providing public education and outreach on soil conservation. The city will assist the SCS in its on-going efforts and programs.

***

### ACTION CO-1.1.3: CONSIDERATION OF SOIL CONSTRAINTS IN DEVELOPMENT

*Consider soil constraints such as shrink-swell and low soil strength in the design of buildings and roads. Suitable base materials and drainage provisions should be incorporated where necessary.*

***

Most of Oakland's soils are rated by the Soil Conservation Service as having "severe" limitations for development. The primary constraints listed are steep slopes, shrink-swell potential, and low strength. These problems are not generally considered insurmountable obstacles to development. However, they do require more costly foundations, limited use of basements, and specific construction methods. In shrink-swell areas, building pads may need to be shaped so that runoff drains away from foundations. In filled areas, roads and foundations need to be designed to withstand cracking and differential settlement.

### POLICY CO-1.2: SOIL CONTAMINATION HAZARDS

Minimize hazards associated with soil contamination through the appropriate storage and disposal of toxic substances, monitoring of dredging activities, and clean-up of contaminated sites. In this regard, require soil testing for development of any site (or dedication of any parkland or community garden) where contamination is suspected due to prior activities on the site.

***

Soil pollution has created problems for the reuse of sites previously occupied by some industrial and commercial uses. One of the difficulties is that the polluting materials may not always be visible. Soil contaminants may be diffuse and difficult to trace, particularly where a succession of industries has occupied a site. For any property where the potential for contamination exists, a soil study should be required by the City to help protect public health and safety.

The Open Space Chapter of OSCAR identifies abandoned gas stations, surplus storage yards, and parts of closed military bases as potential new parks and community gardens. It is imperative that soil on such sites is brought up to acceptable standards before re-use. Moreover, any fill imported for use within city parks should be checked to make sure it is non-toxic.

***

### ACTION CO-1.2.1: FURTHER STUDY OF SOIL CONTAMINATION

*Conduct further study of soil contamination and toxics during the update of the Oakland General Plan Safety Element.*

***

The Safety Element is scheduled to be updated in 1997. It should address remediation of hazards where development has occurred on toxic sites as well as the prevention of future hazards.

<!-- page 119 -->
### ACTION CO-1.2.2: MONITORING OF DREDGE SPOILS DISPOSAL

*Monitor the Galbraith Dredge Spoils Disposal Project to ensure that there are no negative impacts on soil, wetlands, and adjacent waters. Ensure community representation on any task force created to monitor future dredge spoils disposal projects, including the Galbraith Disposal Project.*

***

Dredging of the Oakland Estuary from 38 to 42 feet is underway. Galbraith Golf Course is currently being used as a disposal site for a significant portion of the dredge spoils. On-going soil monitoring will take place at the receiving site to ensure the materials are not harmful.

<<FIGURE>>
*This Claremont Avenue rock outcropping provides an indication of Oakland's geologic history.*

### OBJECTIVE CO-2: LAND STABILITY

**To minimize safety hazards, environmental impacts, and aesthetic impacts associated with development on hillsides and in seismic high-risk areas.**

***

Oakland lies within a geologically very active and dynamic part of California. Significant movements to the earth's crust happen all the time, posing numerous problems for the area's development. These activities, which include earthquakes, landslides, subsidence, tectonic creep, erosion, and flooding are all potentially hazardous. Urbanization can upset and alter these natural processes, sometimes without regard for the consequences.

Several active and potentially active faults which could affect development cross the San Francisco Bay area. The occasional release of strain along these faults make the Bay Area one of the most seismically active areas in the United States.

The Hayward Fault Zone runs almost continuously from Point Pinole to the Warm Springs area of Fremont, forming a narrow valley through the Oakland Hills. Recent USGS data indicate up to a 50 percent probability of a 7.5 magnitude quake on this fault during the next 30 years. The San Andreas Fault runs parallel to the Hayward about 10 miles west of Oakland. Geologists concur that an 8.0 or greater earthquake will occur on the Bay Area segment of the San Andreas Fault on the average of once every 100 years. The Calaveras Fault runs down the San Ramon Valley, parallel to and about 10 miles east of the crest of the Oakland Hills. The fault is considered less active than the Hayward and is less likely to generate a major earthquake in the area.

The presence of these three faults so close to Oakland create a high cumulative probability of future earthquakes. Studies by the USGS indicate that there is a 67 percent chance of a quake 7.0 or greater on one of these three faults during the next 30 years.

<!-- page 120 -->
Another hazard pervasive in the hill areas and along some creeks is landsliding. This refers to the rapid downslope movement of soil, rock, and rock debris. Mudslides, the most familiar type of landslides in Oakland, are caused by the shallow movement of earth saturated by water. Most slides are natural occurrences, but they can be exacerbated by improper construction. Development activity on susceptible slopes can trigger slide activity, increasing the potential for loss of life and property.

<<FIGURE>>
Evidence of recent landsliding, in this case triggered by heavy rain.

### POLICY CO-2.1: SLIDE HAZARDS

**Encourage development practices which minimize the risk of landsliding.**

Figure 10 indicates that about one-quarter of the city--including the entire hill area--is considered to have moderate to high potential for landsliding. The potential for property damage, injury, and even loss of life, is considerable in these areas. During the last hundred years, most landslide activity in Oakland has been triggered by heavy rains, creek channel modifications, and development on very steep terrain rather than by seismic activity. Slope destabilization has occurred in several locations, especially where fill was placed on top of existing vegetation, where hillside "toes" were graded for roads or buildings, and where water or sewer line breaks eroded hillsides. Local slides have resulted in slippage and cracks in foundations, structures, and retaining walls, as well as loss of trails, roads, sidewalks, and houses.

Although even the best design cannot eliminate such hazards completely, risks can be dramatically reduced by following certain basic development practices. These are outlined below:

* Proper drainage provisions should be required in new development to avoid oversaturation. Where soil percolation is poor, runoff from roof gutters and graded areas should be intercepted and conveyed to storm drain facilities. Runoff should not be directed onto filled slopes.

* Residential development should not be allowed on deep fill areas. To avoid ground instability in other fill areas, drainage terraces should be provided at intervals and brow ditches should be placed on the top of all cut and filled slopes.

* Wherever fill is placed on a hillside, subdrains should be used to mitigate drainage-related slope stability problems. Where necessary to avoid oversaturation, subdrains should be placed behind retaining walls. All subdrain systems should be properly designed and inspected and should be regularly maintained.

<!-- page 121 -->
<<FIGURE>>

BERKELEY
EMERYVILLE
PIEDMONT
ALAMEDA
SAN LEANDRO

Most Susceptible
Moderately Susceptible
Least Susceptible
Location of Landslides since 1930

City of Oakland
Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element

### Figure 10:
## Landslide Potential

Source: Oakland Dept. of Planning & Building, 1992

<!-- page 122 -->
*   Overwatering of steep slopes should be minimized. Drought tolerant plants should be used to minimize excessive watering and the risk of oversaturation.

*   Public education and outreach can be used to promote homeowner awareness of slide hazards and education on the importance of drainage and maintenance of drainage facilities in slide areas.

*   Wherever possible, setbacks should be maintained between structures and filled slope areas.

*   On existing vacant lots in areas of known soil instability, deep piers supporting grade beam foundations should be required to mitigate foundation instability problems.

### ACTION CO-2.1.1: ORDINANCE EVALUATION AND PUBLIC INFORMATION

*Evaluate existing ordinances and regulations to ensure that they contain adequate provisions to mitigate slide-related hazards in new construction areas. If departmental budgets permit, develop public outreach and educational materials for homeowners in the hill areas on measures to reduce slide hazards.*

### ACTION CO-2.1.2: GRADED SLOPE AND RETAINING WALL MAINTENANCE

*For new development containing commonly-owned retaining walls and graded slopes, require provisions for future maintenance and repair of these systems to be established before granting project approval.*

This action applies to planned unit developments, condominiums, townhomes, and single family subdivisions with common open space areas. Maintenance provisions for these features, including costs and responsibilities, should be specified before such projects are approved. Special assessments or homeowner's dues should ensure that slopes, subdrains, retaining walls, and terraces are kept up after the improvements are made.

### POLICY CO-2.2: UNSTABLE GEOLOGIC FEATURES

Retain geologic features known to be unstable, including serpentine rock, areas of known landsliding, and fault lines, as open space. Where feasible, allow such lands to be used for low- intensity recreational activities.

This is a modification of an existing city policy discouraging development of known hazard areas. A preliminary inventory of these areas has been conducted as part of the OSCAR program. In addition, the Association of Bay Area Governments has assessed groundshaking potential based on soil and geologic conditions.

### ACTION CO-2.2.1: GEO-TECHNICAL STUDY REQUIREMENTS

*Maintain Standard Operating Procedures in the Office of Planning and Building which require geo-technical studies for major developments in areas with moderate to high groundshaking or liquefaction potential, or other geologically unstable features.*

Information should be provided on rock type, the degree of jointing and fracturing, and the moisture content of the soils on-site. Measures to mitigate hazards related to grading, including landsliding, should be specified before development occurs, and monitored when construction takes place.

### ACTION CO-2.2.2: LAND STABILITY DATA BASE

*Incorporate known land stability information in the City's permit tracking system and the Measure I geographic information systems (GIS) program.*

The Measure I program now being coordinated by the Emergency Services Division of the City Manager's Office, should analyze the citywide potential for debris

<!-- page 123 -->
flows and deep landslides based on an analysis of topography, bedrock geology, slope gradient, evidence of past failure, drainage patterns, and exposure.

***

### POLICY CO-2.3: DEVELOPMENT ON FILLED SOILS

**Require development on filled soils to make special provisions to safeguard against subsidence and seismic hazards.**

Most soils along the shoreline consist of artificial fill deposited over bay mud or tidal marshland. The fill areas can pose significant problems for construction and development. Localized "sinking" may occur as the fill settles, cracking roads, pipes, and building foundations. In the event of an earthquake, fill areas are susceptible to liquefaction and may become saturated and fluid-like. Settlement may also be a problem on filled slopes in the hill areas. Variations in fill thickness and compaction rates could cause building foundations to crack on contoured hillsides. Differential settlement may cause cracking of foundations and roads. The design of roads, utilities, and buildings in fill areas should make provisions for these constraints.

***

### POLICY CO-2.4: HILLSIDE CUTS AND FILLS

**Minimize hillside cuts and fills and the removal of desirable vegetation. Limit large-scale grading to those areas where it is essential to development. Where hillside grading does occur, reshape the terrain in smooth, naturally appearing contours rather than flat, terraced benches. Immediately replant and reseed graded areas to reduce soil loss.**

Hillside construction usually requires the movement of earth to ensure that roads, utilities and structures are stabilized. On steeper sites, grading may require major cutting and filling, significantly changing the appearance of the hillside. In Oakland, such activities are subject to the provisions of the city's grading ordinance (10312) and sedimentation and erosion control ordinance (10446).

Grading permits are required for most movements of earth greater than 50 cubic yards.

Policy CO-2.4 discourages mass grading and terracing of hillsides, both for aesthetic and land stability purposes. Building stability can be further improved by setting buildings back from the shoulder of deep fill areas, using consistent fill depths behind graded areas, and using special foundations on lots underlain by fill. Revegetation of slopes is vital to reducing soil erosion and covering grading scars.

***

### ACTION CO-2.4.1: UPDATE OF GRADING ORDINANCE

*Review the grading ordinance every five years and revise it when necessary to keep it current with new knowledge and construction methods.*

The City's grading ordinance governs the movement of soil, including excavations and fills. The ordinance specifies when a permit is required, what conditions must be met for permit approval, and restrictions on grading work. Responsibility for enforcement rests with the Office of Planning and Building (OPB). The ordinance should be reviewed every five years, beginning in 1996, and should be revised where necessary to keep it current with new knowledge and construction methods. The ordinance should be vigorously enforced.

***

### ACTION CO-2.4.2: PREPARATION OF GRADING GUIDELINES

*Develop illustrated grading guidelines which accompany the City's grading ordinance.*

Presently, the City's grading ordinance focuses on how grading is carried out rather than the design of the graded hillside. Basic premises for environmentally sound grading should be established and followed on hillside sites. Reshaping the land in naturally appearing contours can avoid the "chopped" or "benched" look found in some parts of the Bay Area.

<!-- page 124 -->
### OBJECTIVE CO-3: MINERAL RESOURCES

**To conserve mineral resources and minimize the environmental impact of mineral extraction.**

---

### POLICY CO-3.1: RHYOLITE CONSERVATION

**Support the conservation of the rhyolite deposits in the Oakland Hills, identified by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) as a Regionally Significant Resource.**

The Leona Rhyolite deposits between Claremont Canyon and the San Leandro border were especially important to the city's early development. For years, these volcanic rocks were mined in quarries and open pits in the East Bay, providing material for road base, paving, curbs, and foundation stones. Only one of these quarries is still active today. The Leona Quarry has been in operation for 82 years and has a conditional use permit for continued operation through the year 2008. Approximately 750,000 tons of Leona rhyolite are removed from the quarry each year.

The Quarry has been identified by the State Mining and Geology Board as a Regionally Significant Construction Aggregate Resource. Areas with this designation are judged to be of prime importance in meeting future mineral needs in the region in which they are located. Land use decisions must consider the importance of these minerals to the region as a whole and not just their importance to Oakland.

---

### POLICY CO-3.2: QUARRY OPERATIONS

**Require existing and abandoned mineral extraction activities to mitigate the effects of their operations on surrounding areas, including the clean-up and reclamation of mining sites. Prohibit new quarrying activity in Oakland except upon clear and compelling evidence that the benefits will outweigh the resulting environmental, health, safety, aesthetic, and quality of life costs.**

At the same time the rhyolite deposits are regionally significant, their large-scale extraction may have significant adverse impacts on the surrounding area. Quarrying can create air pollution from dust, water pollution from soil erosion and soluble minerals, noise pollution from blasting and trucks, and severe scarring of the natural topography. In a highly urbanized setting like Oakland's, these impacts are difficult to mitigate.

In the case of the Leona Quarry, the conditional use permit allows no increases in traffic, requires dust and noise suppression measures, perimeter fencing, an annual soils report, and a hazardous materials management plan. The permit includes provisions for screening the Highway 580 frontage, installation of subdrains on cut slopes, and mitigation of landslide hazards. It also requires the operator to hire an engineer to prepare an annual report demonstrating compliance. A variety of management practices are used to minimize surface disturbance and disruption of surrounding uses.

In addition, the operator of the Quarry has prepared a Reclamation Plan for the use and configuration of the site after it is closed. Under the present plan, the quarry would be graded, with benches created at regular intervals to stabilize cut slopes and facilitate revegetation. The flatter portions of the site would be developed and the steeper areas would be retained as open space.

---

### ACTION CO-3.2.1: MITIGATION OF QUARRY IMPACTS

***Use the following processes to implement this policy: (a) CEQA environmental review; (b) conditional use permit (zoning) requirements; and (c) State-mandated mine reclamation planning.***

<!-- page 125 -->
### ACTION CO-3.2.2: UPDATE OF LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENTS

***Update the Oakland Land Use and Transportation Elements and Oakland zoning maps to be consistent with the adopted reclamation plan for the Leona Quarry. In accordance with the reclamation plan and to the extent permitted by law, approximately 65 percent of the quarry site should be retained as permanent open space.***

The site is presently shown in the Oakland General Plan as Low and Medium Density Residential and is zoned entirely for residential development. The operator's reclamation plan proposes a different arrangement, including a combination of residential and commercial development and 80 acres of open space. In its upcoming Land Use Element Update, the ultimate use of the site should be resolved. Following adoption of the new Land Use Element, the City should work with the quarry operator to make any necessary revisions to the Reclamation Plan.

### ACTION CO-3.2.3: SULFUR MINE CLEAN-UP

***Create a task force consisting of City, East Bay Regional Park District, Regional Water Quality Control Board staff, and local residents to address the issue of acidic runoff and mine tailings from the old sulfur mines at the headwaters of the Leona Branch of Lion Creek.***

Not far from the quarry, the Leona mines were once used to extract pyrite and manufacture sulfuric acid. Although the mines have been abandoned for decades, sulfur continues to leach from the soil into Leona and Lion Creeks. The owner of the property is required to develop a remediation plan under State law, but no action has been taken to date. The City will work with appropriate agencies, the landowner, and area residents to speed up action on the clean-up efforts.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 126 -->
# WATER RESOURCES

As in other parts of the Bay Area, water in Oakland is a limited natural resource. It is subject to increasing demand by a growing population, decreasing supply due to drought, and degradation from urban runoff and other sources of pollution. All indications are that water will continue to be a finite resource in the future. Long-range water resource and water quality planning are necessary to ensure that a healthful, reliable supply remains available.

The following objectives, policies, and actions have been developed for water resources:

### OBJECTIVE CO-4: WATER SUPPLY

To maintain a water supply sufficient to meet local needs while minimizing the need to develop new water supply facilities.

Oakland receives its water from the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), a publicly owned utility created in 1923. About 95 percent of the water supply comes from the melting snowpack of the Sierra Nevada. Snowmelt is stored in reservoirs and is then conveyed via the Mokelumne Aqueduct to terminal reservoirs in the hills north and east of Oakland. EBMUD owns extensive watershed lands around the terminal reservoirs and local runoff in their watersheds contributes the other 5 percent of the supply. Water destined for Oakland passes through filter plants and is then piped to covered reservoirs or storage tanks at high elevations. Consumers at lower elevations are served via a network of hundreds of miles of water lines and pumps.

EBMUD has projected future demand for water based on demographic forecasts and assumptions about conservation. Drought or no drought, water conservation will be essential to meet projected demand during the next 30 years. Systemwide, supply will need to increase by between 15 and 80 million gallons per day (mgpd). EBMUD has estimated that savings from conservation and reclamation programs can reduce projected demand by as much as 16 mgpd by 2020.

#### POLICY CO-4.1: WATER CONSERVATION

Emphasize water conservation and recycling strategies in efforts to meet future demand.

This policy emphasizes conservation to the maximum extent feasible to offset the expense and environmental impacts of new reservoirs, aqueducts, and water treatment plants. In the 1970s and 1980s, EBMUD had planned to meet future demand by importing water from the American River via a new canal and aqueduct to the East Bay. These projects have yet to be built and face an uncertain future.

EBMUD has pursued a number of options to using American River water, including substituting Delta water or groundwater for farms in the San Joaquin Valley, buying Mokelumne water rights from downstream irrigation districts, buying water from other agencies, and establishing interties with other agency water systems. Recognizing the difficulty of achieving these agreements and the potential adverse impacts of increased water diversion and new reservoirs, the City supports a continued focus on conservation and reclamation.

#### ACTION CO-4.1.1: IMPLEMENTATION OF URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

Issue Administrative Instructions to implement the water conservation strategies and programs outlined in the 1991 East Bay Municipal Utility District Urban Water Management Plan at the local level. Develop a strategy to reduce the City's water consumption by 20 percent by the year 2005.

EBMUD's long-range Plan recommends a range of new conservation measures to reduce water demand. These

<!-- page 127 -->
include economic and financial incentives (higher unit costs for larger users, cash credits to conserving customers, rebates to customers who limit the size of their lawns), further use of water-saving devices and appliances, stricter enforcement of water use ordinances, reduced water pressure in high pressure zones, new efficiency standards, and retrofitting of car washes, industries, and other heavy consumers to reduce use. These approaches are detailed in OSCAR Technical Report Volume One.

As one of EBMUD's largest customers, the City of Oakland should be a role model for other EBMUD customers and should implement many of the conservation measures detailed in the EBMUD plan. Many such measures are already in place. The feasibility of additional measures, including those described in EBMUD's long-range plan, should be explored. Other public agencies, such as the School District, the Port of Oakland, and the Peralta Colleges, should be encouraged to set similar goals and implement similar conservation programs.

### ACTION CO-4.1.2: PUBLIC EDUCATION ON WATER CONSERVATION

*Maintain regular contact with East Bay Municipal Utility District to promote public education and outreach on water conservation.*

Although public information and education have been an integral part of EBMUD's conservation campaign for nearly two decades, these efforts were intensified during the most recent drought. EBMUD has used publications, school curricula, conferences, videocasettes, workshops, theatrical productions, a speakers bureau, demonstration gardens, mobile displays, billboards, windshield visors, pamphlets, and even refrigerator magnets to help educate the public on the importance of conservation. Their continued efforts in education and outreach should be supported by the City.

### POLICY CO-4.2: DROUGHT-TOLERANT LANDSCAPING

**Require use of drought-tolerant plants to the greatest extent possible and encourage the use of irrigation systems which minimize water consumption.**

Under State Assembly Bill 325, Oakland is required to adopt drought-responsive landscaping standards as a means of conserving water. A Draft ordinance has been prepared but has yet to be adopted. The ordinance would require that landscaping plans for new development be evaluated against a checklist of drought-responsive measures and that a projection of water consumption (or a "water budget") be prepared. Still unresolved is the extent to which a prescribed list of drought-tolerant plants will be substituted for the water budget.

### ACTION CO-4.2.1: ADOPTION OF WATER-EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE

*Adopt a revised version of the Water-Efficient Landscape Ordinance.*

The Office of Planning and Building should take the lead in this effort, working with local landscape architects to craft a solution which promotes creativity and variety while still meeting the intent of AB 325.

<<FIGURE>>

*This demonstration garden at Lakeside Park illustrates options for drought-tolerant landscaping.*

<!-- page 128 -->
### POLICY CO-4.3: USE OF RECLAIMED WATER

**Promote the use of reclaimed wastewater for irrigating landscape medians, cemeteries, parks, golf courses, and other areas requiring large volumes of non-potable water.**

"Reclaimed" water includes treated effluent from the EBMUD Treatment Plant, backwash from EBMUD's filter plants, and untreated water taken directly from Lake Chabot. Use of this supply provides an alternative to building new reservoirs and expensive water conveyance facilities. Reclaimed water has already become an integral part of EBMUD's supply to non-potable users with some 280,000 gallons a day used to irrigate Oakland's public golf courses. A longer-term objective is to reduce demand on drinking water supplies by using reclaimed water for most outdoor applications.

EBMUD estimates that the Oakland-Berkeley-Alameda area has existing demand for 2.3 million gallons per day of reclaimed water, primarily for landscaping and industry. Claremont Country Club and Mountain View Cemetery have been identified as potential users. There are also many landscaped areas and industries relatively close to the EBMUD treatment plant which could potentially use treated effluent.

### ACTION CO-4.3.1: SUPPORT FOR EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT RECLAMATION PROGRAMS

***Provide staff assistance to East Bay Municipal Utility District as needed in its implementation of programs to reclaim and recycle wastewater from the regional treatment plant and its wet weather facilities and expand the use of such wastewater on public landscaped areas, including City parks and medians.***

### ACTION CO-4.3.2: RECLAIMED WASTEWATER REQUIREMENTS

***Study the feasibility of amending the Oakland Municipal Code to require the use of reclaimed wastewater for irrigation on developments exceeding a certain threshold, or to require that new irrigation systems be designed so that they can be switched over to reclaimed water when it becomes economically feasible.***

### POLICY CO-4.4: WATER-CONSCIOUS DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS

**Encourage regional development patterns which make environmentally sound use of water resources.**

The future cost and availability of water for Oakland residents will depend on land use decisions made within and beyond the EBMUD service area. Development in the drier parts of the service area requires much more water due both to climatic factors (hotter summers, drier winters) and more extensive landscaped areas. Rapid development in the inland areas could potentially outstrip EBMUD's ability to provide services, resulting in water shortages and higher rates for Oaklanders, and necessitating new facilities with adverse economic and environmental impacts.

### ACTION CO-4.4.1: REVIEW OF LARGE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS

***Actively participate in the review of development proposals beyond the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Service Area which could significantly impact Oakland's water supply or delivery system. Adopt resolutions and prepare correspondence to EBMUD as appropriate to ensure that Oakland maintains a reliable future water supply at a reasonable cost.***

<!-- page 129 -->
### OBJECTIVE CO-5: WATER QUALITY

**To minimize the adverse effects of urbanization on Oakland's groundwater, creeks, lakes, and nearshore waters.**

Over the years, Oakland's waters have been polluted by sources as diverse as residential lawns, sulfur mines, sewage treatment plants, landfills, city streets, and houseboats. Raw sewage and solid waste were dumped in the Bay for more than a century under the false assumption that the waters had the ability to absorb and disperse these materials. Beginning in the 1940s, a growing number of state and federal pollution laws signaled an end to these practices and a shift towards pollution control. Wastewater treatment plants were upgraded, sewage outfall pipes were moved to deeper waters, and new discharge controls were placed on private industry.

As a result of the new facilities and technologies, much of the damage done was corrected. Between 1955 and 1985, the volume of wastewater discharged to the Bay more than doubled, but the total amount of organic matter in the discharge was reduced by 70 percent. Water quality improved to the point where water contact recreation and even recreational shellfish harvesting resumed in some areas. Still, the federal goal of eliminating pollution in San Francisco Bay has yet to be achieved. As recently as the late 1980s, Oakland's Inner and Outer Harbors were identified as toxic "hot spots," with recorded concentrations of chromium, mercury, cadmium, nickel, manganese, zinc, DDT, and PCBs exceeding safe standards.

As "point" sources of pollution (sewage outfall pipes, etc.) have been curtailed, pollution control efforts have shifted to "non-point" sources, particularly runoff from streets, parking lots, and lawns. Runoff carries oil, grease, paints, chemicals, pesticides, detergent, animal waste, and debris to Oakland's creeks, lakes, and ultimately the Bay. Local governments can bring about significant improvements in runoff quality by requiring erosion control measures, enforcing dumping and waste disposal laws, upgrading antiquated sewers and storm drains, requiring stormwater detention or treatment, and educating the public about water pollution.

Several years ago, Alameda County was given the lead responsibility for developing an Urban Runoff Clean Water Program to comply with the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan. The program has since been renamed the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program and is being implemented by a consortium of municipalities. It consists of both general and city-specific components. The Program is mandatory and responds to federal and state requirements. Oakland has already taken measures to implement the county program and will be taking additional steps in the future.

### POLICY CO-5.1: PROTECTION OF GROUNDWATER RECHARGE

**Encourage groundwater recharge by protecting large open space areas, maintaining setbacks along creeks and other recharge features, limiting impervious surfaces where appropriate, and retaining natural drainage patterns within newly developing areas.**

Like most other cities on the East Bay Plain, Oakland is located over an aquifer, a permeable layer of rock and soil which stores water that has percolated into the ground. Over the years, urbanization has drastically affected the quantity and quality of groundwater in the city. In some places, the water table has been lowered by overpumping and reductions in the surface area available for recharge. This caused subsidence, or sinking of the ground. Groundwater has also been polluted by urbanization, largely from fertilizer runoff and leaking underground storage tanks.

Policy CO-5.1 promotes groundwater recharge through the proper management of development in high recharge areas. Such areas include creeks, sandy soils, and large open spaces such as parks and golf courses. The policy also raises the possibility of impervious surface coverage limits. Such limits would prevent sites in certain zoning districts from being completely paved or covered with buildings and would ensure that some level of percolation occurs within new development.

<!-- page 130 -->
### *ACTION CO-5.1.1: CONSIDERATION OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS*

*When the Zoning Ordinance is amended, study the feasibility of adding an impervious surface limit in the single family residential zoning districts.*

***

### *ACTION CO-5.1.2: STORMWATER DISPERSION METHODS*

*Consider adopting stormwater dispersion provisions for development projects on soils with high percolation rates. Among these provisions, include omission of curbs, gutters, and paved sidewalks, and use of runoff-absorbing rock drains and dry wells on appropriate sites.*

***

Curbs and gutters are normally required on new streets. This results in large volumes of rainwater flowing to the storm drain system and then into the creeks, with attendant creek water quality and erosion problems. Stormwater dispersion could be a viable option in some areas, particularly where soil percolation rates are high enough to allow rainfall to infiltrate the ground rather than running off the property. Streets without curbs and gutters should be considered in such cases. This type of street design already exists in many of the hill neighborhoods and is more consistent with the semi-rural character of these areas than the conventional "fully improved" streets.

A similar principle might be applied to roof runoff. Rather than using roof gutters, downspouts, and pipes to channel rainwater to storm sewers, more dispersive methods might be considered. Rock-filled drains, trenches, and dry wells could be used where soil percolation rates are high and the land is stable. City review and approval would be required for any such system, and hydrologic studies would be needed to confirm their feasibility at a given site.

### POLICY CO-5.2: IMPROVEMENTS TO GROUNDWATER QUALITY

Support efforts to improve groundwater quality, including the use of non-toxic herbicides and fertilizers, the enforcement of anti-litter laws, the clean-up of sites contaminated by toxics, and on-going monitoring by the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.

***

Groundwater recharge can do more harm than good if the water percolating to the aquifer is contaminated. Contaminated groundwater can migrate relatively long distances and affect water quality in other cities and in nearby rural areas. Higher quality groundwater can be achieved by minimizing the use of toxic herbicides and fertilizers, both on city properties and on private properties. Public education and outreach on environmentally safe approaches to lawn care should be encouraged. Likewise, enforcement of anti-litter laws (including the "We Mean Clean" Program) can create a strong disincentive to illegal dumping in creeks.

Existing businesses with known groundwater contamination problems are required to develop remediation plans. Clean-up of underground tank sites and other areas where toxins have leached into the soils creates positive effects on groundwater quality. The City can take a supporting role in ensuring that these requirements are met.

Septic tanks provide another source of groundwater pollution in Oakland. Sanitary sewer extensions should be encouraged in those Oakland neighborhoods still relying on septic tanks, particularly where leach fields have failed in the past. In addition, domestic "graywater" irrigation systems must be properly designed and installed to avoid detrimental impacts to groundwater quality.

<!-- page 131 -->
### POLICY CO-5.3: CONTROL OF URBAN RUNOFF

**Employ a broad range of strategies, compatible with the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program, to: (a) reduce water pollution associated with stormwater runoff; (b) reduce water pollution associated with hazardous spills, runoff from hazardous material areas, improper disposal of household hazardous wastes, illicit dumping, and marina "live-aboards;" and (c) improve water quality in Lake Merritt to enhance the lake's aesthetic, recreational, and ecological functions.**

More than 90 percent of the solids entering San Francisco Bay are associated with "non-point" pollution sources, especially urban runoff. Ideally, runoff could be treated like sanitary sewage, with materials removed before they are discharged into the Bay. However, such systems are very expensive to construct and may not be cost-effective considering the large volume of water that must be treated. A more pragmatic approach is to prevent pollutants from reaching the storm drain system in the first place.

Oakland already has a stormwater management ordinance which gives it the authority to control discharges to storm drains and enforce pollution standards for such discharges. The ordinance was strengthened in 1993 by clarifying its definitions and giving the city the authority to perform inspections and sampling of stormwater discharge. The new ordinance essentially prohibits non-stormwater discharges to the storm sewer system. It addresses illicit discharges, littering, standards for parking lots, and standards for watercourse protection. It also establishes the authority to inspect properties, penalize violators, and abate the discharge of pollutants to the storm drain system, lakes, creeks, and Bay.

Some of the biggest causes of water pollution in Oakland are erosion and sedimentation from construction sites. Grading and vegetation removal exposes bare soils to rain, causing erosion and siltation in creeks and streams. Sand and gravel may wash off construction sites and into streams. Other materials used during construction, including paints, may be dumped into storm drains or left to drain away during storms. The City's Sedimentation and Erosion Control ordinance supplements the Stormwater Ordinance to avoid such hazards.

### _ACTION CO-5.3.1: PRE-TREATMENT OF RUNOFF_

_**In accordance with the Countywide Clean Water Program, study the feasibility of enacting stormwater retention and pre-treatment requirements for developments meeting certain criteria.**_

Alameda County has proposed a program to retain and/or treat stormwater at certain locations before it reaches the storm drain and creek system. This could involve changing the City's storm drain system (to regulate runoff volumes), requiring detention basins in new subdivisions, constructing settling ponds along creeks, requiring on-site oil and grease separators, installing pre-treatment or filtration systems at key locations along the storm drain system, and diverting runoff to the EBMUD treatment plant during low flow periods (e.g., the dry season).

Some of these measures have significant land use, environmental, and economic implications and must be approached cautiously. Many may be infeasible in Oakland due to the "built-out" character of the city, the infill nature of most local development, public safety and liability concerns, and capacity limitations at the EBMUD Plant.

Less costly approaches could include modifications to existing flood control facilities such as pump stations. Adding small detention basins at pump stations would allow pollutants and sediments to settle out. Non-structural solutions such as more frequent removal of sediments from pump stations and holding ponds could also be effective and relatively inexpensive.

The Office of Public Works should continue to work with Alameda County and the Regional Board in developing an economically-feasible approach to stormwater pre-treatment or detention requirements.

<!-- page 132 -->
### ACTION CO-5.3.2: STORM DRAIN MAINTENANCE

*Improve maintenance of storm drain inlets, channels, pipes, and catch basins to ensure their proper operation and reduce the amount of debris and sediment flowing to creeks. Operate a regular Office of Public Works debris removal program to ensure that storm flows can be accommodated and that erosion resulting from clogged storm drains is minimized. As funding permits, replace antiquated storm drains in the hill areas with drains with adequate capacity to convey stormwater runoff during the rainy season.*

Erosion of creek channels creates water quality and clarity problems and may also threaten property along streams. The most basic and inexpensive way to reduce creek erosion is to maintain the storm drainage system and make sure that debris is cleared regularly.

### ACTION CO-5.3.3: LITTER AND DEBRIS REMOVAL

*Improve litter collection services, including regularly scheduled bulky item and yard waste pick-ups, to reduce debris problems in storm drains and illegal dumping in Oakland's creeks.*

### ACTION CO-5.3.4: STREET SWEEPING IMPROVEMENTS

*Investigate options for increasing street sweeping services (and providing street sweeping in unserviced areas) so that debris can be removed before it reaches the storm sewer system.*

### ACTION CO-5.3.5: MITIGATION OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND DREDGING IMPACTS

*Continue to use the environmental review process to ensure that future road construction and dredging projects incorporate measures to protect water quality in potentially impacted lakes, creeks, wetlands, and nearshore waters. Consider developing standard mitigation measures for future road improvement and dredging projects in collaboration with Caltrans and the Port.*

Dredging of the Estuary is an economic necessity and has many beneficial impacts. At the same time, dredging can disrupt toxic metals on the floor of Bay and create turbid water conditions that affect marine life. The possibility of adverse impacts requires that dredging be done according to prescribed methods and that the water and sediments be closely monitored.

### ACTION CO-5.3.6: HAZARDOUS SPILLS PREVENTION

*Periodically update the Emergency Management Plan for spills.*

The City's Emergency Preparedness Plan deals with accidental spills from shipping, motor vehicles, and railroad accidents and has been coordinated with County and regional agency plans for underground tank clean-up. The Plan should be periodically updated and reviewed, and its provisions for hazardous materials transport, storage, and handling should be enforced.

<!-- page 133 -->
*ACTION CO-5.3.7: CLEAN-UP OF ESTUARY HOT SPOTS*

*Work with the Port of Oakland on an on-going basis to clean-up toxic hot spots, prevent further pollutant accumulation, compile and monitor water quality data, and develop a clean-up plan for live-aboards (houseboats) in Oakland waters.*

***

A major source of pollution in the Oakland Estuary is marine vessel waste, including waste dumped overboard from ships, and sanitary waste, oil, grease, and soap residues from houseboats and other docked vessels. Houseboats ("live-aboards") are required to follow state and federal regulations that prohibit sewage discharge into water. However, enforcement of these regulations is difficult and compliance is less than perfect. The newer boats are equipped with holding tanks but some older boats may not be.

The City and Port of Oakland should work with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to develop a long-term solution to illegal discharges from houseboats. This could include retrofitting older boats with marine sanitation devices or installing centrally located holding tanks with pump-outs to collect waste from berthed houseboats.

***

*ACTION CO-5.3.8: LITTER LAW ENFORCEMENT*

*Vigorously enforce anti-litter laws through the "We Mean Clean" program and other anti-dumping campaigns, paying special attention to illicit dumping in creeks and drainageways (see also Action CO-6.2.2).*

***

During the past decade, the City has launched several anti-litter campaigns which have curbed illicit dumping. Still, there is room for improvement. Continued local efforts to reduce dumping and improper disposal of hazardous wastes should be supported.

*ACTION CO-5.3.9: PUBLIC EDUCATION ON URBAN RUNOFF HAZARDS*

*Support the public education provisions of the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program including storm drain stenciling and outreach campaigns on household hazardous waste disposal and alternatives to toxic herbicides and fertilizers.*

***

The County's Clean Water Program identified a need for public information and education to increase awareness of water quality problems and to reduce illicit discharges. Much of this information can be disseminated at the local level. Oakland recently began a storm drain stenciling program, with messages painted on storm drains indicating that runoff flows to the Bay or Lake Merritt. More than 5,000 drains have been stenciled and more than 300 volunteers have participated. Continuation of this program is supported.

Educational materials which indicate the harm caused by disposing paint, household chemicals, oils, soap, etc. into the storm drains can be very helpful. Educational programs or school curricula on the subject are strongly supported.

*ACTION CO-5.3.10: LAKE MERRITT CATCH BASINS AND TRASH RECEPTACLES*

*As funding permits, install storm drains at the Glen Echo and Trestle Glen arms of Lake Merritt to reduce the need for regular dredging. Replace the cardboard garbage bins around the Lake with sturdier receptacles to further reduce debris in the water.*

***

Water quality in Lake Merritt is negatively affected by urban runoff from its watershed. Heavy rains (and occasional closure of the tidal gates) may cause large quantities of nutrients and pollutants to wash into the lake. Leaves and other organic matter tend to mound up and decay at the Trestle Glen and Glen Echo arms of the lake, producing very shallow water depths and a "rotten egg" odor.

<!-- page 134 -->
<<FIGURE>>

*The Glen Echo arm is one of the two major points where urban runoff enters Lake Merritt.*

The catch basins described in this Action would reduce sediment inflow and allow pollutants to be screened and settled out. This would improve the clarity and depth of lake water in the arms and reduce the foul odors. Continue seasonal monitoring of the lake's vital signs, including algae growth, and bottom and surface dissolved oxygen levels, is also recommended.

### ACTION CO-5.3.11: IMPROVED SEWAGE COLLECTION AND TREATMENT

*Reduce water pollution from sanitary sewer collection and treatment systems, including wastewater collection lines and the regional treatment plant. Continue the systemwide improvement program to correct infiltration and inflow problems in the East Bay Municipal Utility District and City sewer systems.*

On of the major contributors to water pollution in Oakland is the periodic release of raw sewage into the Bay, Lake Merritt, Estuary, and city streets when interceptors or treatment plants are overloaded by winter storms. Infiltration and inflow are caused by broken pipes, deteriorated joints, and direct connections between sanitary sewers and storm drains. A 1986 EIR reported that in a typical year, 180 million gallons of dilute raw sewage in the EBMUD service area flowed to the nearshore areas of the Bay, with backups occurring about ten times a year.

In response to the problem, EBMUD and its service area cities are undertaking a 20-year project to replace much of the wastewater and stormwater collection system. An extensive network of relief sewers is now being built. A wet weather facility is planned along the Lake Merritt tidal channel to temporarily store and treat storm overflows. The facility will complement an existing wet weather facility on San Leandro Bay.

EBMUD is also the largest water discharger in the City, with about 26 billion gallons of effluent discharged from its various facilities in 1990. Tremendous improvements in effluent quality have been made since the mid-1970s, when the plant was upgraded from primary to secondary treatment. Even so, annual discharge from the EBMUD system still includes more than 3.5 million pounds of total suspended solids, over 1.1 million pounds of oil and grease, 25,000 pounds of zinc, 4,600 pounds of nickel, 4,098 pounds of copper, and 1,518 pounds of chromium. As wastewater treatment technology advances, additional improvements may become possible. The City supports continued cost-effective improvements to the treatment plant and wet weather system.

<!-- page 135 -->
### ACTION CO-5.3.12: INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION

*Coordinate water quality planning, regulation, and programs with other public agencies involved in water resource management. Establish task forces with adjoining cities as needed to develop mitigation programs for projects with water quality impacts that could potentially cross jurisdictional lines. Work with the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the Regional Water Quality Control Board in their efforts to expand runoff and sediment sampling and monitoring in Oakland.*

---

This action suggests that expanded monitoring programs be considered to achieve State and federal standards. The County's Urban Runoff Plan has already established an Industrial Discharger Identification Program and has targeted several hundred companies in Oakland for inspection. The City's new Stormwater Management Ordinance gives it the authority to expand this program and establish sampling and monitoring devices on any property where it is deemed necessary.

A fee-supported water monitoring program could be considered in the future. Under such a program, Oakland could make runoff monitoring a condition of approval when renewing certain kinds of Conditional Use Permits. Impact fees would be needed to recover the program cost. Because such action could have negative economic consequences, particularly on small businesses, it should be approached very cautiously. It may be determined that the best approach is to continue the current arrangement and rely on the County and Regional Boards for sampling and monitoring.

### POLICY CO-5.4: DEVELOPMENT IN RESERVOIR WATERSHEDS

Discourage development in the watersheds of East Bay Municipal Utility District reservoirs, including Upper San Leandro Reservoir. When development does occur, require measures to detain or treat urban runoff. Detain or treat runoff from new or refurbished horse stables in the watershed wherever feasible.

---

As Figure 11 indicates, a small fraction of Oakland is located east of Skyline Ridge, on lands draining to Upper San Leandro Reservoir. The reservoir is part of the city's water supply and the surrounding watershed lands are mostly publicly owned and undeveloped. Redwood Creek, a primary tributary to the reservoir, also supports steelhead trout. Although first priority is to maintain the watershed lands as open space, some development may occur on private parcels within the city of Oakland. In such instances, mitigation measures should be specified to avoid water quality degradation from urban runoff.

### ACTION CO-5.4.1: RUNOFF FROM HORSE BOARDING FACILITIES

*Develop a program with property owners and operators of horse boarding facilities to reduce urban and animal waste runoff to Redwood Creek and Upper San Leandro Reservoir.*

---

There are also a number of horse stables in Oakland's Redwood Creek watershed. Runoff from the stables may have high concentrations of organic material and bacteria. Small detention ponds would allow some of the pollutants to settle out. Where feasible, new or refurbished horse boarding facilities in the watershed should incorporate measures to detain on-site runoff.

<!-- page 136 -->
<<FIGURE>>

City of Oakland
Open Space, Conservation
and Recreation Element

### Figure 11: Watershed
### Boundaries

Watershed Boundaries

Note: Areas not contained in a watershed
drain directly to the bay or estuary
in the storm drain system.

Source: Alameda County P[^ ]ks, 1992

<!-- page 137 -->
<<FIGURE>>

Runoff from parcels east of Skyline Ridge may eventually end up in Upper San Leandro Reservoir, part of the City's water supply.

### ACTION CO-5.4.2: URBAN RUNOFF IN RESERVOIR WATERSHEDS

*Investigate a variety of regulatory tools, including zoning, conservation easements, transfer of development rights, and mandatory detention or pre-treatment of urban runoff, to minimize the impact of development on water quality in Upper San Leandro Reservoir and other East Bay Municipal Utility District watersheds.*

## OBJECTIVE CO-6: SURFACE WATERS

**To protect the ecology and promote the beneficial uses of Oakland's creeks, lakes, and nearshore waters.**

Oakland's surface waters consist of creeks, flood control channels, lakes, and San Francisco Bay. As the Open Space Chapter of this Plan points out, the ecology of these waters has been seriously compromised by flood control and urbanization.

The city's creeks have been altered by erosion, removal of vegetation, dumping, and runoff from city streets and construction sites. Many miles of the creek system have been completely buried. Despite these conditions, there is much that can be done to preserve what is left of Oakland's creek system and even restore some of the resources that have been stripped away.

Like the creeks, Oakland's three major lakes have also have been impacted by urban development, especially by urban runoff and filling of wetlands along the shorelines. In contrast to the creeks, public access to the lakes is extensive and recreational activities on the water and surrounding lands are abundant. Each lake is the focal point of a park of regional significance. The lakes are symbolic of all of Oakland's positive aspects and there is tremendous public interest in their conservation, protection, and continued use for recreation.

Beyond the creeks and lakes, San Francisco Bay and Estuary waters constitute about a third of the area within Oakland's city limits. The Bay is Oakland's most important water resource, providing habitat for marine and terrestrial life; great scenic, recreational, and commercial value; and even beneficial climatic and air quality effects. It is the largest estuarine system in California, draining nearly 40 percent of the State. As one of the world's great natural harbors, planning for the future use of Bay waters and protection of its ecology are fundamental.

*(See policies under Objectives OS-7 and OS-8 for a discussion of creek and shoreline access).*

<!-- page 138 -->
### POLICY CO-6.1: CREEK MANAGEMENT

**Protect Oakland's remaining natural creek segments by retaining creek vegetation, maintaining creek setbacks, and controlling bank erosion. Design future flood control projects to preserve the natural character of creeks and incorporate provisions for public access, including trails, where feasible. Strongly discourage projects which bury creeks or divert them into concrete channels.**

The intent of this policy is to protect Oakland's creeks from additional urban encroachment and to enhance their aesthetic and habitat value. The policy recognizes that the approach to creek conservation will vary for private properties, institutional uses, flood control easements, and city-owned properties. On private property, the emphasis should be on maintaining setbacks, restricting vegetation removal, preventing erosion, and enforcing litter laws.

These requirements are embodied in the city's revised Stormwater Management Ordinance. The ordinance prohibits development within 20 feet from the top of a creekbank without a permit and prohibits changes to the natural flow of water in a watercourse. While the ordinance is a significant step towards creek protection, it still gives the Director of Public Works authority to issue a permit for creek alteration. Design guidelines and criteria for issuing such permits are needed.

New development along creeks can also be required to take more pro-active measures to restore creek habitat, especially where banks have eroded, garbage has been dumped, or vegetation has been removed. Revegetation of creekbanks and stabilization of banks will be promoted wherever feasible and may be required as a condition of development approval where appropriate. Consideration might also be given to establishing conservation easements within the 20-foot creek setback in new developments.

Where creekside development is permitted, it should be of a bulk and density appropriate to the site. Building out to the maximum envelope permitted by zoning may be inappropriate for many creekfront properties. In the past, such development has resulted in buildings resting on massive concrete retaining walls over creeks, causing erosion on downstream properties. In the future, design guidelines should ensure that such projects minimize downstream impacts as well as negative aesthetic impacts.

<<FIGURE>>

*Much of Oakland's past development has been unsympathetic to creeks, with structures often placed very close to the tops of eroding creekbanks.*

<!-- page 139 -->
### ACTION CO-6.1.1: PREPARATION OF CREEKS MASTER PLAN

*Develop an "Oakland Creeks Master Plan" with provisions for creek protection, site planning, restoration, maintenance and clean-up, public access, and education. Identify specific locations appropriate for linear parks, trails, and other access points in the Plan.*

Completion of this action is contingent on funding of the project. The availability of foundation grants, Department of Water Resources Grants, and other possible sources should be investigated. A significant portion of the baseline data required to complete this plan has already been compiled through the OSCAR Update. The major task now is to develop the design guidelines and ordinance language for future development along creeks. Special attention in the Creeks Plan should be given to inventorying which specific watercourses are "creeks" and what provisions (if any) may be appropriate for other intermittent drainage courses (swales, gullies, etc.).

### ACTION CO-6.1.2: IMPROVEMENTS TO WATERCOURSE PROTECTION ORDINANCE

*Strengthen the Watercourse Protection Ordinance by adding development guidelines for properties abutting creeks and drainage courses, and provisions for conservation easements. These guidelines and provisions should ensure that natural drainage patterns are maintained as much as possible when new development occurs.*

The current ordinance establishes setbacks along creeks and prohibits a wide range of specific activities in the setback without a permit. The ordinance also prohibits illicit discharges and requires landowners along creeks to keep the watercourses free of debris and trash. However, the focus of the ordinance is still on the quality of incoming water rather than the ecology of the creek. Design guidelines for development along creeks could provide further protection.

### ACTION CO-6.1.3: FLOOD CONTROL DESIGN GUIDELINES

*Form a task force with the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to develop design guidelines or standards for flood control projects.*

Such guidelines would help ensure that flood control projects preserve the natural character of creeks as much as possible. Creative, ecologically-sensitive alternatives to burying or diverting creeks will be encouraged. One option would be to develop landscaped holding ponds at a few key points along the creek. Another might be to build bypass culverts for stormwater underneath the creek while retaining the creek itself. Still another might be to use gabions and terraced retaining walls rather than concrete ditches.

### ACTION CO-6.1.4: CHANGES TO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

*Amend the City's Environmental Review regulations so that proximity to creeks is specifically considered when determining if a project is categorically exempt from further environmental review. Amend the City's Initial Study checklist to ensure that proximity to creeks is duly considered.*

Currently, a wide range of development projects may be categorically exempted from environmental review. This proposed amendment would still allow such projects to be exempt, but would add creek impacts to the list of criteria that are considered before that determination is made.

<!-- page 140 -->
### POLICY CO-6.2: CREEK MAINTENANCE AND SAFETY

**Strictly enforce local, state, and federal laws and ordinances on the maintenance of creeks and watercourses. Abate health and safety hazards along and within creeks through a variety of measures, including creek clean-up programs, stronger enforcement of litter and anti-dumping laws, and vegetation maintenance requirements for properties abutting creeks.**

Existing laws require property owners to maintain the creeks and watercourses on their properties unless an easement for maintenance has been acquired by another entity, namely the County Flood Control District or the City of Oakland.

Alameda County Flood Control is responsible for the lower reaches of most of Oakland's creeks. Their maintenance program focuses on the removal of large debris which could cause flooding or erosion rather than on-going preventative measures. The City of Oakland is responsible for creeks flowing through city parks, major culverts within street rights of way, and improved channels built by the City. Prior to the passage of Proposition 13[^p140-1], four three-man crews maintained these watercourses. Since 1978[^p140-2], decreased revenues have forced the elimination of all watercourse maintenance except where property is threatened by flooding or erosion. In these cases, crews assigned to other duties respond as they become available.

Maintenance of other watercourses in the city is the responsibility of the individual property owner. The City's Stormwater Management Ordinance requires landowners to keep the watercourse free of trash, debris, excessive vegetation, and other obstacles which could pollute, contaminate, or retard the flow of water.

Patterns of property ownership and "leapfrogged" flood control easements complicate the maintenance situation. For instance, Sausal Creek in the Upper Fruitvale neighborhood includes some reaches maintained by the Flood Control District, some maintained by the City, and some maintained by private landowners. Not surprisingly, there is confusion among residents over who is responsible for what. The declining level of maintenance has led to demands by many creek neighbors for a more coordinated approach.

Without the funds to step up maintenance, the program emphasis has been on public education, anti-dumping campaigns, and community-based clean-up efforts. Public education can be facilitated through a number of programs addressed in Policy CO-6.3. Ultimately, neighbor vigilance (and peer pressure) may be the most effective way to curb dumping. Access barriers, "No Dumping" signs, community creek clean-ups, and an Illegal Dumping hotline have all been implemented to address the problem.

The City should continue to support these efforts. To date, creek restoration programs have touched only a small fraction of Oakland's creeks and have been funded by grants and other one-time sources. A stable, long-term funding source is needed to effectively carry out a city-wide creek program.

### ACTION CO-6.2.1: COMMUNITY CREEK CLEAN-UPS

***Promote and support community-organized restoration and clean up projects along creeks, incorporating such projects into the existing "We Mean Clean" anti-litter campaign where appropriate.***

Community-based creek clean-ups are currently coordinated by advocacy groups and neighborhood groups, with the Office of Parks and Recreation supplying bags and arranging for trash disposal (See also Action CO-5.3.8).

<!-- page 141 -->
### ACTION CO-6.2.2: INCREASED PENALTIES FOR DUMPING

*Study the feasibility of increasing fines and penalties for dumping in creeks or creating a new ordinance which is specifically aimed at creek dumping. Also consider measures which make it easier to report violations (including a creeks hotline phone number) and which publicize the names of violators (as a disincentive to others).*

***

### ACTION CO-6.2.3: NEW FUNDING SOURCES FOR MAINTENANCE

*Seek on-going funding sources for a regular creek maintenance program comparable to the program that existed prior to 1978. At a minimum, provide sufficient manpower to enable the City's Clean Water inspectors to investigate all citizen complaints regarding creek erosion, alteration, and dumping.*

***

### POLICY CO-6.3: CREEK AWARENESS

**Encourage and support programs which educate the public, especially school children, on the ecological importance of creeks.**

***

Programs to increase creek awareness are being sponsored by private organizations, Oakland schools, and the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program. "Kids in Creeks" is funded by the Clean Water Program and has developed a curriculum specifically designed to educate elementary school children about creeks. "Kids in Creeks" has also held seminars for Oakland school teachers and has provided resources for those teachers.

The Clean Water program has also involved many teachers and students in storm drain stenciling and has begun an aggressive public information program that includes billboards, public service announcements, and newspaper advertisements. The County Flood Control District has begun a public information campaign to curb illicit dumping in creeks. Finally, the Oakland Museum has published a Guide to East Bay Creeks, which includes a detailed description of the geology, biology, and cultural history of the region's creeks, including maps and creek walks.

***

### ACTION CO-6.3.1: PARTICIPATION IN KIDS IN CREEKS PROGRAM

*Continue to participate in Kids In Creeks and other public educational and informational programs sponsored by the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program.*

***

### ACTION CO-6.3.2: FLYER FOR CREEKFRONT LANDOWNERS

*Pursue grant or non-profit assistance in preparing an educational flyer for property owners along creeks which includes requirements and guidelines for creek maintenance, erosion prevention, debris removal, and vegetation management (see also Action 5.3.9 regarding storm drain stenciling).*

***

### POLICY 6.4: LAKE MANAGEMENT

**Manage Oakland's lakes to take advantage of their recreational and aesthetic potential while conserving their ecological functions and resource value. Discourage new recreational uses which impair the ability of the lakes to support fish and wildlife. Support improvements which enhance water circulation, water quality, and habitat value, provided they are cost-effective and are compatible with established recreational activities.**

***

Lake Merritt, Lake Temescal, and Lake Chabot are man-made lakes providing many benefits for Oakland. Each of the lakes has had a significant role in shaping Oakland's history.

*Lake Merritt was created in 1869 when a dam was built across the tidal marshes at the top of what was once San Antonio Slough (now the Oakland Estuary). Conflicts over the use of the lake date back to its origin. A year*

<!-- page 142 -->
after it was created, Lake Merritt became the first wildlife refuge in North America. Around the same time, it became the city's primary sewage disposal facility, receiving 90 percent of Oakland's wastes by 1877.

Despite a 1916 effort to make the lake an inland bathing resort, water contact recreation has been prohibited since 1912. Today, the lake remains extremely popular for boating, including pedal boats, rowboats, canoes, and rowing shells. Fishing is popular at the head of the Tidal Channel. The shores of the lake are used intensively for jogging, walking, picnicking, and festivals. These functions co-exist, sometimes precariously, with the lake's function as a wintering spot on the Pacific Flyway and a receiving water body for a densely developed 4,600 acre watershed.

*Lake Temescal* was created by the damming of Temescal Creek in 1866 to create Oakland's first water supply reservoir. Recreational use of the lake dates back to the turn of the century, when a sand beach was built along the shore and a commuter electric train station was built near the spillway. The lake was acquired by the Regional Park District in 1936 and is now the centerpiece of an urban park featuring swimming and fishing. The lake receives flow from a 1,600-acre watershed in western Montclair and the Caldecott Tunnel area.

Over the years, water quality in Lake Temescal has been impacted by logging, road and rail construction, and urban development. Sedimentation from eroding hillsides and grading is the most visible problem and requires that the lake be dredged from time to time. About 500 cubic yards of silt are removed from the lake's catch basin during a normal year. Other measures are used to keep nutrient and coliform bacteria concentrations down.

*Lake Chabot* forms the southeast city boundary for about a mile in the South Oakland Hills. Most of the 315-acre reservoir is located in unincorporated Alameda County. Chabot was the mainstay of the East Bay's water supply between 1875 and 1915. The Lake was placed on standby status in 1962, meaning its water would be used only in emergencies. Since 1952, it has been part of the East Bay Regional Park system. Unlike Lakes Merritt and Temescal, the watershed is predominantly undeveloped. Some siltation is produced by unpaved roads, trails, and slope failures.

Lake Chabot Regional Park includes a marina which contains docks for canoes, rowboats, pedal boats, and electric (non-gasoline) motor boats. Several fishing docks are located on the east and west shores and there is a shoreline trail for biking and hiking. Body contact water sports are prohibited since the lake is an emergency water supply.

### ACTION CO-6.4.1: LAKE MERRITT PARKS MASTER PLAN

***Prepare a Master Plan for the Lake Merritt parklands which addresses, among other things, appropriate activities for the surface waters and uses along the shoreline which affect fish and wildlife.***

The lake's twin function as a wildlife refuge and major urban park creates conflicts between activities on and around the water. A Master Plan should be prepared to specifically address these conflicts and identify future uses for the surface waters *(see also Action CO-5.3.10).*

<<FIGURE>>

*Lake Merritt's function as a wildlife refuge must compete with its use as a popular urban park.*

<!-- page 143 -->
### ACTION CO-6.4.2: LAKE TEMESCAL DREDGING

*Vigorously enforce erosion and sedimentation controls in the fire-damaged Oakland Hills to reduce adverse water quality impacts on, and the need for dredging of, Lake Temescal.*

---

### POLICY CO-6.5: PROTECTION OF BAY AND ESTUARY WATERS

**Protect the surface waters of the San Francisco Estuary system, including San Francisco Bay, San Leandro Bay, and the Oakland Estuary. Discourage shoreline activities which negatively impact marine life in the water and marshland areas.**

While Oakland's waters are probably best known for commercial shipping, they also provide a rich and productive environment for plant and animal life. Big skate, sand dabs, turbot, herring, topsmelt, anchovy, flounder, yellowfin goby, and sand sole may be found offshore, as well as occasional salmon, trout, striped bass, sturgeon, and shad. The shallow waters also provide critical habitat for migratory birds, including several rare and endangered species. The mud on the Bay floor supports clams, snails, oysters, mussels, and microscopic diatoms.

A range of regional, state, and federal agencies monitor and regulate the use of bay waters. These agencies promote (or require) the bay's use for various "beneficial" purposes, such as fishing, navigation, recreational boating, shellfish harvesting, and conservation. Oakland can ensure the beneficial use of its nearshore waters by guiding the land-based activities which use the water directly or which may impact the water indirectly.

This policy is not intended to introduce a new layer of regulatory control over the shoreline or water. It affirms the City's support for the federal, state, and regional laws which protect San Francisco Bay.

### ACTION CO-6.5.1: ASSISTANCE ON LONG-TERM DREDGING STRATEGY

*Provide technical assistance and data as needed to assist the Army Corps of Engineers in their efforts to develop a long-term management strategy for dredging the Oakland Estuary.*

A long-term management strategy for dredging is currently being developed by the Army Corps of Engineers. This should address the issue of future dredge spoils disposal and should avoid the often lengthy and expensive delays that occur each time dredging is proposed.

### ACTION CO-6.5.2: ZONING OF SAN LEANDRO BAY

*Delete the heavy manufacturing (M-40) zoning designation which currently applies to the open waters of San Leandro Bay.*

San Leandro Bay is the remnant of a huge marsh which once occupied thousands of acres at the mouth of San Leandro Creek. Most of the marsh was filled in for construction of Oakland Airport and expansion of Bay Farm Island, but about 1,000 acres of shallow water, mudflats, and salt marshes remains intact today. Earlier plans for Oakland had visions of apartments and marinas along the shoreline and exhibition water skiing on the water.

Today, virtually the entire Bay and shoreline are protected as parkland. However, the Bay and its perimeter still appear as heavy industrial zones on the Oakland zoning map. Since the Bay is within Port of Oakland boundaries and is not subject to City zoning, this designation should be removed from the map. If Port lands should be subject to City zoning at a future date, a Resource Conservation designation should be applied here.

<!-- page 144 -->
### ACTION CO-6.5.3: UPDATE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. SHORELINE MASTER PLAN

*Work with the East Bay Regional Park District to update the Master Plan for Martin Luther King, Jr. Regional Shoreline Park with the goal of protecting San Leandro Bay's function as a resource conservation area.*

The park's current Master Plan was prepared in 1977 and generally supports conservation of the Bay as a wildlife refuge. The Plan should be updated to re-state this objective, respond to current conditions, and protect the waters from potential encroaching uses.

Shoreline activities which negatively impact marine life in the water and marshland areas should be discouraged. Activities both on water and land should be consistent with the Bay's character as an estuarine sanctuary. The City supports continued use of the bay for non-motorized sailing and kayaking, and limited development of interpretive nature facilities which promote an understanding of the marsh ecology.

<<FIGURE>>

Although earlier city plans envisioned San Leandro Bay as Oakland's "second Lake Merritt," most of the shoreline is now dedicated as parkland.

### ACTION CO-6.5.4: ALTERNATIVES TO 66TH AVENUE BRIDGE

*Do not support the proposal for a 66th Avenue bridge from Oakland to Alameda due to its adverse impact on the character and ecology of San Leandro Bay. Work with Caltrans and the City of Alameda to develop suitable alternatives to the project, including a tunnel or surface crossing south of Arrowhead Marsh.*

A bridge from the end of 66th Avenue to Doolittle Drive (at Harbor Bay Parkway) has been proposed at various times during the past few decades and is identified as a future improvement in the City of Alameda General Plan. The bridge would bisect San Leandro Bay and would have significant visual and ecological impacts. The City of Oakland opposes the bridge and is committed to developing other solutions to traffic circulation across San Leandro Bay, including a tunnel.

### POLICY CO-6.6: RESTRICTION ON BAY FILL

*Prohibit bay fill unless there is compelling evidence that its benefits will outweigh the environmental and other costs. In such instances, support compliance with the mitigation requirements of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission and other regulatory agencies.*

This policy strengthens an existing City policy discouraging the filling of the Estuary and Bay. Since 1850, more than 40 percent of the Bay's surface--some 120,000 acres--has been eliminated by landfill. Over the years, dredge spoils, construction and demolition debris, concrete blocks, industrial slag, and kiln bricks have been used to create development areas for industry, airports, marine terminals, military bases, highways, and a variety of other land uses. As a result of State and federal legislation and in response to citizen activism, the Port has shifted its emphasis to redeveloping obsolete terminals and industrial areas rather than filling in the water for expansion.

<!-- page 145 -->
It should be recognized that there may be instances where the benefits of fill are found to outweigh the environmental costs. For example, a ferry terminal might provide air quality and economic benefits which ultimately offset the loss of habitat and open water. A fishing pier or interpretive boardwalk could have long-term recreational or educational benefits which offset the short-term construction impacts on fish and wildlife. In these instances, a variety of state and federal agencies will dictate mitigation measures which offset or compensate for the impacts.

***

#### *ACTION CO-6.6.1: LAND USE DIAGRAM CHANGE*

*Remove the Land Use Diagram designation of the offshore area north of the Bay Bridge as an "Area Reserved for Possible Future Shipping Facilities."*

***

#### *ACTION CO-6.6.2: MACARTHUR MAZE MODIFICATIONS*

*Require future modifications to the "MacArthur Maze" freeway interchange (I-580/I-80/I-880), including the Cypress freeway replacement and the I-80 carpool flyover, to minimize bay fill and fully mitigate any impacts on wetlands or nearshore waters.*

<!-- page 146 -->
# PLANT AND ANIMAL RESOURCES

When Oakland was initially settled, groves of coast live oak stood near the shore and the hills were crowned by redwoods so tall they were used as a landmark for ships navigating their way into the bay. The woods sheltered deer, bear, mountain lion, raccoons, rabbits, quail, and other small animals, while the marshes were home to ducks, curlew, plover, snipe and cranes. The earth was covered with wildflowers in the spring and with tall grasses during the summer. The waters and mudflats of San Francisco Bay teemed with crabs, salmon, sturgeon, smelt, rock cod, shrimp, clams, and mussels.

The first changes to the natural landscape were made by Native American settlers and by the missionaries who planted fruit orchards and vineyards on the northern lands of the Mission San Jose. By the 1840s, cattle, goats, pigs, sheep, horses, and mules grazed much of modern-day Oakland. During the 1850s, the Peralta Ranch was subdivided and hundreds of small farms were established on the flat and rolling lands around the villages of Oakland and Brooklyn. By the 1880s, Fruitvale abounded with fruit trees while farms in East Oakland and Elmhurst produced carrots, beets, strawberries, and a variety of orchard crops. Wheat, hay, and other dry farm crops were planted on the lower slopes of what are now the Claremont and Rockridge neighborhoods. On the open hills and flatland prairies, European grasses became dominant; cattle grazing and fire suppression further reduced the native grasses and shrubs on the hills.

Timber clear-cutting began in the Oakland Hills around 1840. Redwoods as tall as 300 feet and as wide as 32 feet were cut and hauled to shipping points along the water between Oakland and Martinez. By 1852, there were four steam sawmills operating in the hills. The operation was so extensive that by 1860, hardly a tree remained. Fifty years after the removal of the redwoods, more than half a million imported eucalyptus seedlings were planted along the crest of the hills as part of a commercial timber speculation scheme. The hardy, fast-growing plant proved worthless for its intended use, but remains one of the most visible and persistent plant species in Oakland today.

Along the shoreline, dredging and filling of the tidal marshes began in 1859 when the sandbar blocking the mouth of the estuary was removed. During the decades that followed, Lake Merritt was dammed and flooded, the Estuary Channel was straightened and deepened, and the Estuary itself was pushed through to San Leandro Bay in 1901. Further deepening and dredging of the channel, as well as filling of the Bay for transportation, military, and shipping facilities, occurred throughout the early and mid 1900s. Thousands of acres of wetlands were lost in the process, nearly eliminating the habitat of many plant and animal species.

Between 1860 and 1945, virtually all of the orchards and fields in the city were developed with housing, commerce, and industry. A variety of non-native trees, shrubs, and ground cover were planted, displacing fruit trees and field crops, and introducing hundreds of temperate and semi-tropical species. Today, trees are a notable feature of the landscape from almost any vantage point in Oakland.

While the flatlands are almost fully developed, several thousand acres of undeveloped land remain in the hills and even much of the developed land has a forested character. The area's ecosystems are complex and sometimes delicate. Urban encroachment has threatened or eliminated plant and animal life in many locations. Moreover, the interface between urban development and wildlands has created the on-going threat of catastrophic wildfire. Management of development and vegetation in these areas is critical to avoid additional loss of species and to reduce the risk of wildfires like those that devastated the North Hills in 1991.

<!-- page 147 -->
### OBJECTIVE CO-7: PROTECTION OF NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES

To minimize the loss of native plant communities and restore these communities where they have been damaged or lost, and to preserve Oakland's trees unless there are compelling safety, ecological, public safety, or aesthetic reasons for their removal.

Oakland's plant communities generally consist of woodlands, brushlands, grasslands, and wetlands. Together, these communities comprise about 20 percent of the city. A fifth habitat type is associated with urban land, including residential yards, street trees, and vacant lots. Figure 12 shows the distribution of these habitats around the city and Table 4 presents acreage figures. More specific information on each community, including a description of common plants and animals, may be found in OSCAR Technical Report Volume One.

Over the past 150 years, most of Oakland's native plant communities have been removed by development, lumbering, farming, and grazing. A few areas in the city, mostly in the Hills and around San Leandro Bay, are still relatively intact. These areas still serve an important educational, aesthetic, and ecological function.

#### Table 4: Composition of Wildland Areas Within Oakland City Limits

| | Acres | Percent of Total Wildland Acreage |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Woodlands | 3,467 | 50.8 |
| Brushlands | 1,859 | 27.3 |
| Grasslands | 932 | 13.7 |
| Wetlands | 556 | 8.2 |
| | | |
| TOTAL | 6,814 | 100.0 |

Wildlands as percent of Oakland's
total land area: 19.8 %

Sources: *1992 Aerial Photos, 1"=2000' scale*
*Oakland Office of Planning and Building*

### POLICY CO-7.1: PROTECTION OF NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITIES

Protect native plant communities, especially oak woodlands, redwood forests, native perennial grasslands, and riparian woodlands, from the potential adverse impacts of development. Manage development in a way which prevents or mitigates adverse impacts to these communities.

Despite constraints like steep slopes and high fire hazards, the remaining oak woodland, redwood forest, and native grassland sites in the Oakland Hills will continue to be subject to residential development pressure in the future. The larger vacant sites, especially those adjacent to EBMUD, EBRPD, or city parklands provide habitat for many species, including rarely spotted species like coyotes and foxes. Other animals, including rodents, lizards, snakes, rabbits, and birds, are abundant on the smaller hillside sites, even those which are surrounded by development. Even in the flatlands, tree cover and creeks provide important habitat for plants and animals, especially birds. Most of the valuable habitat in the city is zoned for urban development, with little or no provision in the zoning ordinance made for conservation of these areas.

Although all plant communities have some degree of ecological value, four have been singled out as particularly important to conserve. *Oak woodlands*, dominated by the coast live oak, are among the most productive ecosystems in the city, providing breeding, nesting, and feeding grounds for more than 60 species of mammals and 100 species of birds. Oaks were once abundant on the flatlands and even inspired the city's founders when Oakland was named.

*Redwood forests* were nearly completely obliterated by logging more than a century ago. Only one tree was spared, a 400-year old specimen growing on a steep bank overlooking Leona Canyon. What remains today are primarily glades of 100-150 year old second growth trees, especially on the bottoms of canyons in the North Hills. Redwood forest habitat provides food and shelter for nearly 200 different species of wildlife, underscoring the importance of their management and conservation.

<!-- page 148 -->
<<FIGURE>>

City of Oakland
Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element

### Figure 12:
### Plant & Animal Communities
Office of Planning * **leg. 1995**

<!-- page 149 -->
The remaining patches of native perennial grass have relatively high biotic value due to their scarcity. Much of flatland Oakland was once covered by grasslands, but these were removed first for agriculture and then for urbanization. Several grassland communities, particularly serpentine bunchgrass and valley needlegrass, are rare and may be threatened by development.

Riparian woodlands are found along Oakland's creeks and streams, particularly those with year-round flow. They are particularly important in the flatlands due to the diversity of animal species they support. The vegetation usually consists of dense, broadleaf trees, shrubs, and vines. Filling riparian canyons to accommodate urban uses (or to construct flood control projects) was a common practice as recently as a decade ago. This has been detrimental to animal life, since riparian areas provide excellent habitat for many species and are also often migratory corridors.

The City will promote the conservation of these plant communities through a number of means, including land use controls, easements, and mitigation measures which minimize adverse impacts.

### ACTION CO-7.1.1: NATIVE PLANT MAPPING

**Map the remaining native oak woodlands, redwood forests, perennial grasslands, and other native plant communities within Oakland.**

A mapped survey of these habitat areas would be extremely helpful in developing a program for their long-term conservation. Additional research on urban habitat in the flatlands, in places like Trestle Glen and Oak Glen, also is recommended.

### ACTION CO-7.1.2: DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDIZED MITIGATION MEASURES

**Develop standardized mitigation measures for development on lands containing coast live oak woodland, redwood forests, native perennial grassland, and riparian woodland communities.**

One of the major hindrances to protecting these plant communities effectively now is the lack of consistent regulatory criteria. Standardized mitigation measures could be established for large developments which could impact these sensitive habitats. The measures would indicate how the habitat should be protected or replaced in the event the original habitat was removed or degraded. The measures might also designate buffer zones around the most sensitive habitat areas.

### ACTION CO-7.1.3: USE OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS

**Establish an Office of Planning and Building Standard Operating Procedure which encourages the use of conservation easements to protect native plant communities on private lands where development may be proposed in the future.**

Conservation easements are much less expensive than outright acquisition of land and can be an effective way of protecting habitat. They may be established as a condition of approval when development is proposed or as part of a voluntary program carried out on an on-going basis by the City or a resource conservation agency. In most cases and where legally permissible, individual homeowners would retain responsibility for maintenance within the conservation easement.

<!-- page 150 -->
<<FIGURE>>

*Riparian areas like this one along Peralta Creek support a diverse array of plant and animal life.*

### ACTION CO-7.1.4: RIPARIAN SETBACKS

*Where legally permissible, consider establishing a 150-foot setback along riparian corridors which are wholly contained on public lands.*

Such a setback would be possible in Claremont Canyon, parts of Dimond Canyon, Rifle Range Canyon, Upper Arroyo Viejo Canyon, and a number of other canyons in city and regional open space areas. Fill would be prohibited within 150 feet of either side of the watercourse in such instances. The setback could be established through the text of the proposed new Resource Conservation Zone (see also Policy CO-6.1 and associated actions on creek conservation).

### POLICY CO-7.2: NATIVE PLANT RESTORATION

Encourage efforts should to restore native plant communities in areas where they have been compromised by development or invasive species, provided that such efforts do not increase an area's susceptibility to wildfire.

Invasive plant species have compromised many of Oakland's natural plant communities. The problem is related both to non-native species like eucalyptus which have become dominant in some areas and to native species like poison oak and coyote bush which are spreading due to fire suppression. The lack of plant diversity has created a number of problems, including poorer habitat for wildlife and increased fire hazards. The City of Oakland, in conjunction with a number of other jurisdictions and agencies, has responded with an Oakland-Berkeley Hills Vegetation Management Plan. The Office of Parks and Recreation and Regional Park District also have on-going vegetation management programs, primarily aimed at fire suppression. These programs should continue in the future and be expanded as funding permits.

### ACTION CO-7.2.1: CONSIDERATION OF LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES

*Consider adopting landscape guidelines or standards which encourage the use of native plants on appropriate sites.*

The City can take a more pro-active role in perpetuating native plants by adopting landscape standards for new development. An ordinance which requires water-efficient landscaping is currently under consideration by the City Council. This ordinance could be amended in the future to add provisions for native or fire-resistant plants where appropriate.

<!-- page 151 -->
### ACTION CO-7.2.2: CONTROL OF INVASIVE SPECIES

On an on-going basis, work with the East Bay Regional Park District, the East Bay Municipal Utility District, and the University of California to control the spread of invasive species and protect native plant and animal habitat.

***

### POLICY CO-7.3: FORESTED CHARACTER

Make every effort to maintain the wooded or forested character of tree-covered lots when development occurs on such lots.

This reiterates existing city policy that wooded areas should be preserved and that native vegetation should be retained. A significant portion of the city consists of scattered vacant lots covered with woodland vegetation. Incremental development of these lots could change the character of many neighborhoods, particularly if the lots are cleared prior to development. While some vegetation removal is necessary to accommodate structures and avoid fire hazards, excessive tree clearance and creation of large artificial lawns is discouraged.

***

### ACTION CO-7.3.1: PREPARATION OF RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES

Prepare residential design guidelines which include provisions for retaining trees and other native vegetation when siting new buildings or additions.

Vegetation standards, or prescriptions, already exist in the S-11 overlay zone (Shepherd Canyon and Skyline Boulevard). These might be expanded to other neighborhoods during the comprehensive update of the zoning ordinance.

### ACTION CO-7.3.2: MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS

Require, implement, and enforce maintenance agreements and monitoring programs for new developments which ensure that new landscaping is properly cared for, particularly in commonly-owned private open space areas.

***

### POLICY CO-7.4: TREE REMOVAL

Discourage the removal of large trees on already developed sites unless removal is required for biological, public safety, or public works reasons.

The city's tree preservation ordinance requires a permit (and satisfaction of a number of conditions) prior to the removal of most species, with more restrictive requirements set for coast live oaks and redwoods. These standards should be maintained in the future and re-examined from time to time to ensure that they are still adequate and appropriate (see also Policy OS-12.3 on street tree removal).

<!-- page 152 -->
### POLICY CO-7.5: NON-NATIVE PLANT REMOVAL

**Do not remove non-native plants within park and open space areas solely because they are non-natives. Plant removal should be related to other valid management policies, including fire prevention.**

Where non-native plants are removed, they should be replaced with an appropriate native species or with a non-native species that is specifically called for in a landscape or vegetation management plan. This policy builds on the East Bay Regional Park District's existing vegetation management policies. It recognizes that non-native species can potentially serve positive functions, including erosion control and land stabilization, wildlife habitat, shade, and scenic beauty. Eradication should only occur in conjunction with an overall management strategy.

<<FIGURE>>

Removal of these eucalyptus above Knowland Park is part of a coordinated vegetation management strategy.

### POLICY CO-7.6: REHABILITATION OF DAMAGED OR DEAD VEGETATION

**Encourage programs which rehabilitate, enhance, or replace damaged or dead vegetation as appropriate.**

This is an restatement of an existing city policy dating from the mid-1970s. That policy was aimed at removal of eucalyptus trees damaged or killed by a 1972 freeze. Today, the policy may be applied to trees damaged or killed by the 1990 freeze and the 1991 firestorm. There are also many parts of Oakland, including urban parks, where trees were damaged by the 1988-1992 drought. Other trees have simply come to end of their natural lives and need to be replaced.

#### ACTION CO-7.6.1: LONG-TERM TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN AND FIRESTORM REFORESTATION

*Develop a long-term plan for maintaining and replacing Oakland's aging trees and reforesting the 1991 firestorm area.*

Although the City lacks the funds to completely restore its damaged or dead vegetation, it must plan now for the next century. A long-term plan and strategy for maintaining and replacing damaged or aging trees should be developed. This plan should include provisions for the continued reforestation of the area burned in the 1991 Hills Fire.

#### ACTION CO-7.6.2: SUPPORT FOR CONSERVATION CORPS

*Provide staff assistance as needed to support the East Bay Conservation Corps' efforts to undertake reforestation and greening projects within Oakland.*

<!-- page 153 -->
### OBJECTIVE CO-8: WETLANDS

**To conserve wetlands so that they may continue to provide habitat for fish and wildlife.**

***

Until recently, wetlands might have been described as Oakland's most under-appreciated ecosystem. For years they were filled and dredged to make way for industrial or shipping activities. Attitudes towards these areas have changed as their ecological significance has become better understood and today there a host of agencies and laws which regulate their use. Though they may lack the striking beauty of an oak-studded hillside or redwood forest, wetlands are tremendously productive environments and are home to dozens of species of plants and animals.

A major portion of Oakland's wetlands are found in the mile-long crescent north of the Bay Bridge approach and in San Leandro Bay. All of San Leandro Bay (with the exception of its dredged channels) is classified as an estuarine wetland. Pockets of wetlands also exist throughout the Oakland Airport and on the airport perimeter. Wetlands located between the Bay Bridge and San Leandro Bay were largely eliminated during the creation of Oakland's harbor and shipping facilities.

***

### POLICY CO-8.1: MITIGATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS

**Work with federal, state, and regional agencies on an on-going basis to determine mitigation measures for development which could potentially impact wetlands. Strongly discourage development with unmitigatable adverse impacts.**

***

Despite the City's limited jurisdiction in regulating wetlands, its authority to regulate and plan land use and transportation facilities affects the health of wetland areas. Oakland is committed to protecting wetlands and discouraging projects which could adversely impact its remaining salt marshes and mudflats. Where such projects must be constructed, wetland impacts should be adequately mitigated. This could require creating new wetlands of comparable value in other parts of the Bay, or providing areas of replacement wetlands larger than the areas sacrificed. When replacement wetlands are provided, efforts should be made to provide them in as close proximity as possible to the impacted site.

As stated earlier in this Plan, this policy is not intended to introduce a new layer of regulation to Port activities. It is a statement of City support for enforcement of the federal and state laws which protect wetlands and regulate their use.

***

### ACTION CO-8.1.1: MITIGATION PLANNING AND MONITORING

***Support development of mitigation plans and monitoring programs for projects which may impact wetlands, including the Interstate 80 carpool flyover and the northwesterly extension of Runway 29/11 onto existing fill at Oakland International Airport.***

As currently proposed, the I-80 project would encroach onto the Emeryville Crescent wetlands. The airport expansion would impact an artificially filled area created in the 1970s which includes pockets of non-tidal wetlands. In both cases, mitigation plans will be required before the project is carried out.

***

### ACTION CO-8.1.2: MAINTENANCE OF WETLAND BUFFERS

***Work with the Port to establish "buffers" or mandatory setbacks on the perimeter of wetlands.***

Even if all filling were halted, Oakland's wetlands could still be threatened by runoff and other impacts from nearby upland sites. This action would explore a setback on parcels abutting designated wetland areas. Development within the setback would be regulated to contain or divert stormwater runoff, encourage landscaping typical of natural upland areas along the shoreline, and prohibit certain activities which could imperil wildlife. Within Martin Luther King, Jr.

<!-- page 154 -->
Regional Shoreline, this could include restricting dogs within the setback or prohibiting parking lots which drain to the wetlands.

***

### POLICY CO-8.2: WETLAND PARK ACTIVITIES

**Limit recreational uses within wetland "parks" to activities that are consistent with the fragile environmental characteristics of the areas. These uses may include wildlife refuges, ecological study areas, and where appropriate, interpretive boardwalks and nature centers.**

***

The acquisition of San Leandro Bay as a regional park has had many beneficial impacts; however, care must be taken to ensure that recreational development does not negatively impact plants and animals. Wetlands should not be filled to accommodate playing fields, parking lots, or picnic areas. Interpretive walkways and boardwalks would generally be appropriate. The emphasis in most wetland areas should be on passive uses and resource protection.

***

#### *ACTION CO-8.2.1: WETLAND ACCESS LIMITATIONS*

***Limit public access within the Emeryville Crescent, Damon Marsh, Arrowhead Marsh, and Fan Marsh. Align the Bay Trail to minimize adverse impacts on wetlands. Where access is provided, use elevated boardwalks only.***

***

## OBJECTIVE CO-9: RARE, ENDANGERED, AND THREATENTED SPECIES

**To protect rare, endangered, and threatened species from the impacts of urbanization.**

***

Oakland is home to a number of plant and animal species that are either in danger of extinction or present in very limited numbers. These "special status species" have been identified by the federal and state governments as requiring protection and conservation. They are threatened to varying degrees by loss of habitat, water pollution, and impacts related to urbanization. The California Native Plant Society has also developed a list of rare and endangered plants, and under the California Environmental Quality Act, these species are also provided limited protection. Chapter 3 of OSCAR Technical Report Volume One provides additional information on special status species.

Both federal and State law prohibit approval of any project which would significantly impact any federally listed species without first specifying appropriate mitigation measures. These measures must reduce impacts to insignificant levels, although the determination of "significance" is relative, not absolute. Direct destruction of nesting areas, as well as indirect impacts such as pollution of food sources and elimination of habitat, are prohibited.

***

### POLICY CO-9.1: HABITAT PROTECTION

**Protect rare, endangered, and threatened species by conserving and enhancing their habitat and requiring mitigation of potential adverse impacts when development occurs within habitat areas.**

***

Table 5 identifies Special Status animals in Oakland. The Table lists two mammals, one reptile, 15 birds, one fish, and one insect. Not all of these species have actually been confirmed present in the city. They are listed because the habitat which supports them exists in the city or because they have been observed in nearby jurisdictions. There may be additional special status

<!-- page 155 -->
animals, including a wide range of invertebrates, insects, and fishes, that are also present in Oakland. Development which could significantly impact such species must be appropriately mitigated.

A majority of the species listed in Table 5 are wetland dwellers. Wetland birds constitute the greatest number of special status species in the city. They are threatened both by loss of habitat and predation by dogs, rats, skunks, raptors, and red foxes. Only two of the animal species listed in Table 5 live in upland habitat areas. The Alameda Whipsnake lives in coastal scrub and chaparral areas, especially where such areas form a mosaic with riparian woodlands. The Bay Checkerspot Butterfly has been observed in grasslands on serpentine outcroppings at Joaquin Miller Park.

Certain areas of the city stand out as having great significance for special status species. These include the Emeryville Crescent, Fan Marsh, Damon Marsh, and Arrowhead Marsh, and the area north of Runway 29/11 at Oakland Airport. The Airport's Central basin, runway 29/11 perimeter and the area just south of Galbraith Golf Course also are important. In the hills, virtually all of the open sites with a coastal scrub/chaparral/riparian mosaic may be potential habitat for the Alameda Whipsnake. Field surveys to verify the presence of the snake should be required for large hillside development projects where such conditions exist.

Special status plants are listed in Table 6. Many species of concern are located on undeveloped hillsides, particularly where unusual ground conditions such as serpentine soils or rock outcroppings are present. A number of plants which typically grow in salt marshes are also included on the list. Again, not all of the species listed have actually been observed in the city; however, potentially suitable habitats are present. Where the species listed in Table 6 are observed on proposed development sites, appropriate mitigation measures should be prescribed to avoid their destruction.

Figure 13 generally identifies those areas where special status plants are present or most likely to be present. These areas have been identified by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) as warranting further study before development proceeds.

Additional information on special status plants and animals is contained in OSCAR Technical Report Volume One.

***

### ACTION CO-9.1.1: DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDIZED MITIGATION MEASURES

*Develop performance criteria, development standards, and standardized mitigation measures for development within the habitat of species listed in Tables 5 (Special Status Animal Species in Oakland) and 6 (Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Vascular Plants Potentially Present in Oakland). These tables should be updated from time to time to add or delete species as appropriate.*

***

These criteria could include things like a ban on pesticide spraying within sensitive habitat areas, requirements for replanting with particular species, the designation of buffer areas or conservation easements in areas where sensitive plants exist, and the construction of a habitat "fence" to separate developed and undeveloped areas.

<!-- page 156 -->
### Table 5: Special Status Animal Species in Oakland

| Species Name | Federal Status | State Status | Habitat/ Last Observed |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse | E | E | Salt Marshes, especially in the pickleweed zone<br>*Last observed: 1992, Emeryville Crescent (ID now considered possibly erroneous)* |
| Salt Marsh Vagrant Shrew | C1 | SC | Higher levels of the Salt Marshes<br>*Last observed: 1950s, near Oakland Airport* |
| Alameda Whipsnake | C2 | T | Coastal scrub and chaparral, especially nr. riparian zones<br>*Last observed: 1990, Oakland Hills. Also, Leona Heights Park* |
| California Clapper Rail | C2 | T | Salt marshes (cordgrass) near San Francisco Bay<br>*Last observed: December 1994, Arrowhead Marsh and Emeryville Crescent.* |
| California Least Tern | E | E | Bare/ sparsely vegetated flat areas beside lagoons or estuaries.<br>*Last observed: 1995, Oakland Airport* |
| American Peregrine Falcon | E | E | Rocky cliffs or manmade structures<br>*Last observed: 1994, Emeryville Crescent and Coliseum/San Leandro Bay area* |
| California Brown Pelican | E | E | Steep rocky slopes in sandy, saline environments<br>*Last observed: regularly, E'ville Crescent, SL Bay, Lk Merritt* |
| California Black Rail | C1 | T | *Salt marshes, in pickleweed and bulrush*<br>*Last observed: 1979, Berkeley* |
| Western Snowy Plover | C2 | SC | Beach and dune areas<br>*Last observed: regularly, Oakland Airport* |
| Salt Marsh Yellowthroat | C2 | SC | *Tall wetland and adjacent upland vegetation*<br>*Last observed: 1989, E'ville Crescent; 1992, Oakland Airport* |
| Alameda Song Sparrow | C2 | SC | *Salt marsh with adjacent upland vegetation*<br>*Last observed: No information available* |
| Long-billed Curlew | C2 | SC | *Grasslands and cordgrass/mudflat areas*<br>*Last observed: 1994, Oakland Airport, San Leandro Bay, Emeryville Crescent* |
| Burrowing Owl | -- | SC | *Open, dry, level grasslands*<br>*Last observed: regularly around Oakland Airport Central Basin* |
| Double Crested Cormorant | -- | SC | Coastal cliffs/ islands in tall trees on edge of water.<br>*Last observed: regularly, Lake Merritt and other locations* |
| Common Loon | -- | SC | Winter migrant to SF Bay; does not nest/breed locally<br>*Last observed: December, 1994, Oakland Airport* |
| Barrow's Goldeneye | -- | SC | Diving duck, present in fall/winter; does not nest/breed locally<br>*Last observed: Regularly (winters), Lake Merritt Tidal Channel* |
| Northern Harrier | -- | SC | *Marsh and wetland areas*<br>*Last observed: 1994, Oakland Airport, Arrowhead Marsh* |
| Loggerhead Shrike | -- | SC | *Marsh and wetland areas*<br>*Last observed: 1992, Oakland Airport, San Leandro Bay* |
| Tidewater Goby | C2 | SC | Brackish water w/fairly high oxygen<br>*Last observed: 1975, Lake Merritt* |
| Bay Checkerspot Butterfly | T | -- | Native grasslands on serpentine outcroppings<br>*Last observed: 1980, Joaquin Miller Park* |

<!-- page 157 -->
Table 6: Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Vascular Plants Potentially Present in Oakland

| Common Name | Scientific Name | Federal Status | State Status | Where Observed[^p157-1] |
| :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: | :--- |
| Alameda manzanita | *Arctostaphylos pallida* | C1 | E | Montclair/Skyline Ridge |
| Milk vetch | *Astragalus tener var. tener* | -- | E | |
| Balsamroot | *Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. macrolepis* | -- | -- | |
| Mt. Diablo globelilly | *Calochortus pulchellus* | -- | -- | |
| Oakland star-tulip | *Calochortus umbellatus* | -- | -- | Throughout hills |
| San Francisco Bay spineflower | *Chorizanthe cuspidata var. cuspidata* | C2 | -- | |
| Robust spineflower | *Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta* | -- | -- | |
| Presidio clarkia | *Clarkia franciscana* | C1 | E | Skyline/Redwood area |
| Serpentine collomia | *Collomia diversifolia* | -- | -- | |
| Pt. Reyes bird's - beak | *Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. palustris* | C2 | -- | |
| Soft bird's beak | *Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis* | C1 | R | |
| Hoover's cryptantha | *Cryptantha hooveri* | -- | -- | |
| Western leatherwood | *Dirca occidentalis* | -- | -- | North Hill canyons |
| Tiburon buckwheat | *Eriogonum caninum* | -- | -- | |
| Fragrant fritillary | *Fritillaria liliacea* | C2 | -- | Tilden/Lake Chabot |
| Great Valley gumplant | *Grindelia camporum var. parviflora* | -- | -- | |
| Marsh gumplant | *Grindelia humilis* | -- | -- | Emeryville Crescent/Airport/<br>San Leandro Bay |
| Mt. Diablo sunflower | *Helianthella castanea* | C2 | -- | Leona Heights Park |
| Parry's tarplant | *Hemizonia parryi ssp. congdonii* | -- | -- | |
| Santa Cruz tarplant | *Holocarpha macradenia* | C1 | E | EBMUD lands |
| Wedge - leaved horkelia | *Horkelia cuneata ssp. sericea* | C2 | -- | |
| Delta tule pea | *Lathyrus jepsonii ssp. jepsonii* | C2 | -- | |
| Hairless popcornflower | *Plagiobothrys glaber* | C2 | -- | |
| Valley oak | *Quercus lobata* | -- | -- | Hills |
| Lobb's Aquatic buttercup | *Ranunculus lobbii* | -- | -- | |
| Straggly gooseberry | *Ribes divaricatum var. pubiflorum* | -- | -- | Chabot Regional Park |
| Sanicula maritima | *Sanicula maritima* | C2 | R | |
| Metcalf Canyon jewelflower | *Streptanthus albidus ssp. albidus* | C1 | -- | |
| Uncommon jewelflower | *Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramonenus* | C1 | -- | Crestmont area |
| Mt. Diablo cottonweed | *Stylocline amphibola* | -- | -- | Merritt College |
| California sueada | *Sueada californica* | -- | -- | Bay Farm Island |

*Source: California Native Plant Society - East Bay Chapter, 1992*

NOTES:
C1 = Category 1
C2 = Category 2
E = Endangered
R = Rare

[^p157-1]: Only observations within or adjacent to the city of Oakland are listed. Observations prior to the year 1900 are not included.

<!-- page 158 -->
<<FIGURE>>

1 Arctostaphylos pallida
2 Dirca Occidentalis
3 Clarkia Franciscana
4 Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus
5 Eriogonum caninum
6 Calochortus umbellatus

City of Oakland
Open Space, Conservation
and Recreation Element
### Figure 13: Observed
### Plants of Special Concern
Source: California Natural Diversity Data 1992

<!-- page 159 -->
### ACTION CO-9.1.2: PREPARATION OF PRE-DEVELOPMENT SURVEYS

*Require large-scale development within the habitat of the species listed in Tables 5 and 6 to conduct pre-development surveys to determine whether these species are present. Require site-specific analyses of the effects of the proposed development on the species where appropriate, along with a plan for minimizing those effects. These surveys and analyses may be included in any environmental documentation for a project.*

***

A follow-up study to the OSCAR Element could establish development thresholds for habitat surveys. Habitat analysis is currently required for large developments as part of the environmental review process. Such surveys should be conducted by an independent professional and should be required for both private and public development.

### ACTION CO-9.1.3: PREPARATION OF HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN

*Support a collaborative effort between Oakland, County, State and federal agencies, adjacent cities, the East Bay Regional Park District, and local environmental groups, to develop a long-term multi-species habitat conservation plan (HCP) for the East Bay Hills.*

***

Habitat Conservation Plans, or HCPs, currently exist for a number of Bay Area open spaces, such as San Bruno Mountain. An HCP for Oakland would logically encompass a larger geographic area, including watershed and regional parklands, and lands in adjoining cities. The major purpose of an HCP would be to protect the habitat of the species identified in Tables 5 and 6. It would identify specific mitigation measures for any development within the planning boundaries.

Until an HCP is prepared, the availability and accuracy of data on sensitive habitat in Oakland should be improved as funding allows. The City should support the efforts of private and non-profit agencies to identify and record plant and animal populations, especially for rare and endangered species. Information on special status plants and animals could be tied to the citywide geographic information system (GIS) now being developed. Data collection might be conducted as a cooperative effort with local colleges, universities, and environmental groups.

### ACTION CO-9.1.4: RECREATIONAL USE LIMITATIONS

*Limit recreational uses on publicly-owned open space lands to those which have minimal impacts on rare, threatened, and endangered species.*

***

This action goes in tandem with Policy CO-8.2. Land that is acquired for the purpose of conserving sensitive habitat should not be developed with active recreational facilities.

<!-- page 160 -->
### OBJECTIVE CO-10: VEGETATION MANAGEMENT

**To manage vegetation so that the risk of catastrophic wildfire is minimized.**

Wildfires have been occurring in Oakland since prehistoric times and are part of the natural ecological cycle in the hills. Many of Oakland's native plants are adapted to the natural and frequent occurrence of fire. For instance, chaparral has built in defenses against total destruction, redwood bark is fire-resilient, and grasslands burn easily but regenerate quickly. The beneficial aspects of fire, such as the release of oxygen and toxins from the soil, the removal of dead wood, and the addition of nutrient-rich ash to the soil, are usually overlooked due to the more obvious safety and economic hazards.

For a number of reasons, urbanization of Oakland's fire hazard areas has increased the potential for more frequent and severe wildfires. First, the presence of development in such areas has increased the risk of accidental fire starts. Second, uncontrolled tree planting throughout the hills has generated a vast amount of debris and litter on the forest floor. Some of the trees planted have been poorly suited for the local climate and have died in past freezes, creating an enormous build-up of dry, easily-ignited fuel on the hillsides. Third, fire suppression without debris removal has caused the amount of fuel on the ground to build up over time. Finally, the high density of homes in hillside neighborhoods, including many wood homes with wood shake roofs, has created additional fuel for wildfires.

During the 1970s, a number of preventative measures were taken to minimize wildfire hazards in Oakland. A 300-foot wide fuel break was established along the ridge between the city and the regional park and watershed lands. The city also sought to break hillside eucalyptus stands into smaller and more manageable units, to create fuel breaks around water tanks, and to clear brush, debris, and overhanging tree limbs around homes.

<<FIGURE>>

Rebuilding continues in the area where more than 3,000 homes were lost to wildfire in 1991.

While these directives were well intended, they were not sufficiently carried out. The 1991 Oakland Hills firestorm illustrated that implementation and enforcement of these measures was insufficient and that additional preventative measures were needed.

Following the firestorm, the Mayor's Task Force on Emergency Preparedness and Community Restoration examined why past policies and programs had failed to prevent the disaster. The group found that there was still little understanding about wildfire cause, danger, and prevention among residents. A three pronged approach was recommended by the task force, addressing education, planning, and regulation. 
The Task Force found that the most important factor in reducing wildfire was not to eradicate flammable species like eucalyptus, but to conduct on-going, regular brush removal and maintenance. The group concluded that standards for landscape design and maintenance were necessary, and that the enforcement of these standards was critical. The group concluded that a clearly illustrated vegetation management plan and action program for all developed and undeveloped land was necessary.

<!-- page 161 -->
*Plant and Animal Resources*

### POLICY CO-10.1: FLAMMABLE VEGETATION CONTROL

Subject to the availability of City resources and at the discretion of the City Council and applicable City departments, control flammable vegetation on public and private open space lands in the Oakland Hills to reduce wildfire hazards.

***

About 47 percent of the Oakland Hills consists of undeveloped open space. Most of the open space is contained within city and regional parks, the University of California, and protected watersheds. In 1991, the Mayor's Task Force on Emergency Preparedness determined that a vegetation management program for these areas was needed. A joint planning agreement between the Cities of Oakland and Berkeley, the East Bay Regional Park District, and the East Bay Municipal Utility District was executed, coordinating wildfire response and authorizing a vegetation management plan for an area extending from Tilden Park to San Leandro.

The emerging fuel reduction program for the Oakland Hills includes, but is not limited to, the following elements:

* construction of fire breaks
* break up of the vertical continuity of fuel through pruning of lower tree limbs
* removal of brush, vines, and small trees as necessary and appropriate
* replanting to reduce the difficulty of fire suppression
* thinning of forest stands where appropriate
* grazing (by goats, etc.)
* controlled burns

### ACTION CO-10.1.1: IMPLEMENTATION OF VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

*As determined necessary by the City, implement the 1995 Vegetation Management Plan for the Oakland-Berkeley Hills.*

***

In addition to implementing the Plan, the City of Oakland will work with the East Bay Regional Park District, the East Bay Municipal Utility District, the University of California, and private landowners to maintain the fuel break along the urban/wildland interface at the crest of the Oakland-Berkeley Hills. Additional fuel breaks may be considered in other locations.

***

### POLICY CO-10.2: FIRE PREVENTION MEASURES

As determined necessary by the City, require individual property owners and developers in high hazard areas to reduce fire hazards on their properties through a range of preventative measures. Landscaping and site planning in these high hazard areas should minimize future wildfire hazards.

***

About 53 percent of the Oakland Hills consists of developed properties. These properties contain about 25,000 households and a variety of commercial businesses. Fire hazards in these areas have been heightened by the build up of debris and brush, non-native flammable vegetation, and the use of flammable building materials.

New fire prevention laws were enacted following the Hills fire and a special assessment district was approved in early 1993 to ensure that these laws are enforced. The new Fire Suppression District created a funding source for annual inspections of properties in fire hazard areas, as well as brush removal and vegetation maintenance on public lands. The focus of the fire prevention laws is to avoid the "fire ladder" effect that proved to be so destructive in 1991.

<!-- page 162 -->
Preventing future catastrophes will require individual homeowners to take the following measures:

* removing dead vegetation overhanging roof and chimney areas
* removing leaves and needles from roofs
* placing fire-resistant plants around the house and phasing out flammable vegetation
* trimming back vegetation around windows
* removing flammable vegetation on steep slopes
* pruning the lower branches of tall trees
* clearing out ground-level brush and debris
* stacking woodpiles away from structures

It would also be prudent to require agreements for the ongoing maintenance of vegetation before approving new developments with commonly owned landscaped areas. These agreements would ensure that debris and brush are regularly removed, that vegetation is properly cared for, and that dead trees are replaced.

***

### ACTION CO-10.2.1: DEVELOPMENT OF FIRE-RESISTANT LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES

**Develop fire-resistant landscaping guidelines and distribute these guidelines to households in fire hazard areas. Apply the guidelines to future development within high hazard areas.**

***

After the firestorm, it became apparent that more guidance was needed in the landscaping of high hazard areas. Fire-resistant landscape guidelines could show how plants might be selected, arranged, and maintained to minimize fire hazards. Demonstration gardens at visible locations could illustrate how these criteria are applied. If a voluntary system proves ineffective, the City could require landscape plans for new construction to ensure that certain standards are met.

In new development areas, site planning guidelines or subdivision standards should discourage the siting of homes on areas where wind drafts are present, including ridgetops and saddles. Such guidelines also should establish fire-resistant "greenbelts" around new homes and limit flammable ground cover.

### ACTION CO-10.2.2: PUBLIC EDUCATION ON FIRE SUPPRESSION

**Maintain a substantial public education component as part of the city's fire suppression program to expand public awareness on the importance of vegetation management as a means of preventing wildfires.**

***

Since the firestorm, a number of studies have been prepared examining how similar disasters can be averted in the future. One common finding is that public information and education are essential parts of any strategy. Brochures, public service announcements, school curricula, and special programs for residents would help ensure that vegetation management objectives are carried out more effectively in the future than they have been in the past *(see also Action OS-3.6.1 regarding a demonstration garden near the Caldecott Tunnel)*.

<!-- page 163 -->
### OBJECTIVE CO-11: WILDLIFE

**To sustain a healthy wildlife population within the City of Oakland.**

Oakland's wildlife is a widely appreciated resource enjoyed by residents throughout the city. Deer, squirrels, skunks, gophers, rabbits, opossums, raccoons, mice, lizards, and dozens of bird species are a common sight in many neighborhoods. This is especially true in the hill areas, where many species have adapted to the mosaic of open space and development. In such areas, the positive connotations of a thriving wildlife population seems to outweigh the negative image of wild animals as garden pests and garbage raiders.

OSCAR Technical Report Volume One provides an overview of typical animal populations within Oakland's various habitat types.

### POLICY CO-11.1: PROTECTION FROM URBANIZATION

**Protect wildlife from the hazards of urbanization, including loss of habitat and predation by domestic animals.**

This policy echoes earlier policies on the protection of native plants and endangered species. When vegetation clearance occurs on a development site, the cleared areas should be revegetated in a way that restores and enhances the diversity of wildlife habitat as much as possible. Individual plants should be selected to encourage the retention (or return of) local wildlife. In some instances, particularly in large parks, it may be appropriate to designate buffer zones around critical nesting or breeding sites and to restrict public access in those areas.

### ACTION CO-11.1.1: WILDLIFE SURVEY REQUIREMENTS

*Require wildlife surveys when major open space areas are managed for fire prevention (including controlled burns) or are disturbed in any way which could have a significant adverse impact on wildlife populations.*

Wildlife surveys are already required during environmental review for major development in wetlands and certain upland habitats. Such surveys should continue to be required, with mitigation measures established to conserve wildlife habitat. Master plans for city-owned open space should manage vegetation to minimize adverse impacts on animal habitat and enhance this habitat where possible.

### ACTION CO-11.1.2: LEASH LAW ENFORCEMENT

*Improve enforcement of leash laws within City and Regional open space areas where dogs are permitted. Work with the East Bay Regional Park to ensure that restrictions on domestic animals are enforced within the marshes at the Emeryville Crescent and San Leandro Bay.*

One of the greatest threats to wildlife in Oakland, particularly to endangered birds, is predation by cats and dogs. If wildlife is to be maintained on the edge of the urban area, it is imperative that leash laws be enforced and that dogs be properly controlled.

<!-- page 164 -->
### POLICY CO-11.2: MIGRATORY CORRIDORS

**Protect and enhance migratory corridors for wildlife. Where such corridors are privately owned, require new development to retain native habitat or take other measures which help sustain local wildlife population and migratory patterns. Wildlife corridors are shown in Figure 14 (Potential Wildlife Corridors).**

***

The protection of many of Oakland's larger mammals can be enhanced by preserving continuous strips of natural habitat several hundred feet wide or more between larger tracts of natural habitat. These strips or "corridors" already exist in Oakland, in some cases extending all the way from Skyline Boulevard to the flatlands. Figure 14 indicates existing wildlife corridors in Oakland. These corridors should be maintained and enhanced where feasible.

To be most useful, wildlife corridors should encompass a variety of specialized features, such as rock outcroppings and creeks. It is essential that such corridors contain diverse plant associations and are wide enough to provide shelter. Ideally, provisions to protect wildlife also could be made where corridors bisect roads (Deer Crossing signs, reduced speed limits, etc.).

The corridors cross both private and public lands. On private lands, development may still take place, but vegetation and other natural features should be protected as much as possible. Special requirements for fences and landscaping could be used to prevent interference with migratory patterns.

### ACTION CO-11.2.1: WILDLIFE CORRIDOR DESIGNATION

*To the extent legally permissible, designate the following areas within Oakland as wildlife corridors for habitat management purposes:*

*   *Strawberry Canyon above Centennial Drive (all public land)*
*   *Claremont Canyon above John Garber Park (all public land)*
*   *Upper Caldecott Canyon, above the Caldecott Tunnel (mixed private and public land)*
*   *Dimond Canyon/ Palo Seco Canyon/ Shepherd Canyon below Escher Drive (all public land)*
*   *Upper Peralta Creek (above Wisconsin Street), with a link to Joaquin Miller Park (mostly private land)*
*   *Leona Canyon/Rifle Range Canyon, with a connection to Chabot Regional Park and Knowland Park (mostly public land)*
*   *Country Club Branch, with a connection to Chabot Regional Park (mostly private land)*
*   *Arroyo Viejo Canyon from Holy Names College to Chabot Regional Park (mostly public land)*
*   *Knowland Park to Lake Chabot via Dunsmuir Ridge (mixed public and private)*

***

The actual width of the corridors would be determined during follow up studies and would be based on a number of factors, including land ownership, lot patterns, and habitat value. For instance, the Upper Peralta Creek corridor would be much narrower than the Claremont Creek corridor, since Upper Peralta is contained on smaller, privately owned parcels as opposed to regional parkland.

***

### ACTION CO-11.2.2: GUIDELINES FOR HABITAT PROTECTION

*Develop guidelines for habitat protection which reduce the potential impacts of new development on wildlife movement and migratory patterns.*

<!-- page 165 -->
<<FIGURE>>

City of Oakland
Open Space, Conservation
and Recreation Element

### Figure 14:
### Potential Wildlife Corridors
Office of Planning & Building, 1995

Areas of Wildlife Concentration

Corridors to be Protected
(Private land in designated corridors may still
be developed, but may be subject to future
guidelines or standards for habitat conservation)

0 1
Mile

<!-- page 166 -->
# AIR RESOURCES

### OBJECTIVE CO-12: AIR RESOURCES

**To improve air quality in Oakland and the surrounding Bay Region.**

Most Oakland residents have experienced the effects of poor air quality at one time or another. Probably the most familiar effects are associated with smog and haze. On very smoggy days, the Oakland Hills may not even be visible from downtown. The most serious effects, however, are on human health. These range from watery eyes, fatigue, and headaches to respiratory problems, heart ailments, and suppressed resistance to disease.

The secondary impacts of air pollution are also a concern. If a region fails to meet federal air quality standards, economic sanctions, restricted federal funding, or moratoria may be ordered by the Environmental Protection Agency. Perhaps an even greater economic threat is that air pollution detracts from the quality of life in a community. The visual and health effects of pollution can detract from an area's image and desirability as a place to live and work.

Extensive air quality improvements were achieved during the 1960s and 1970s, mostly by regulating stationary sources of air pollution (i.e., smokestacks), switching to cleaner fuels, and improving auto emissions. Despite these efforts, population growth and increased congestion cause air quality standards to still be exceeded on a significant number of days each year in the Bay Area.

Achieving current air quality goals will require more fundamental changes in travel behavior, particularly reductions in single occupancy auto use. Such changes will only be accomplished by establishing regional land use and transportation patterns which reduce reliance on gasoline-powered motor vehicles.

Oakland can do its share at the local level to bring about these changes. The city's central location, relatively high densities, supply of underutilized land, and existing transit infrastructure make it an excellent location for projects which promote alternatives to auto use. Working cooperatively with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the City can also use its environmental review process to ensure that the air quality impacts of new stationary and mobile sources are fully understood and effectively mitigated before development is permitted.

The following policies and actions direct Oakland towards meeting and maintaining regional air quality standards:

### POLICY CO-12.1: LAND USE PATTERNS WHICH PROMOTE AIR QUALITY

**Promote land use patterns and densities which help improve regional air quality conditions by: (a) minimizing dependence on single passenger autos; (b) promoting projects which minimize quick auto starts and stops, such as live-work development, mixed use development, and office development with ground floor retail space; (c) separating land uses which are sensitive to pollution from the sources of air pollution; and (d) supporting telecommuting, flexible work hours, and behavioral changes which reduce the percentage of people in Oakland who must drive to work on a daily basis.**

Several basic land use principles can be followed to reduce pollution generated by motor vehicles. The necessity of driving can be reduced by creating more dense development in transit-served areas and establishing a more balanced mix of land uses throughout the city. Employment growth can be concentrated in areas which are transit-served, especially downtown Oakland. Neighborhood-oriented retail and service uses can be widely distributed to avoid lengthy cross-town drives. Major retail and service uses can be made accessible by transit.

<!-- page 167 -->
Higher-density housing and pedestrian-scale development can be encouraged downtown, at the BART Stations, and in corridors where substantial transit infrastructure is already in place. Mixed use development, particularly combinations of residential, retail, and office development, can enable people to walk to basic services (and possibly even their jobs) from their homes. Live-work development eliminates the daily commute and thereby reduces vehicle miles travelled for residents.

Much of the air pollution generated by cars is associated with engine ignition and idling in slow traffic. By combining multiple uses in new development, and by encouraging a diverse mix of uses in employment areas, the need for "quick start and stop" auto trips can be substantially reduced. Retail and other personal services should be encouraged to locate in Oakland's major employment centers to reduce the necessity of driving to carry out lunchtime or after-work errands.

Policy CO-12.1 also supports the separation of "sensitive receptors" like hospitals and nursing homes from major sources of air pollution such as manufacturing plants and freeways. The policy discourages new land uses with potential adverse air quality impacts adjacent to locations where children, seniors, and persons with cardio-respiratory ailments congregate.

Finally, Policy CO-12.1 promotes telecommuting and flextime as a means of reducing commute traffic and related air pollution impacts. Telecommuting can be encouraged by establishing business services (FAX machines, multi-media centers, etc.) to locate in neighborhood shopping areas. Flexible work hours can be encouraged by the City and other Oakland employers. Other technologies which can reduce trip generation include videoconferencing and the use of cable television for education, shopping, and public meetings.

### ACTION CO-12.1.1: LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATE

*Update the Oakland Land Use Element to reduce dependency on automobiles by: (a) promoting high-density housing downtown, along transit corridors, and around transit stations stations; (b) promoting neighborhood commercial centers and downtown employment growth; and (c) accommodating live-work development, mixed use development, and other development types which minimize vehicle miles travelled.*

---

### POLICY CO-12.2: COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

Maintain a coordinated bus, rail, and ferry transit system which provides efficient service to major destinations and promotes alternatives to the single passenger auto.

---

Along with land use, transportation is the other half of the equation for reducing vehicle miles travelled and auto dependency. Existing City transportation policies promoting mass transit, BART feeder lines, and trans-bay ferry service should continue to be supported. For example, a shuttle service could connect the new AMTRAK Station at Jack London Square with BART and the trans-bay ferry. One of the keys to a successful transit system is coordinating the various modes (bus, BART, and ferry) to maximize system effectiveness. Transfers between modes should be convenient and should minimize wait times. The new Transportation Element will include more specific policies and action programs pertaining to Oakland's transit system.

<!-- page 168 -->
### ACTION CO-12.2.1: TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT UPDATE

*Update the Transportation Element to promote an efficient multi-modal transportation system.*

***

### ACTION CO-12.2.2: USE OF NON-GASOLINE POWERED VEHICLES.

*As funding permits, convert City fleet vehicles to non-gasoline powered vehicles.*

***

Oakland will support legislation which encourages the use of electric and other alternative energy vehicles. The City can be a leader in making this transition. As funding permits, the City should consider the conversion of more of its gasoline powered vehicles to electric or other alternative sources.

***

### ACTION CO-12.2.3: IMPROVED BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SYSTEMS

*Develop a viable bicycle and pedestrian circulation system, with routes providing safe, convenient access between residential neighborhoods and employment centers.*

***

This reiterates existing City policies supporting a citywide system of bicycle and pedestrian paths and pedestrian-oriented development. Existing City policies also encourage major employers, parking garages, BART, and commercial establishments to provide bicycle lockers, and advocate that large employers make bicycle pools available to employees during the work day. The new Transportation Element can explore these strategies further and determine the most effective tools for their implementation.

### POLICY CO-12.3: TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT

Expand existing transportation systems management and transportation demand management strategies which reduce congestion, vehicle idling, and travel in single passenger autos.

***

The City has already passed a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) ordinance and is pursuing a variety of strategies to reduce transportation demand while maximizing the efficiency of the existing highway and street network. These strategies include:

* Incentives for carpooling and vanpooling (preferential parking spaces for carpools, high-occupancy vehicle freeway lanes, commuter networking and matching, etc.).
* Continued use of "casual carpools" for San Francisco commuters.
* Synchronized traffic signals along major arterials.
* Encouraging flexible work hours to spread the commute peak.
* Transit subsidies for employees.
* Congestion pricing and electronic toll collection on the Bay Bridge.
* Enhancing public awareness of alternative modes of transportation through publicity and marketing.

Additional strategies are emerging in response to the BAAQMD's Trip Reduction Rule. The Rule requires trip reduction plans for facilities employing more than 100 persons. The City should take a leadership role in implementing the same transportation demand strategies it encourages local employers to adopt.

***

### ACTION CO-12.3.1: TRIP REDUCTION MEASURES

***

*Implement the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Reduction rule which requires trip reduction plans for facilities employing more than 100 persons.*

***

<!-- page 169 -->
### POLICY CO-12.4: DESIGN OF DEVELOPMENT TO MINIMIZE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS

Require that development projects be designed in a manner which reduces potential adverse air quality impacts. This may include: (a) the use of vegetation and landscaping to absorb carbon monoxide and to buffer sensitive receptors; (b) the use of low-polluting energy sources and energy conservation measures; (c) designs which encourage transit use and facilitate bicycle and pedestrian travel.

Site planning and design can be used both directly and indirectly to promote air quality improvements. Direct applications would include buffers between incompatible uses, siting of sensitive uses away from toxic air contaminants, and mitigation requirements for new uses with potential adverse air quality impacts. Indirect applications would emphasize access to transit, provisions for bicycles, and other architectural measures to reduce auto dependency and vehicle emissions.

### ACTION CO-12.4.1: DESIGN GUIDELINES PROMOTING AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS

*Provide design guidelines and/ or standards to accomplish the emission, absorption, and reduction strategies in Policy CO-12.4.*

### POLICY CO-12.5: USE OF BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

Require new industry to use best available control technology to remove pollutants, including filtering, washing, or electrostatic treatment of emissions.

This policy essentially supports existing BAAQMD, CARB, and EPA policies that industry be required to use best available control technology to minimize emissions.

### POLICY CO-12.6: CONTROL OF DUST EMISSIONS

Require construction, demolition and grading practices which minimize dust emissions.

These practices are currently required by the City and include the following:

* Avoiding earth moving and other major dust-generating activities on windy days.
* Sprinkling unpaved construction areas with water during excavation, using reclaimed water where feasible. (Watering can reduce construction-related dust by 50 percent.)
* Covering stockpiled sand, soil, and other particulates with a tarp to avoid blowing dust.
* Covering trucks hauling dirt and debris to reduce spills. If spills do occur, they should be swept up promptly before materials become airborne.
* Preparing a comprehensive dust control program for major construction in populated areas or adjacent to sensitive uses like hospitals and schools.
* Operating construction and earth-moving equipment, including trucks, to minimize exhaust emissions.

### ACTION CO-12.6.1: GRADING ORDINANCE REVIEW

*Review the grading ordinance on a regular basis to ensure that it includes sufficient provisions for minimizing airborne dust.*

<!-- page 170 -->
<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

*Alternatives to the single passenger auto are essential to solving air quality problems. LEFT: Bus, BART, and AIR-BART converge at Coliseum Station; RIGHT: A "Spare the Air" Banner on 13th Street urges motorists to carpool or take transit.*

### POLICY CO-12.7: REGIONAL AIR QUALITY PLANNING

Coordinate local air quality planning efforts with other agencies, including adjoining cities and counties, and the public agencies responsible for monitoring and improving air quality. Cooperate with regional agencies such as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency in developing and implementing regional air quality strategies. Continue to work with BAAQMD and the California Air Resources Board in enforcing the provisions of the State and Federal Clean Air Acts, including the monitoring of air pollutants on a regular and on-going basis.

Air pollution is a regional issue and is dealt with most effectively at the regional level. Some of the pollutants generated in Oakland drift downwind to the South Bay, while some of the pollutants from other parts of the Bay Area may drift to Oakland. As the transportation hub of the East Bay, the city's freeways are impacted by growth happening as far away as San Joaquin County. Coordination with other cities and a variety of regional agencies is required to effectively manage growth and congestion and to attain federal and state air quality standards.

This policy states the City's commitment to working with a variety of government agencies to achieve regional air quality goals. This includes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at the federal level, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) at the State level, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) at the regional level. The BAAQMD's regional plan includes many new transportation control measures and calls for major changes in travel behavior. The Plan also includes new stationary source controls and explores ways to contain emissions from various chemical and industrial processes.

State and federal air quality standards are contained in OSCAR Technical Report Volume One. Oakland will continue working with regulatory agencies to attain and maintain these standards.

### ACTION CO-12.7.1: PUBLIC EDUCATION ON AIR QUALITY

*Promote multi-lingual public education and awareness of air quality issues, including continued City participation in the "Spare the Air" program.*

<!-- page 171 -->
### ACTION CO-12.7.2: MONITORING OF NOₓ, SO₂, AND PM₁₀

*Request that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District begin monitoring nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and particulates at the downtown Oakland monitoring station and possibly at other locations in Oakland.*

The BAAQMD maintains a network of community monitoring stations to measure pollutants and determine the region's attainment status. The Oakland station, located at 9th and Alice Streets in downtown Oakland, measures carbon monoxide and ozone. Stations located in other parts of the Bay Area measure nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulates. The stations closest to Oakland measuring these pollutants are in the Potrero District of San Francisco and in downtown Richmond. Given the distance from these stations to Oakland, the readings are not readily transferable. Therefore, the city encourages the expansion of the Alice Street Station to monitor these pollutants. The City also supports additional monitoring of CO and particulates in areas adjacent to freeways to protect the health of residents nearby.

Where appropriate, the City can also require major stationary sources to install and maintain permanent monitoring stations for carbon monoxide, trace metals, total suspended particulates, and other air pollutants.

### ACTION CO-12.7.3: SPOT MONITORING OF AIR QUALITY PROBLEMS

*Request that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District conduct periodic spot monitoring where potential air quality problems may exist. Investigate suspected violations and take corrective actions on an on-going basis.*

### ACTION CO-12.7.4: STAFF LIAISON TO BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

*Designate a staff person within the Oakland Office of Planning and Building as the city's liaison to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The liaison should collect annual monitoring data from the BAAQMD and summarize this data in an annual staff report indicating where air quality violations have occurred. This report should also identify any changes to State and federal air quality standards.*

Regular, on-going communication with the BAAQMD is recommended. Table 7 indicates the recommended thresholds for projects which should be submitted to the BAAQMD for review. Any project found to have a potential significant adverse impact is required to specify air quality mitigation measures. Mitigation monitoring is required to ensure that these measures are followed and are effective in reducing the anticipated impacts.

<!-- page 172 -->
### Table 7: Thresholds for Submission of Environmental Documents to BAAQMD for Environmental Review

| Land Use Category | Threshold Level |
| :--- | :--- |
| Residential | |
| Single Family | 200 units |
| Multiple Family | 300 units |
| | |
| Commercial | |
| Retail | 60,000 SF or 6 acres of land area |
| Hotel/Motel | 200 units |
| Restaurant | 700 seats/40 employees |
| Office | 100,000 sq. ft. |
| Theater | 900 seats |
| | |
| Industrial | |
| Undifferentiated/ | |
| Mass Production | 15 acres |
| Industrial Park/ | |
| Warehouse/Admin | 20 acres |
| Research/Development | 40 acres |
| | |
| Government Building | 30,000 sq. ft. |
| | |
| Parking Lot/Structure | 250 spaces |
| | |
| Miscellaneous | Any other facility generating more than 2,000 trips/day |

***

*Source: BAAQMD, 1985*
*Note: It is also appropriate to prepare an air quality impact assessment and to submit to BAAQMD environmental documents prepared for: (1) all sources with direct emissions of air contaminants which approach or exceed the BAAQMD thresholds for requiring Best Available Control Technology; (2) all airports, ports, major road and transportation projects; (3) sports stadiums; (4) governmental actions affecting more than 50 acres, and (5) smaller projects meeting certain criteria specified by the BAAQMD.*

### ACTION CO-12.7.5: AIR QUALITY ELEMENT

***As funding permits, prepare an Air Quality Element to the Oakland General Plan. Also conduct air quality analysis as part of the Land Use and Transportation Element Updates.***

Although air quality is not a required general plan topic, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District has strongly urged local governments to incorporate it in their general plans. Air quality planning at the general plan level can be much more effective than case-by-case review of development proposals. Consideration of air quality issues in a general plan allows for a broader scope of analysis and solutions, and a more complete understanding of the impacts of traffic and growth on air quality. It may also provide the legal foundation for any subsequent ordinances intended to conserve air quality.

The Air Quality Element would present projections of future air quality based on the proposed land use and transportation plan, and include policies and actions for improving air quality. Some of the policies and actions included in the OSCAR Element might be repeated and new policies and actions could be added.

Air quality analysis will also be required as part of the update of the Oakland Land Use and Transportation Elements. The analysis should follow BAAQMD guidelines to generate projections of future air quality based on proposed citywide land use and transportation plans. These plans should be refined as necessary to comply with state and federal air quality standards. If compliance cannot be achieved, the Land Use and Transportation Elements should specify appropriate mitigation measures to reduce air quality impacts to acceptable levels.

<!-- page 173 -->
# ENERGY RESOURCES

### OBJECTIVE CO-13: ENERGY RESOURCES

To manage Oakland's energy resources as efficiently as possible, reduce consumption of non-renewable resources, and develop energy resources which reduce dependency on fossil fuels.

Nearly every facet of life in Oakland depends on the availability of energy resources. Energy is used to power vehicles and industries, to provide light, to heat and cool our homes, and to run computers and appliances. Although certain types of energy are abundant, the supply of fossil fuels now used to meet most of Oakland's energy needs is limited. Conservation and more efficient use of fossil fuels must remain a high priority, while development of new energy sources must continue to be explored.

Although energy supply and demand are global issues, a local response can be very effective in promoting conservation. Cities can influence energy demand because they control how and where development occurs. Local governments can promote land use and transportation patterns which reduce consumption and can establish building codes which achieve energy efficiency. Local land use regulations can help by accommodating alternative energy sources such as cogeneration and wind power, while the City itself can promote energy awareness through education, marketing, and demonstration programs.
The level of municipal involvement in energy planning varies from city to city. Some simply set a good example for residents and businesses by following conservation principles in their own operations. Others offer incentives or assistance to people who wish to retrofit their homes. Some cities have gone much further, adopting ordinances which require energy retrofitting at the point a home is sold or at the time a business changes ownership. Other cities have even set up Solar Energy assessment districts to reduce local dependency on external sources.

Significant reductions in per capita energy demand have been achieved in Oakland since the early 1970s. Buildings have been weatherized, more efficient appliances have been installed, and consumers have changed their behavior and become less wasteful. On a statewide level, these trends have been counterbalanced by increased population growth and the growing use of energy-consuming equipment such as computers, appliances, and air conditioners. In the last few years, some of the momentum towards conservation has been lost, particularly in the transportation sector. Likewise, the use of wind, sun, and other clean, renewable fuels has fallen short of original expectations. Oakland, like the rest of the Bay Area is still largely dependent on non-renewable fuels.

Both the State of California and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) have developed energy plans which depend on local governments for implementation. The ABAG Energy Plan urges cities to use existing resources efficiently, develop new energy sources, influence private sector activities, change building regulations, and adopt general plans which promote compact, balanced growth. Likewise, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's regional plan, while not explicitly dealing with energy, looks to local government to promote reduced motor vehicle use and fuel consumption.

Accordingly, the following policies and actions have been prepared for Oakland:

<!-- page 174 -->
### POLICY CO-13.1: RELIABLE ENERGY NETWORK

Promote a reliable local energy network which meets future needs and long-term economic development objectives at the lowest practical cost.

Electricity and gas are supplied to Oakland by PG&E, a private, investor-owned utility which generates and distributes electricity and which procures and distributes natural gas to most of northern and central California. Electricity is supplied through a combination of hydroelectric facilities, fossil fuel burning facilities, power purchased from other utilities, nuclear facilities, and "alternative" facilities such as wind farms and geothermal power plants. Power generated at these facilities is transported to consumers through an interconnected grid of high voltage transmission lines.

Natural gas is provided to Oakland through an interconnected network of underground pipelines and distribution mains. Gas is provided from sources throughout California, the Southwest, the Rocky Mountains, and Canada.

This policy essentially encourages PG&E to manage its resource base so that a reliable source of energy remains available to Oakland residents and businesses. PG&E has indicated that gas and electric demand for its entire service area will grow at the rate of about 1.35 percent a year for the next two decades. Most of the growth will be due to development in outlying portions of the service area; conditions in Oakland are not expected to change significantly and demand is expected to be flat through 1996.

Additional information on energy usage in Oakland is contained in OSCAR Technical Report Volume One.

### ACTION CO-13.1.1: STAFF LIAISONS TO PG&E

*Identify Staff liaisons to PG&E within the Offices of Public Works and Economic Development and Employment to help ensure that Oakland's future energy needs are met at the lowest practical cost. These liaisons should keep apprised of changes in utility regulations which could affect the price and availability of gas and electricity for Oakland customers.*

Deregulation of the utility industry could change the way Oakland customers receive gas and electric services. Competition may have unprecedented impacts on the cost and availability of energy. The City will maintain contact with PG&E and the California Public Utilities Commission as these changes take place, and will support arrangements which ensure a reliable, affordable future energy supply.

### POLICY CO-13.2: ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Support public information campaigns, energy audits, the use of energy-saving appliances and vehicles, and other efforts which help Oakland residents, businesses, and City operations become more energy efficient.

The most practical strategy for meeting future energy needs in Oakland without significantly increasing energy costs is to make the most of what already exists. Oakland developed a number of programs in the late 1970s and early 1980s to reduce gas and electric demand. Many are still in effect today, while others have been discontinued for lack of funding or because their initial goals were achieved. Other programs have been initiated since the early 1980s, primarily by PG&E.

Oakland began an energy conservation program for municipal operations in the 1970s, including weatherization of its facilities, reduced building lighting and heating, modified street lighting and traffic signals, and installation of solar equipment on selected buildings. A 25-30 percent reduction in municipal energy

<!-- page 175 -->
consumption was achieved between 1975 and 1980. These activities continue today, with the goal of reducing the city's gas and electric bill by about another 10 percent by the year 2000.

The City will continue to support efforts which assist Oakland residents and businesses in energy conservation. Through a number of physical, technological, and behavioral modifications, the California Energy Commission estimates that energy consumption in the average single family home can be reduced by up to 50 percent. Similar savings can be achieved in the commercial and industrial sectors. Most of the conservation and energy efficiency programs in Oakland are administered by PG&E.

One of the most effective ways to use energy more efficiently is through education, marketing, and technical assistance. PG&E has taken the lead in such efforts, with the City of Oakland playing a complementary or supporting role. PG&E has developed educational, informational, and marketing material; sponsored "demonstration" houses which showcase energy-efficient design practices; offered energy audits and monitoring programs; and provided a referral service for persons who offer assistance in retrofitting or use reduction. The City's supporting role could include such components as:

* incorporating energy conservation into the Oakland Unified School District curricula.
* offering energy retrofit and weatherization classes through the Peralta College system.
* disseminating materials to employees on energy conservation (similar to the "Spare the Air" program used to educate employees on air quality).
* establishing transportation systems management programs (including the trip reduction ordinance) which promote transit use, cycling, and pedestrian movement.

Additional strategies for conservation are contained in OSCAR Technical Report Volume One.

### ACTION CO-13.2.1: ENERGY EFFICIENCY

*Keep apprised of the availability of funds for energy conservation and efficiency programs. Pursue funding if state and federal money becomes available for desirable programs.*

Oakland's participation in energy programs depends heavily on the availability of state and federal funds. In the 1970s, the City used federal funds to assist low income households in weatherizing their homes and also used a grant from the California Energy Commission to prepare an energy retrofit manual for owners of pre-1945 homes. Funds may currently be available to assist businesses in developing alternative energy sources or in undertaking retrofits. PG&E may also offer financial and technical assistance in these areas.

Should future fiscal conditions permit, the City could become more pro-active, perhaps by offering tax credits to businesses which use energy efficient materials, appliances, or construction techniques or by levying a tax on energy consumption above some base limit set by the City. The City can also support the PUC in its setting of tax and utility rates which discourage waste by charging higher unit costs for consumption over a certain base quantity.

### POLICY CO-13.3: CONSTRUCTION METHODS AND MATERIALS

Encourage the use of energy-efficient construction and building materials. Encourage site plans for new development which maximize energy efficiency.

The City has little direct control over the production and supply of conventional energy sources, but it can influence the type and amount of energy its residents and businesses consume. Certain land use patterns, building types, and transportation modes are more energy-efficient than others. The City has the power to influence these aspects of Oakland's form.

<!-- page 176 -->
The City of Oakland will strive towards land use and transportation patterns which minimize energy consumption. Motor vehicles are currently the biggest consumer of energy in the Bay Area and reduction in their use is critical to an effective conservation strategy.

The orientation of buildings, design of streets and landscaping, and selection of street trees all influence energy consumption. Siting homes with a southern exposure can maximize passive solar heating. Using narrower streets and fewer paved surfaces tends to reduce cooling needs for adjacent buildings, since pavement absorbs heat and can increase the air temperature. Parking, landscaping, and massing of structures play a major role in determining the microclimate around buildings and thereby influence energy needs.

Building materials can also be selected to minimize heating and cooling needs, reduce heat loss, and maximize solar access. Heating and cooling needs can be reduced by using light exterior colors and roof materials, glazing south-facing windows, and providing adequate interior ventilation. Heat loss can be reduced by weatherstripping and insulating. Where feasible, solar collectors can be used for space and water heating. Buildings also can be designed to re-use heat energy with fireplace heat extractors or waste heat recovery systems.

The retrofitting or replacement of appliances and furnaces also provides an effective way to reduce household energy costs. Retrofitting may be as simple as wrapping an insulation blanket around the water heater or placing a timer on the home thermostat. Lighting design is another effective way to reduce energy use. Again, this may be as simple as using lower wattage bulbs or reducing the intensity of advertising lights, or it could involve the use of skylights or placement of windows to maximize natural lighting.

### ACTION CO-13.3.1: CODES, REGULATIONS, AND PROCEDURES SUPPORTING ENERGY CONSERVATION.

***Maintain building codes, regulations, and procedures which support energy conservation. This includes the State-mandated Title 24 program, which shall continue to be enforced by the Office of Planning and Building.***

The City presently requires energy efficient building design through its Building Codes and its enforcement of the California Energy Commission's Title 24 program. The building code includes a number of construction requirements for energy conservation, primarily for roof and wall insulation. Title 24 contains prescriptive standards for wall, ceiling and floor insulation, vapor barriers, glazing, infiltration, climate control systems, and water heating equipment. In 1983, the regulations were amended to apply to additions to existing homes as well as new homes.

The current building code does not require more comprehensive energy-saving measures such as light-colored walls and roofs, tinted glass and overhangs, and increased use of natural lighting. While no code changes are recommended at this time, the development community should be encouraged to follow energy-saving practices wherever feasible.

### ACTION 13.3.2: DISTRIBUTION OF "RETROFIT RIGHT"

***Continue to make "Retrofit Right" available to the public.***

In 1983, the city developed a manual for homeowners, architects, and contractors called "Retrofit Right." The manual describes how an older (pre-1945) Oakland home can be made more energy efficient by reducing heat losses, making appliances and heating more efficient, changing consumer behavior, and improving the delivery of energy to the house. Different retrofit strategies were developed for all of the major pre-1945 architectural

<!-- page 177 -->
styles in Oakland. The manual should continue to be made available to homeowners and tenants.

***

### ACTION CO-13.3.3: ADDITIONAL MEASURES

*Consider developing additional measures to promote energy-efficient building design and construction and energy-efficient site planning.*

Some of the measures that might be considered could include:

* A mandatory solar pool heating ordinance, prohibiting gas and electric pool heaters on new swimming pools.
* An energy conservation ordinance, establishing performance standards for structural heat loss and gain.
* A retrofit ordinance, requiring basic energy conservation measures to be undertaken upon the resale of older homes or transfer of commercial properties (such ordinances have been already adopted by Berkeley and San Francisco).
* Thermal efficiency standards for new city buildings (insulation requirements, lighting use, window specifications, heat storage capacity requirements, etc.).
* Requirements for energy efficient outdoor light fixtures and advertising signs.
* A conservation "point system" which offers permit fee discounts or rebates to builders using energy-efficient designs or materials.

Some of the measures to promote energy-efficient site planning that might be considered could include:

* Zoning code and subdivision regulation amendments which ensure that buildings are sited favorably for natural heating and cooling.
* Zoning code amendments which allow greater flexibility in building setbacks. By allowing clustered housing in more areas, there is a greater likelihood that homes will share common walls (and hence lose less heat).
* Zoning code amendments which limit impervious surface coverage by asphalt or other heat-absorbing surfaces. (see also *Water Resources Action CO-5.1.1*).
* Incentives to use leafy deciduous shade trees along streets and in parking lots.

***

### POLICY CO-13.4: ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES

**Accommodate the development and use of alternative energy resources, including solar energy and technologies which convert waste or industrial byproducts to energy, provided that such activities are compatible with surrounding land uses and regional air and water quality requirements.**

Oakland possesses a number of alternative fuel sources which could potentially be harnessed or more widely used. As the supply of fossil fuels declines and energy costs increase, these resources may become more important. Harnessing the city's alternative energy sources could even become a source of jobs and a way to divert garbage from landfills.

Solar energy systems can significantly reduce utility costs as well as dependence on imported energy sources. The Oakland zoning ordinance was amended in 1983 to specifically address solar and wind energy generators. The amendment states the conditions under which a use permit is required and includes provisions for minimizing visual impacts.

Other energy resources include biomass, waste-to-energy, and cogeneration. Biomass resources include organic materials like trash, sludge, and agricultural waste. Various processes are used to convert these materials into fuels, or directly into heat, steam, or electricity. Waste-to-energy follows similar principles and produces the added benefit of diverting waste from landfills. The technology is already in use at the EBMUD treatment plant near the Bay Bridge, where a 4.0 megawatt facility is in operation. Cogeneration is a process by which the heat generated through certain industrial processes is recovered and re-used for energy. The technology is used

<!-- page 178 -->
at a handful of Oakland businesses, including the YMCA and a local hospital.

***

### ACTION 13.4.1: ELIMINATION OF REGULATORY OBSTACLES

*Review local land development regulations (including zoning, building codes, and the subdivision ordinance) to make sure there are no undue obstacles to the use of solar power and the development of alternative energy sources.*

***

### ACTION CO-13.4.2: PROMOTION OF WASTE-TO-ENERGY FACILITIES

*Where compatible with surrounding land uses, promote the development of waste-to-energy facilities within Recycling Enterprise Zones.*

<!-- page 179 -->
# Chapter 4

# Recreation

<!-- page 180 -->
# INTRODUCTION

This chapter of the OSCAR Element addresses Recreation. The chapter covers parks and recreational facilities as well as the delivery of recreation services to the people of Oakland.

Oakland has a legacy of fine parks and recreational facilities. From the time the city was first settled, parks have provided focal points for community and neighborhood life and have satisfied the leisure activity needs of Oakland residents. Today the city has some 2,942 acres of parkland, amounting to about 8 acres for every 1,000 residents. There are more than 130 parks and athletic field complexes in Oakland, ranging from undeveloped open space lands to intensely developed urban spaces. A broad variety of leisure and other human services are provided from these sites.

While their value to the community is indisputable, many of Oakland's parks and recreational programs have been hard hit by cutbacks in funding for programs, maintenance, and capital improvements. With the ever present threat of further budget reductions, services once taken for granted now undergo constant scrutiny. At the same time, social problems like drugs and crime have taken a devastating toll on many parks and have prevented their use and enjoyment by residents of surrounding areas. In some areas, changing recreational preferences and neighborhood demographics have made park facilities obsolete, while aging facilities in other areas make rehabilitation or replacement necessary.

The obstacles to improving the parks are further compounded by the lack of park acreage in many parts of the city. Historically, Oakland's parks were developed to fill particular needs or because civic-minded landowners offered their properties to the city. Growth occurred without an overall acquisition strategy or adopted standard for parkland. As a result, large areas of Oakland developed with no parks at all, creating enormous discrepancies from one area to the next. Where parks were set aside, they were often too small to sustain a sufficiently broad range of uses. Many became so crowded with recreational buildings and facilities that their role as passive open space was seriously compromised.

It is this climate of land deficiency, economic uncertainty, social change, and aging infrastructure that has made long-range planning a necessity. The high cost of acquiring and maintaining parkland has made it essential to have a systematic way of prioritizing projects. The OSCAR Element provides a means of evaluating what we have, identifying what we are missing, and setting policies and actions for how to close the gap between the two.

Although this chapter is comprehensive in scope, it is not intended to be a "Park Master Plan." The City still needs to prepare a plan which specifically addresses capital improvements, funding sources, park administration, and program changes. The OSCAR Element sets a policy framework for such a plan but stops short of making detailed recommendations for service delivery and capital improvements.

<!-- page 181 -->
# A BRIEF HISTORY OF OAKLAND'S PARK SYSTEM

### The Early Years

Even in the days when Oakland was a frontier outpost with just a few thousand residents, parks were an important part of the local scene. Oakland's oldest parks--San Antonio, Clinton, and the so-called "seven squares"--date back almost to city's incorporation in 1852.

San Antonio Park, one of the first, had its beginnings as a public square in 1854. The park's central feature was a bull ring, which featured gruesome bullfights as well as fights pitting bulls against grizzly bears. On the grounds of the park, cattle were bought and sold, rodeos and horse races were held, and fiestas were celebrated by the largely Mexican and Spanish local population. Less than a mile west, the town of Clinton sprang up near what is now East 12th Street and 9th Avenue. Clinton Square, the town's "village green," was established at about the same time as San Antonio Park.

Meanwhile, the 1854 deed of partition for the new City of Oakland recorded seven city squares located in what is now the downtown/ Chinatown district. Four of these squares--Lafayette, Harrison, Jefferson, and Lincoln--remain today, though each has been altered over the years. One--Madison--was relocated in the 1960s to make way for the Lake Merritt BART station. Two of the squares were developed with public administration buildings in the early 1900s and today bear no evidence of their original use.

By the late 1860s, the focus shifted to the marshy headwaters of San Antonio Slough, today known as Lake Merritt. Mayor Samuel Merritt advocated converting the Slough, which people disliked for its appearance and smell at low tide, into a lake which would form the nucleus of a future water park. An earthen dam, wooden flood gates, and a new public bridge were installed in 1867 along what is now 12th Street. However, it was not until 1907 (after a post-'06 earthquake "tent city" was removed from the park) that Lakeside Park was established.

<<FIGURE>>

### The Era of Expansion

In 1906, Charles Mulford Robinson submitted one of the first General Plans for the City of Oakland. The Plan described the city's 38.5 acres of parks as "a pitiful showing" for a city the size of Oakland and also criticized the lack of access to the waterfront and estuary. The Plan strongly urged the city to form a chain of parks extending from Lake Merritt along Indian Gulch (Trestle Glen) to Dimond Canyon. The Plan also expressed the need for smaller neighborhood parks, which were conspicuously absent at the time and which would serve ornamental and recreational purposes. Above all, Robinson urged expediency in land acquisition, because land values were still relatively inexpensive at the time.

One of the Plan's greatest supporters was Mayor Mott. Mott had recently visited parks in major cities on the East Coast, and was impressed by projects like Central Park in New York and the Commons in Boston. Oakland voters stood behind the Mayor and approved a bond measure of nearly one million dollars for park improvements in 1907. During the next few years, Oakland set about acquiring key sites for parks and making improvements to existing parks. However, the bond money was not enough to create the so-called "Wildwood Chain" of parks from Lake Merritt to Dimond Canyon. The land was developed into what is now the Trestle Glen district soon after.

<!-- page 182 -->
While Mayor Mott had not been granted everything he had hoped for, he was encouraged by signs that Oakland was finally beginning to realize the importance of a healthy park system. The next major actions Mott took were to create a Playground Commission in 1908 and a Park Commission in 1909. The Park Commission was responsible for administering the city's park system, and in particular the acquisition and improvement programs which were underway. Prior to this time, the parks had been under the control of the street department, with the head gardener in charge.

Despite the increase in public support, there were still many interests in Oakland which tried to impede the efforts of the Park Commission in the area of land acquisition. During the term of Mayor Davie (1915-1931), almost every proposed appropriation for park purposes was contested by elements of the public, the City Council, and Davie himself. Nevertheless, park expansion and improvement continued throughout the period so that by 1934 park area in Oakland had grown to 629 acres. Meanwhile, the Playground Commission's jurisdiction had grown to 70 public playgrounds, a municipal golf course, five mountain camps, and a public swimming pool.

### Birth of the Regional Parks

While parkland acquisition proceeded in the flatlands, another movement was afoot in the East Bay Hills. As early as 1866, Frederick Law Olmsted suggested construction of "scenic lanes" through the hills above Oakland. The sentiment was repeated in the 1906 and 1915 Oakland City Plans, both of which urged the creation of scenic hill area parks. Ultimately, it was water rather than beauty that compelled the protection of these lands as open space.

By the turn of the century, water companies had purchased several of the East Bay canyons and had set about digging wells and planning reservoirs in the hills. However, the combination of rapid growth and drought during the 1920s illustrated that these basins were not sufficient to meet the area's water needs. The area's independent water districts merged and proceeded to develop large new reservoirs in the Sierra foothills. With the formation of the East Bay Municipal Utility District in 1928 and the construction of the new Mokelumne Aqueduct, some 10,000 acres above Oakland and Berkeley were declared surplus and were offered for sale.

A land rush ensued, pitting developers and builders against East Bay naturalists and outdoor groups. In 1928, the citizen-based East Bay Metropolitan Park Association was created with the goal of creating a 22-mile chain of parks from Wildcat Canyon to Lake Chabot. EBMUD responded unsympathetically to their proposal. In 1931, park supporters proposed a new special district which would encompass nine cities and two counties. After a massive public relations campaign, the cities of northern Alameda County approved the District's formation in November, 1934 by a more than 2 to 1 margin.

The first task of the new District was to amass land. Tilden was purchased first, for about $300 an acre. Sibley, Lake Temescal, and a small portion of Redwood were purchased next. A number of WPA and Conservation Corps projects were immediately undertaken, including the construction of Skyline Boulevard and the development of playfields, trails, camps, and picnic sites. Redwood was expanded in 1939, with the Roberts Recreation Area developed 14 years later in 1953. Anthony Chabot Regional Park, then known as Grass Valley, was added in 1952. Later acquisitions in Oakland included Huckleberry Botanical Preserve in the 1970s, San Leandro Bay (Martin Luther King Junior) Regional Shoreline, which opened in 1979, and Claremont Canyon, mostly acquired during the 1980s.

### Modern Times

During the period of major acquisition by the Regional Park District, the City's focus shifted towards physical improvements to its parks, including recreation center buildings and ballfields, basketball courts, restrooms, lighting, and play areas at many locations. Almost no new land acquisition took place between the 1940s and the late 1950s. The 1960s and early 1970s saw a second wave of new parks, most associated with freeway construction, flood control, and urban renewal projects. During the "Great Society" years of the mid-1960s, parks were viewed as a way to improve living conditions and their necessity was bolstered by rising social problems and poverty in the neighborhoods. The number of city

<!-- page 183 -->
parks increased dramatically during this period, although total park acreage increased only slightly.

Among the more significant administrative changes of the modern era was the creation of the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) and the formation of the Oakland Office of Parks and Recreation. The former resulted in all school playgrounds and many school athletic fields becoming the legal property of the OUSD. The latter resulted in the merging of the Playgrounds Department and the Parks Department, and the consolidation of the two Commissions into a Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission.

*A complete history of most parks in Oakland can be found in OSCAR Technical Report Volume Two.*

### PARK CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Despite its long history of park development, Oakland has never adopted a formal classification system for its parks. Most large cities in the United States have classification systems of one kind or another and use these systems as the basis for decisions regarding future activities within each park as well as future acquisitions or capital improvements. The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) identifies park classification as "the basic element of the planning function."

The following 10 categories of parks are proposed for Oakland. These categories are based on NRPA guidelines but have been adapted to reflect local circumstances:

*   Region-Serving Park
*   Community Park
*   Neighborhood Park
*   Active Mini-Park
*   Passive Mini-Park
*   Linear Park
*   Special Use Park
*   Resource Conservation Park
*   Athletic Field Park/ School Athletic Field
*   School Playgrounds

Each park type is described in Table 8. In each case, the description is preceded by a size range, a service area, and a service goal. Service areas tend to be broader in the hills than in the flatlands due to the difference in density and auto ownership in the two areas. Because the percentage of households without autos is ten times greater in the flatlands than in the hills and the average density is five times greater, the same service standard cannot be applied in both places.

The classification system is intended for general direction only. Since each park and each community are different, each community or neighborhood should have the flexibility to decide if the facilities listed would be appropriate in their local park. Parks that fall short of the standards in Table 8 do not necessarily need to be changed or expanded, particularly if they are hemmed in by development or work well as they are.

The classification system emphasizes neighborhood, community, and region-serving parks as the building blocks of the city's recreation system. A limited number of region-serving parks already exist in the city, attracting visitors from Oakland and other Bay Area cities. At the community level, each of the city's planning areas (there are 10, excluding the Port) should have a major community park. These parks should provide opportunities for active and passive recreation, social interaction, education, and cultural enrichment for all residents in the community. A series of neighborhood parks should serve smaller areas within each community.

Planning for Oakland's parks should reinforce the notion that Oakland is a city of neighborhoods. At all levels, the parks should become positive focal points and organizing blocks for these neighborhoods.

<!-- page 184 -->
### Table 8: Oakland Park Classification System

| |
| :--- |
| ***Region-Serving Park*** |
| |
| *Size Range: 25 acres or larger* |
| *Service Area: Citywide* |
| *Service Goal: None stated* |
| |
| *Oakland's region-serving parks are large recreation areas with diverse natural and man-made features. They draw patrons from throughout the city and, to a limited extent, other communities. Such parks should be large enough to accommodate several different functional areas. Typical facilities include:* |
| |
| ✓ *children's playground and tot lot* |
| ✓ *beaches and boat ramps (at waterfront sites)* |
| ✓ *performance and/or festival spaces* |
| ✓ *group picnic areas (including park shelter buildings)* |
| ✓ *athletic fields, where space is available* |
| ✓ *large lawns, walkways, gardens, and sitting areas* |
| ✓ *unique natural features, such as forests, lakes, and open landscapes* |
| ✓ *museums and other educational or cultural institutions serving recreational needs* |
| ✓ *facilities for specialized active recreation like lawn bowling or horseback riding* |
| |
| *Where region-serving parks are located in populated areas, they may also be used as neighborhood or community parks by nearby residents. Where appropriate and where comparable facilities do not exist nearby, some of the facilities usually found in these types of parks may be appropriate in region-serving parks. Region-serving parks may also contain large natural areas used for resource conservation.* |
| |
| *There are no per capita standards recommended for region-serving parks. The service area is citywide. Due to their regional draw, all region-serving parks should be transit-served.* |
| |
| ***Community Park*** |
| |
| *Size Range: 5-20 acres* |
| *Service Area: ½ mile radius in flatlands, one mile radius in hills* |
| *Service Goal: A community park of at least 7.5 acres in every one of the ten (non-Port) planning areas.* |
| |
| *A Community Park is a large natural and/or landscaped area which provides both a refuge from the urban environment and a place for active recreation. Such parks usually serve a cluster of neighborhoods within a one-half or one-mile radius. The facilities that should be included are:* |
| |
| ✓ *tennis courts* &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ✓ *well-lighted off-street parking* |
| ✓ *large children's playground and tot lot* &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ✓ *outdoor performance area* |
| ✓ *recreation center* &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ✓ *active play area for activities such as volleyball* |
| ✓ *lighted softball and baseball fields* &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ✓ *soccer/ football field, unless a field is available* |
| ✓ *picnic areas* &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; *within one mile* |
| ✓ *basketball courts (preferably with lighting)* |
| ✓ *restroom facilities* |
| |

<!-- page 185 -->
Table 8 (Continued)

| |
| :--- |
| *Where land is available and comparable facilities do not exist nearby, community parks should also have a swimming pool and gymnasium. Where land is not available, sites on the perimeter of the existing park should be considered for such facilities.* |
| *To accommodate all of these facilities while still allowing enough room for passive recreation requires a site of about 15 to 25 acres. Since all but one of the existing community parks in Oakland are smaller than that, care must be taken not to crowd in new facilities at the expense of natural areas or lawns. In most cases, new facilities should only be added when the existing park can be physically expanded.* |
| *Each of the city's populated planning areas should have at least one community park. Each park should be staffed by recreation personnel throughout the year.* |
| **Neighborhood Park** |
| *<u>Size Range:</u> 2-10 acres*<br>*<u>Service Area:</u> 1/4 mile radius in flatlands, ½ mile radius in hills*<br>*<u>Service Goal:</u> A neighborhood park of at least 3 acres for every 5,000 Oakland residents.* |
| *A neighborhood park is essentially a scaled-down version of a community park. The typical Oakland neighborhood park is located in a residential area within walking distance of its primary users. Many are located adjacent to elementary schools, with facilities used by both the school and the neighborhood. Neighborhood parks should contain:* |
| ✓ *landscaped picnic areas and lawn*<br>✓ *children's play areas/ tot lot*<br>✓ *hard court area for basketball*<br>✓ *multi-purpose turf area (ballfield)*<br>✓ *rest rooms, where the park supports major athletic events and where there is community support*<br>✓ *picnic tables and sitting areas* |
| *For neighborhood parks that are located outside the service area of community parks, other facilities such as recreation centers and tennis courts may be appropriate. At least some off-street parking should be provided at the recreation centers and in other areas where street parking is limited.* |
| *Neighborhood parks should also include areas for imaginative play not found in the typical backyard. These might include groves of trees, creeks, or undeveloped grassy areas. There should also be benches and picnic tables for adults.* |
| *The decision to provide night lighting and restrooms should be made on a site by site basis depending on what the community determines to be most desirable. Generally, restrooms are appropriate in parks which accommodate activities that are long-term in nature, including baseball games. Restrooms would not ordinarily be appropriate in parks which accommodated a children's play area and basketball courts only.* |

<!-- page 186 -->
### Table 8 (Continued)

| |
| :--- |
| ***Active Mini-Parks***<br><br><u>Size Range:</u> *Less than one acre*<br><u>Service Area:</u> *1/8 mile radius in flatlands, 1/4 mile radius in hills*<br><u>Service Goal:</u> *None stated. Due to resource limitations and security issues, active mini-parks should only be developed in high density neighborhoods or employment centers beyond the service area of neighborhood or community parks.*<br><br>*Active mini-parks are typically located in high density neighborhoods and serve a specific group of people, usually small children. They are essentially substitutes for private backyards. The focus of the active mini-park is usually play apparatus, including swings, slides, and climbing structures. They should also contain a small lawn or garden area, benches, and picnic tables. Where space is available, a hardcourt area for basketball may also be accommodated. Most of the mini-parks are located in areas where neighborhood parks are not closeby.*<br><br>***Passive Mini-Parks***<br><br><u>Size Range:</u> *Less than one acre*<br><u>Service Area:</u> *None*<br><u>Service Goal:</u> *Provide in new subdivisions and redevelopment areas to enhance neighborhood appearance*<br><br>*Passive mini-parks are small landscaped areas located adjacent to or in the center of streets. Their primary function is aesthetic, with most of these areas specifically set aside to enhance the beauty of urban residential neighborhoods. Such parks usually contain a lawn area complemented by ornamental landscaping and shade trees. They are generally not suited for facilities, although at a neighborhood's request, a small tot lot or community garden may be appropriate.*<br><br>***Linear Park***<br><br><u>Size Range:</u> *Varies*<br><u>Service Area:</u> *Depends on size of park*<br><u>Service Goal:</u> *Provide where possible along creek and shoreline areas and within major medians*<br><br>*A linear park has one of two functions:*<br><br>*(1) It protects and provides linear access to a natural feature such as a creek or shoreline*<br>*(2) It provides a connection between two points, sometimes through joint use of an existing linear feature like a BART line or transmission line right of way.*<br><br>*In the first case, the key feature of the linear park is usually a trail, with occasional benches or sitting areas. The linear park may include facilities such as fishing piers (if it is on the shoreline) and children's play areas if such facilities can be sited in a way that minimizes environmental and visual impacts. Play areas which integrate creeks and treat them as an opportunity for creative play are encouraged. In the second case, the park usually contains a paved trail or bike path. Other facilities may be appropriate where space is available.* |

<!-- page 187 -->
Table 8 (Continued)

| |
| :--- |
| ***Special Use Park*** |
| |
| *Size Range: Varies* |
| *Service Area: Usually citywide, but depends on activity* |
| *Service Goal: None stated* |
| |
| These are areas for specialized or single purpose activities, including golf courses, swimming pools, zoos, ornamental gardens, horse stables, and historic sites. Also included are city squares which may lack recreational facilities but which serve an aesthetic function and may have historic significance. In general, activities in special use parks should complement and be related to the special use. If the park's primary function is historical or aesthetic, facilities for active recreation would usually be inappropriate. |
| |
| ***Resource Conservation Areas*** |
| |
| *Size Range: Whatever is required to protect the resource* |
| *Service Area: Varies from neighborhood to citywide* |
| *Service Goal: None stated* |
| |
| The primary purpose of Resource Conservation Areas (RCAs) is to protect the natural environment. Recreational use is a secondary objective and is usually limited to activities such as hiking, nature study, and birdwatching. In Oakland, RCAs are located in areas where development would have an obtrusive visual or ecological impact. These include steep hillsides, wetlands, riparian canyons, and areas with important wildlife habitat value. In some cases, RCAs may lie within the boundaries of large parks which also contain region-serving facilities. This is the case at Joaquin Miller Park and Lake Temescal, as well as Martin Luther King, Jr. Regional Shoreline. |
| |
| Small, low-impact facilities (such as tot lots or nature boardwalks) may be appropriate in RCAs when they are located adjacent to access points or parking areas. However, athletic fields, active play areas, and buildings are inappropriate in most cases. Where public access is provided, it should be compatible with the natural state of the area. Vegetation management for fire prevention and habitat improvement are both encouraged, as well as projects which restore original site qualities such as stream restoration and planting of native species. |
| |
| ***Athletic Field Park/ School Athletic Fields*** |
| |
| *Size Range: 4-15 acres* |
| *Service Area: Usually one mile* |
| *Service Goal: One athletic field complex (capable of supporting soccer, football, and baseball games) for every 20,000 residents.* |
| |
| Athletic field parks are large open sites whose primary purpose is to provide a place for high school and league ball games. They typically contain regulation size baseball, softball, soccer, and/or football fields. Most of the athletic fields on school sites also incorporate a perimeter track for track and field events, and bleachers for spectators. |
| |
| Athletic field parks are distinguished from neighborhood and community parks by the absence of other facilities, such as recreation centers, tennis courts, and basketball courts and by a de-emphasis on natural features such as |

<!-- page 188 -->
*Table 8 (Continued)*

> woodlands or streams. The fields usually consist of flat, unobstructed lawn areas, with improvements such as goal posts, backstops, and bases. Some are lighted for evening play. Some include restrooms, locker rooms and showers.
>
> Some of the athletic field parks may have the potential to be expanded to community or neighborhood parks. This would be done by developing an unused part of the site with such facilities as basketball courts and children's play apparatus. Such conversions should only occur where there is broad-based community support and a shortage of existing recreational facilities and where there would be minimal impact on the existing fields.
>
> *School Playgrounds*
>
> *Size Range: None stated, set by State of California*
> *Service Area: Same as school service area*
> *Service Goal: One per school, staffed and available to the public during non-school daylight hours*
>
> School playgrounds are located on public school properties and provide recreational facilities and play areas for students. Through joint use agreements between the Oakland Unified School District and the Oakland Office of Parks and Recreation, the playgrounds are usually open to the public during daylight hours when school is not in session. School playgrounds are generally fenced and gated and are locked at night.
>
> Most playgrounds consist of hardcourt areas for kickball and other ball sports, basketball courts, and play apparatus (swings, slides, climbing structures) for school-age children. Some contain portable classroom buildings that are open during summer hours. A few of the high school playgrounds contain tennis courts.

### Per Capita Standards

Per capita standards provide a way of measuring the overall need for parks and identifying where deficiencies exist. By highlighting the gaps in park services, they also enhance the city's competitiveness in obtaining government and private funding for improvements.

Oakland's per capita standards are based on National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) guidelines, with modifications made to reflect the fact that Oakland is a mature, relatively dense city with a limited supply of vacant land. The two major standards differentiate between *total* park acreage and *local-serving* park acreage.

A total park acreage standard of 10 acres per 1,000 residents is proposed. This standard has been in place since the 1976 OSCAR Element. The standard should only be applied for the city as a whole and should be based on all parkland in the city, regardless of function or ownership. Oakland currently has 8.26 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.

A local-serving park acreage standard of 4 acres per 1,000 residents is proposed. This standard can be applied at both a citywide and community level. It includes all parks which meet the active recreational needs of the community. Parks with no facilities (like Claremont Canyon and Leona Open Space) are not included, nor are parks which serve a special purpose like the Zoo, the golf courses, or Dunsmuir House (See *OSCAR Technical Report Volume 2, Chapter 3 for further explanation*). Oakland presently has 1.33 acres of local-serving park acreage per capita. Achieving the 4 acre per 1,000 standard would require the acquisition of nearly 1,000 acres of relatively flat land. While this will be impossible without massive redevelopment, major gains towards the standard can be made through expansion of existing parks, improvement of creek and

<!-- page 189 -->
shoreline access, acquisition of vacant parcels, and incorporation of new parks in major redevelopment projects.

### How Oakland Measures Up

Oakland's parks are identified in Figure 15. Table 9 summarizes Oakland's parks by functional category. A complete listing of these parks can be found in Appendix A.

As Table 9 indicates, more than half the city's park acreage consists of "Resource Conservation Areas"; that is, passive open space that is undeveloped. Most of this land consists of steeply sloping hillsides with limited potential for recreation. "Special use" parks such as the golf courses, zoo and the Morcom Rose Garden constitute about a fifth of Oakland's park acreage.

Only about a quarter of the park acreage in the city consists of traditional region-serving, community, neighborhood, and mini-parks. These parks are distributed throughout the city but are definitely more prevalent in some areas than others.

West Oakland and the North Hills tend to be better served than other areas, but even these neighborhoods are deficient in active recreational facilities. The greatest deficiencies are in Fruitvale and Central East Oakland. In the broad band of flatland neighborhoods extending from 23rd Avenue to Hegenberger Road, about 100,000 residents are served by only a handful of small neighborhood parks. As Table 10 indicates, local-serving park acreage in these areas is only about 20 percent of the city standard.

### Table 9: Summary of Oakland's Parks

| Type | Number | Acreage |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Region-Serving Parks | 5 | 332.0 |
| Community Parks | 9 | 101.1 |
| Neighborhood Parks | 44 | 126.0 |
| Active Mini-Parks | 16 | 5.8 |
| Passive Mini-Parks | 5 | 2.2 |
| Linear Parks | 12 | 33.0 |
| Special Use Parks | 24 | 651.1 |
| Resource Conservation Areas | 19 | 1,622.8 |
| Athletic Field Parks | 14 | 68.6 |
| TOTAL | 147[^p189-1] | 2,942.6[^p189-2] |
|  |  |  |
| School Properties | 70 | 131[^p189-3] |
| GRAND TOTAL ACREAGE |  | 3,073.6 |

[^p189-1]: Actual number of parks is smaller; several parks have been divided into multiple categories.
[^p189-2]: 906.2 acres of this total is within East Bay Regional Parks within Oakland city limits.
[^p189-3]: Acreage estimate based on aerial photographs of schoolyards.

<!-- page 190 -->
<<FIGURE>>

City of Oakland
**Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element**

### Figure 15:
### Oakland Parks by Category
Office of Planning & Building, 1995

<!-- page 191 -->
### Table 10: Local Serving Park Acreage Per Capita

| | Acres per 1,000 residents |
| :--- | :---: |
| West Oakland | 2.43 |
| North Hills | 2.35 |
| Elmhurst | 1.73 |
| Central | 1.65 |
| South Hills | 1.49 |
| Citywide Average | 1.33 |
| Lower Hills | 1.20 |
| North Oakland | 1.18 |
| Central East Oakland | 0.86 |
| San Antonio | 0.78 |
| Fruitvale | 0.68 |
| | |
| ADOPTED STANDARD | 4.00 |

***

Figures 16 and 17 show those neighborhoods within the service areas of Oakland's parks and those neighborhoods outside these service areas. Figure 17 illustrates deficiencies in virtually all flatland communities, particularly in North and East Oakland. For some East Oakland residents, the nearest park may be as much as a mile away. While some hill areas are also a mile away from local parks, the deficiency is offset to a great extent by much higher mobility, lower densities, and proximity to the regional parks.

Figure 17 also identifies areas where new parks are needed to offset the deficiencies. The policies in this chapter and the recommendations in the next chapter reflect this analysis.

What the two Figures do not show is that even areas that already are served by parks may be deficient in other ways. For instance, Figure 16 shows a large concentration of parks in the Lower San Antonio and Fruitvale areas. Most of these parks are only an acre or two in size, much smaller than the standards set in Table 8. Many lack the facilities or amenities that are typically found in neighborhood or community parks. Moreover, these areas are the most dense in the city and have very high concentrations of children. As the next section notes, social and economic factors may make demands on the existing parks higher here than in other parts of Oakland.

### FACTORS AFFECTING RECREATIONAL NEEDS

Per capita standards alone are not enough to evaluate Oakland's parks and recreational facilities. Because the city is large and contains many different social, economic, and cultural groups, the needs of different populations must be considered as well. Lower income areas may have greater needs for public parks since residents may lack the means to afford private facilities and may be less mobile. Areas with large proportions of children have different needs than those with large numbers of "empty nesters." Culture also may have a bearing on recreational needs. Immigrant populations may require certain social services in conjunction with recreation, or may prefer different types of facilities than those conventionally provided.

Generally, the need for city parks and recreational facilities is highest in the denser flatland neighborhoods as a result of:

* lower household incomes and more limited means to afford private recreation
* limited mobility due to lower rates of auto ownership
* larger numbers of children
* larger numbers of apartment dwellers living in housing without useable open space
* denser development patterns without the aesthetic amenities afforded by open space
* larger numbers of immigrants and persons requiring cultural and social services
* larger concentrations of "at risk" youth

Some of the demographic factors affecting recreational needs are highlighted below and are summarized in Table 11.

<!-- page 192 -->
<<FIGURE>>

Areas within Park Service Radius
Non-Residential or Undeveloped Lands

Note: Most Special Use Parks, Resource Conservation Parks, Passive Mini-Parks, and Linear Parks have been excluded since they lack active recreational facilities. High School athletic fields

City of Oakland
Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element
### Figure 16: Areas Served by Oakland Parks

<!-- page 193 -->
<<FIGURE>>

City of Oakland
Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element

### Figure 17:
### Park Deficient Areas
Office of Planning & Building, 1995

<!-- page 194 -->
### Table 11: Factors Affecting Recreational Needs

| Planning Area | % of Persons Under 18 | % of Persons Over 65 | Median Household Income | % of Housing in Bldgs with 2+ units | % Persons Households w/out Auto | % Persons not speaking English | Persons per square mile |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| North Hills | 17.6 | 15.9 | $68,360 | 10.0 | 2.7 | 0.9 | 2,627 |
| South Hills | 20.5 | 13.9 | $59,847 | 14.2 | 2.1 | 2.5 | 1,793 |
| Lower Hills | 20.1 | 14.8 | $41,570 | 39.1 | 10.4 | 6.2 | 9,465 |
| North Oakland | 18.4 | 14.9 | $25,602 | 59.7 | 23.6 | 4.3 | 13,175 |
| West Oakland | 33.5 | 14.5 | $12,197 | 70.4 | 48.9 | 9.3 | 9,289 |
| Chinatown/ Central | 12.1 | 19.0 | $21,049 | 95.1 | 38.9 | 17.0 | 11,488 |
| Fruitvale | 32.4 | 8.5 | $26,059 | 50.2 | 22.3 | 19.7 | 13,781 |
| San Antonio | 30.1 | 9.2 | $22,898 | 70.9 | 29.0 | 25.6 | 20,157 |
| Central East Oakland | 31.9 | 9.6 | $26,047 | 37.1 | 22.3 | 9.7 | 9,591 |
| Elmhurst | 33.4 | 9.6 | $24,633 | 31.0 | 23.7 | 5.7 | 9,546 |
| **City Total** | **26.2** | **12.2** | **$30,261** | **48.4** | **23.3** | **11.1** | **8,014** |

Source: *Oakland Office of Planning and Building, 1993*

### Total Population

Recreational demand is influenced by the overall size of the population. Oakland's population was about 372,000 in 1990, up nearly 10 percent from 1980. Some of the increase was the result of new construction, particularly in the South Hills.

However, a greater share was due to immigration from Pacific Rim nations, with parts of the San Antonio and Fruitvale districts witnessing population increases upwards of 40 percent. West Oakland and Chinatown also grew faster than the city as a whole, while North and East Oakland generally grew more slowly.

The population increase in San Antonio-Fruitvale occurred with very little new housing added, making existing housing in the community much more crowded. This has placed a premium of what little open space exists in the neighborhood. With no new parks added, established parks like Sanborn and San Antonio have borne the brunt of the growth. These parks are often crowded with new users, particularly children and teens.

### Age

Between 1980 and 1990, the number of persons under 18 increased more rapidly than the population as a whole. As a result, greater demands have been placed on parks throughout Oakland, especially on playgrounds and tot lots.

Citywide, about 25 percent of Oakland's population is under 18. However, in much of San Antonio-Fruitvale, and in parts of West Oakland, Central East Oakland and Elmhurst, the figure exceeds 35 percent. Many of these areas also have high concentrations of lower income households and families on public assistance. Improved park facilities, programs, and transportation may be needed in these areas.

Like persons under 18, Oakland's senior citizens may also have income and mobility limitations which affect their access to recreation. Seniors may also have certain recreational needs and preferences which distinguish them from the community at large. The greatest concentrations of senior citizens are downtown, around Lake Merritt, near Piedmont Avenue, in North and West Oakland, and in the hills. In some downtown census tracts, the percentage of seniors is three times greater than the city average. Parks serving this area and others like it should recognize the need for senior recreational activities.

<!-- page 195 -->
### Income

National surveys have found that increases in income tend to increase participation in recreation. This is significant in Oakland, where there are great disparities in income from one neighborhood to the next. For instance, household income in West Oakland is less than half the city median, while income in the North Hills is more than twice the city median. Many lower income households are unable to afford private recreational facilities and cannot travel to parks in other neighborhoods. More desirable programs, facilities, better transit service, access for the disabled, and improved public safety are needed to help increase the participation rate in these areas.

### Housing Type/Density

Housing type and density provide further indications of where recreational needs are greatest. Generally, those areas with higher proportions of multiple family housing have higher demand for public open space, since access to private open space (backyards) is limited. Many residents do not have the opportunity to place swing sets or, in some cases, even chairs in their yards. Table 11 shows the percentage of housing stock in each of the Planning Areas that consists of multi-unit buildings. The figure is very high (95%) in the Central Planning Area, and relatively high in the San Antonio, West Oakland, and North Oakland areas. Because parks in these areas double as backyards for local apartment dwellers, they face different demands than parks in the hill neighborhoods.

Table 11 also shows population density in the Planning Areas. San Antonio stands out as the most dense planning area in the city, followed by Fruitvale and North Oakland. Certain neighborhoods in other parts of the city stand out as being particularly dense, including Adams Point, the Oak Center area, and Cleveland Heights. While the densest areas tend to be relatively close to Lake Merritt and Lakeside Park, they are not adequately served with facilities for active recreation such as ballfields, playgrounds, and recreation centers.

### Mobility

Persons without cars must rely on walking, rides, and public transit to reach local parks. Getting to the regional parks or even community parks may be difficult since transit service is infrequent or non-existent. The number of households without autos is highest in West Oakland (49 %) and in the Central/ Chinatown area (39 %). Most of both communities are within walking distance of city parks, but often these parks lack the facilities needed to serve the local population. In some cases, there are also physical obstacles such as freeways or busy arterials that limit the use of the park by young children.

On the other hand, the North and South Hill areas have almost no households without cars. Seventy percent of the households have two or more cars. This affords the ability to travel to different parks for different kinds of recreation activities.

Physical disabilities present another kind of mobility limitation, discussed in the OSCAR policies on "special needs." Approximately 3 percent of all Oaklanders are disabled. In some cases, disabled persons may be able to reach the parks via autos or transit but once they arrive, they cannot use the facilities due to physical barriers such as stairs.

### Culture

Oakland has become more ethnically diverse during the past few decades, creating the need for parks and recreational programs which meet the needs of many different cultures. The number of non-English speaking persons has grown substantially since 1980. Today, more than 25 percent of the city's population speaks a language other than English in their home and 11 percent are "linguistically isolated," meaning their English is very limited. In the Chinatown, San Antonio, and Fruitvale area, the figures for linguistic isolation are significantly higher, exceeding 50 percent in some census tracts.

Multi-lingual programs, signs, and outreach may be needed at parks in these neighborhoods, as well as programs which respond to Pacific rim cultures and traditions. There may also be a strong demand for social services (such as English language education, health care,

<!-- page 196 -->
and job training) in conjunction with recreational services.

### Future Trends

Based on trends of the 1970s and 1980s, Oakland's population is likely to become larger, older and more diverse during the next decade. At the same time, the demand for recreation is likely to change as a result of technology and lifestyle changes. Some of the major social and economic trends affecting recreation are highlighted below:

1. Oakland's population is expected to increase slightly by 2000, fueled by immigration from Mexico, Central America, and Asia. Ethnic enclaves will continue to flourish in the flatland neighborhoods east of Lake Merritt, possibly expanding to other parts of the city. As a result of these changes, the demand for multi-cultural activities and new kinds of recreational activities will grow.

2. The number of senior citizens is expected to rise, as persons in the 45-64 age bracket mature. The number of teens and young adults will rise, as the new "baby boomers" grow older. Additional programs aimed at these groups will be needed. Continued interest in health and fitness will increase recreational demand for all age groups.

3. As a result of emerging technology, there will be a demand for more stimulating and exciting forms of recreation. Home-centered entertainment will keep expanding as a result of home computers, video games, interactive media, and links to the "information superhighway." City parks and recreational services will need to adapt to remain viable.

4. The need for programs targeting "youth at risk" will continue to be very high. As long as crime and drug problems persist, there will be an urgent need for positive alternatives for youth, especially organized recreation.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 197 -->
<<FIGURE>>

5. Changes in the work environment will affect the demand for recreation. Day care services and programs for "latch key" children will become more critical as the trend towards two-income households continues and as the percentage of single parent households grows. The demand for recreation at the workplace could become more significant, placing greater demands on parks in downtown Oakland and in other areas with growing employment bases. The trend towards flextime and telecommuting could increase personal leisure time and the demand for parks in other areas.

6. Parts of Oakland will become more densely populated, particularly around transit stations and along transit corridors, downtown, in neighborhoods with high foreign immigration, and in redeveloping former industrial areas. Demand for new parks in these areas will grow.

7. The "privatization" of some types of recreation previously provided by public agencies will continue. A number of privately-owned indoor playgrounds have already opened in the East Bay. Public subsidies will be required if Oakland's parks are to remain competitive with such facilities.

8. Recreational services will continue to be scrutinized due to budget shortages and property tax limits. If services are cut, lower income households will continue to bear a larger share of the burden, since they have less access to private recreation. Equity issues will compel the city to explore new funding sources and other solutions.

The City's recreational programs will need to adapt to these trends by closely monitoring successes and failures and by encouraging feedback from the community. Coordination with the schools, social service providers, and organizations representing seniors, youth, and immigrant populations will be especially critical during the years ahead.

<!-- page 198 -->
### RECREATIONAL NEEDS SURVEY

In the Summer of 1992, the Office of Planning and Building coordinated a telephone survey of 420 randomly selected Oakland households on park and recreation issues. A complete description of the survey, including the methodology, list of questions, and analysis of responses, is contained in OSCAR Technical Report Volume Two. Some of the major findings are encapsulated in Figures 18 and 19 and are highlighted below:

* *Overall, name recognition of neighborhood parks is low.* When asked to name the park closest to their home, most respondents listed large community and regional parks and overlooked the smaller parks close to their residences. For instance, 12 percent of the Hill area households listed Lakeside Park/Lake Merritt as being the park closest to their home.

* *About 70 percent of the households surveyed said they used their local park at least once a year; about 25 percent used their local park once a week or more.* Renters appeared to use the parks more often than homeowners, and households with children used the parks more often than those without. Park use was heaviest in the San Antonio-Fruitvale area and lightest in East Oakland.

* *The major reason people gave for not visiting their park more often was lack of time, followed by safety.* One-third of all respondents indicated they would use the parks more often if they were safer. About one-fifth of the respondents said they would use the parks more often if there were better facilities. Facilities for children (playgrounds/ tot lots) were mentioned most often.

* *The vast majority of Oakland residents (94 percent) drive or walk to their local parks.* About 71 percent of the households in North Oakland, West Oakland, and downtown walk to their parks, compared to 36 percent in the Hills. About three-quarters of the respondents could reach their local park from their home within ten minutes.

<<FIGURE>>

* *Local parks are generally used for "passive" recreational activities.* Sunning, reading, relaxing, walking, hiking, and people watching were among the most popular pastimes. About one quarter of Oakland's households use their local park to watch their children play, or to play with their children.

* *Most respondents were satisfied with park maintenance.* Nearly 80 percent indicated that their local park was well maintained, and only 12 percent indicated their local park was poorly maintained. Criticism of park maintenance was highest in the San Antonio-Fruitvale area and among infrequent park users, and was lowest in the Hills and among occasional park users.

<!-- page 199 -->
*   *Concerns about park safety are widespread, although 80 percent of the respondents feel that their local parks are safe during daylight hours. More than half of the respondents felt their local parks were unsafe at night.*

*   *A majority of Oakland residents are satisfied with the city park system. Citywide, about 58 percent were satisfied or very satisfied. Residents in the Hills generally gave the most favorable assessment, while San Antonio-Fruitvale and East Oakland residents were most critical.*

*   *Participation in recreational activities of some kind is an integral part of the lifestyle of most Oakland residents. Nearly all of the households polled spend some time each week participating in recreation. When inquiries were made on the kinds of activities in which household members participated, 39 different sports and activities were mentioned. Twenty of these were sports and activities listed by more than 10 respondents.*

The top listed recreational activity for children under 18 was the use of playground equipment, followed by swimming, bicycling, baseball, and basketball. The top listed recreational activity for persons 18-65 was walking (and hiking), followed by swimming, bicycling, basketball, and jogging. The top listed recreational activities for senior citizens were reading, sunning, walking, and hiking.

*   *About half of the city's residents indicated that they relied on Oakland's parks for their primary recreational activities. The percentages were highest in San Antonio-Fruitvale (66%) and lowest in the Hills (37%).*

*   *More than half of the respondents, including 45 percent of the very low income households, indicated they would be willing to pay fees for certain recreational activities. The most frequently mentioned activity was swimming, followed by classes and programs. The amounts mentioned were generally between $1.00 and $5.00 per visit.*

*   *Oakland residents rely on a variety of sources to find about their local parks. Newspapers were the leading source and were used by 35 percent of the households surveyed. Very close behind, 34 percent said that family and friends were a source of information on the parks.*

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 200 -->
### Figure 18: Resident Attitudes Towards Oakland Parks
*Asked of 420 randomly selected Oakland Households, August 1992*

How often do you
visit your local park?

<<FIGURE>>

How would you describe maintenance
levels in your local park?

<<FIGURE>>

What changes would influence you
to visit your local park more often?

<<FIGURE>>

Overall, how satisfied are you
with your local park?

<<FIGURE>>

Are there any times of day when
you feel unsafe in your local park?

<<FIGURE>>

Level of satisfaction
with local parks

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 201 -->
### Figure 19: Recreational Preferences of Oakland Households
*Asked of 420 randomly selected households, August, 1992*

**What do you most like to do in your local park?**

<<FIGURE>>

**What kinds of recreational activities do the people in your household under 18 participate in?**

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 202 -->
*Figure 19, page 2*

What kinds of recreational activities do the people in your household aged 18-65 participate in?

<<FIGURE>>

What kinds of recreational activities do the people in your household **over 65** participate in?

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 203 -->
### Principles

The following 12 principles will guide park and recreation planning in Oakland during the coming years:

1. A park should be available within walking distance of every Oakland resident. No person should have to travel too far from home to gain access to recreational services.

2. Oakland's parks should support a wide range of passive and active recreational activities. A balance between region-serving, community-serving, neighborhood-serving, and special use parks should be achieved, with neighborhood parks providing the foundation or "building blocks" of the park system.

3. Oakland's existing parks should be regarded as a limited and precious resource. They should be carefully managed and conserved in the future. Zoning and master planning should be used to protect and manage park resources.

4. Parks should build upon and complement the city's diverse natural and cultural resources. Their design and programming must respond to ethnic and cultural diversity in ways that recognize different values, lifestyles, and languages.

5. Services, facilities, and programs must respond to the unique character and needs of individual areas. Parks should reinforce the identity of individual neighborhoods and be adapted to meet the wishes of neighborhood residents.

6. Recreation should promote the positive self-esteem, responsibility, leadership, and development of Oakland's youth. While programs should serve all populations in the city, a special effort should be made to reach children and teens.

7. Recreation should contribute to the health and well-being of Oakland residents, workers, and visitors. Park and recreational services should promote health and fitness for all.

8. Parks should contribute to and be supportive of Oakland's economic development goals. Features and facilities should contribute positively to Oakland's image and should make the city a more attractive location for new business and tourism.

9. Recreational needs created by new growth should be offset by resources contributed by that growth. In other words, new development should pay its fair share to meet the increased demand for parks resulting from that development.

10. The allocation of public money for recreation must be systematic and based an approach which prioritizes the areas with the greatest need. This includes those areas with the lowest per capita park acreage and the poorest access to private open space.

11. The need for rehabilitation and maintenance of existing facilities should be the first consideration in setting budget priorities. In most cases, new facilities should not be developed unless existing facilities are deemed to be satisfactory. Projected maintenance costs should be fully accounted for in all new facilities, with an assurance that these costs will not jeopardize existing facilities.

12. A priority must be placed on making the parks safe. While a range of physical and law enforcement solutions can be explored, the single most effective solution to crime in parks is to increase legitimate use of the parks. Expanding park activities should be viewed as a central part of crime prevention.

<!-- page 204 -->
# PARK LAND USE

***

**GOAL REC-1: A PARK SYSTEM WHICH MEETS A DIVERSE RANGE OF RECREATIONAL NEEDS WITHOUT COMPROMISING THE VALUE OF PARKS AS OPEN SPACE.**

***

### OBJECTIVE REC-1: PARK PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

To establish a rational, systematic approach for planning and managing public parks.

### POLICY REC-1.1: PROTECTION OF PARK OPEN SPACE

Use a variety of measures, including zoning and park classification, to protect the basic function of parks as public open spaces and to evaluate and review future park projects. Use the park classification system outlined in Table 8 (Oakland Park Classification System) and illustrated in Figure 16 (Oakland Parks by Category) as the basis for determining the kinds of facilities that are appropriate in each park.

***

Policy REC-1.1 emphasizes two regulatory tools for managing Oakland's parks: (1) open space zoning and (2) park classification.

Open space zoning allows the actual function of parkland to be recognized and clarified. It enables development standards to be specifically geared to the kind of uses that occur in parks as opposed to residential or commercial areas. Park zoning acknowledges the primary use of the land to be recreation and open space and is an expression of the City's intent to retain the land as open space. It also creates a formalized procedure for citizen involvement in making decisions affecting park development.

As mentioned in the Open Space Chapter of this document, a Resource Conservation (RC) zoning district will apply to nearly 1,700 acres of environmentally sensitive parkland located in the hill and wetland areas. An "Urban Parks" (UP) zoning district will apply to the remaining 1,326 acres of parkland in the City, including the public golf courses. School playgrounds and Peralta College properties would not be rezoned. Appendix A identifies proposed zoning changes for all Oakland parks.

The second regulatory tool mentioned in Policy REC-1.1 is park classification. A park's designation as a region-serving park, community park, neighborhood park, etc. should be the primary means of determining future land uses and activities in the park. Table 8 of this chapter (p.4-5) describes the proposed classification system for Oakland's parks. Appendix A identifies how each park has been classified.

<!-- page 205 -->
### ACTION REC-1.1.1: CREATION OF PARK ZONING DISTRICTS

*As described in Actions OS-1.1.1, OS-2.1.1, and OS-3.3.1, and as depicted in Table 12, adopt three new zoning designations for open space, including two to be applied to City and Regional parks. Zone those parks characterized by steep slopes and/or environmentally sensitive resources as "Resource Conservation" and zone other active or passive public open spaces as "Urban Parks."*

The ordinance text for the RC District would limit uses to trails, viewpoints, shelters, and other facilities which accommodate low intensity activities like jogging, walking, and environmental education. The text for the UP District would specify a much broader range of uses depending on the type and size of the park.

Provisions in the zoning ordinance would ensure continued public use and enjoyment of these lands for recreational purposes. New facilities would need to be compatible with the character and function of the park as well as surrounding neighborhood. The zoning text itself would identify permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited uses in both districts. The distinction between each category would depend on the impacts the use is likely to have on the park and whether the park is classified as a neighborhood park, community park, region-serving park, etc. The ordinance would also include standards for height, setback, and parking for new facilities.

As currently envisioned, existing recreational activities and facilities in each park would be listed as permitted uses, new recreational activities consistent with the character and function of the park would require a public hearing and recommendation by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC), and uses which could significantly change the character of the park would require approval by both the PRAC and the Planning Commission.

An outline of the proposed park zoning provisions is contained in Table 12. The actual text of the ordinance should be prepared after the OSCAR is adopted. The list of permitted and conditionally permitted uses will be especially critical and should be prepared with extensive public input.

### POLICY REC-1.2: NO NET LOSS OF OPEN SPACE

Unless overriding considerations exist, allow no net loss of open space within Oakland's urban park system. In other words, the area covered by park buildings or other recreational facilities in the future should be offset in the long-run by acquisition or improvement of an equivalent or larger area of open space. Replacement open space should be of comparable value to the space lost and should generally serve an area identified on Figure 18 (Park Deficient Areas) as having un-met needs.

The no net loss policy should be implemented by maintaining a "balance sheet" which tallies annual additions of open space and subtractions resulting when buildings are constructed or expanded within City parks. At year's end, the goal would be for the "plus" column to outweigh the "minus" column. Because most park buildings or additions are relatively small, the balance sheet approach is more feasible than a 1:1 replacement requirement (the latter could result in the City being burdened with a growing number of small, unusable plots of land).

An example of how this policy would work in practice is as follows: If the Office of Parks and Recreation added a total of 10,000 square feet of floor space to its various parks in a given year, it should also have added at least 10,000 square feet of open space to its inventory during that year. The "replacement" open space might consist of new community gardens, land trust sites acquired by the City, new pocket parks or plazas, restored mid-block paths, new segments of the Bay Trail, expansions of existing parks, or perhaps joint City-School schoolyard "greening" projects. Ideally, the new open spaces would be close to the parks that were impacted by new buildings, or at least within neighborhoods that are underserved by parks. The replacement open space also should be of comparable value to the space removed. In other words, if buildings were placed on flat lawn areas, the replacement open space should also be flat and open.

<!-- page 206 -->
### Table 12: Outline of Proposed Ordinance Text for Urban Park (UP) Zone

I. TITLE, PURPOSE, AND APPLICABILITY OF ZONE

II. USE PROVISIONS

A. Facilities and Activities Permitted by Right. This would include facilities traditionally associated with recreation that *already exist in the park*. For instance, existing play equipment, hard court areas, play fields, putting greens, tennis courts, community gardens, maintenance facilities, and bowling lawns in parks would be included. Routine building and grounds maintenance would be considered activities permitted by right. The list would be structured so that any improvement or change in use would require approval by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission or Planning Commission.

B. Facilities and Activities Subject to a PRAC Public Hearing. This would include a listing of new uses subject to a public hearing by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC). The PRAC would need to make findings that the park can accommodate the new use and continue to maintain its desired character and function (see Table 13). The determination would also consider potential off-site impacts such as traffic and noise. Typical uses requiring a PRAC public hearing would be new playground equipment or basketball courts. Different PRAC-permitted uses would be specified for each category of park.

Certain types of improvements might require more focused analysis by staff. For instance, installation of lights around playfields, ballfields, tennis courts, or hardcourt areas would require an evaluation of the impacts of the potentially more intensive use of the facilities as well as light, glare, and noise impacts on nearby areas. Staff reports to the PRAC would thoroughly document impacts and mitigation measures.

C. Facilities and Activities Requiring Planning Commission Approval. Uses which are likely to have a significant impact on the character of a park would require review by the Planning Commission as well as the PRAC. These would include special facilities like community centers, new gymnasiums or swimming pools, observatories, zoos, and arboretums. The list of uses could also be defined to include park offices, large concession areas, visitors centers, caretaker's residences, and park maintenance facilities serving areas outside the impacted park. Different uses would be specified for each category of park. Approval would be based on certain findings of fact (see Table 13).

Exceptions to the requirement for a Commission hearing would be permitted if the facility is being built in accordance with a master plan that has been adopted by a City Council through a process incorporating public review. An example would be new facilities at the Oakland Zoo which are consistent with the 1990 Master Plan.

D. Prohibited Uses. This list would include uses that conflict with the recreational function of parks or which restrict public enjoyment of a park or open space. These include residential, commercial, and industrial uses (except caretakers quarters, park concessions, or park maintenance uses which are permitted through the conditional use process). Non-recreational public projects, such as jails, parking lots not directly supporting a park activity, sewage treatment plants, solid waste transfer stations, animal control facilities, post offices, and non-park city offices, could also be prohibited.

<!-- page 207 -->
Table 12, continued...

### III. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

A. Height. A maximum height limit for new buildings would be set. One option would be to set a 30 foot height limit unless the building has a functional requirement to be taller (as is the case with gymnasiums). In such cases, the ordinance would require that every effort be made to keep the height of the building as low as possible to retain the compatibility of the site with adjoining uses.

B. Setbacks. Setbacks from park edges would be specified to establish a compatible physical relationship with adjacent uses and to protect neighbor privacy and reduce noise problems. One option would be to require a 20 foot setback from any abutting residential lot for all new park structures, play equipment, hardcourts, or ballfields, unless the size of the park makes such a setback impossible, or if topography provides adequate screening, privacy, and noise reduction. For continuity of street frontage, front yard setbacks would generally be the same as what is required in the adjacent zone.

C. Parking. Existing parking requirements for public assembly grounds like indoor pools and community centers would be followed. However, the amount of parking ordinarily required could be increased or decreased to reflect the anticipated demand at a particular facility and specific conditions of a particular park that might influence parking availability. Parking requirements might be decreased where the facility is specifically intended for people who will arrive on foot or by bike; for facilities where parking will be shared with adjoining projects; for facilities where on-street parking is already adequate; for facilities where the nature of the facility requires less parking than what is specified in zoning; and for facilities where providing the required amount of parking would displace important open space or recreational features of the park and diminish its character. Increases of parking may be appropriate where there is already a parking shortage.

D. Lot coverage. Consideration should be given to an overall building coverage limit to prevent the overdevelopment of parks and maintain a sense of openness. Varying lot coverage limits might be used depending on the category of park. For instance, a limit of 15 percent might be used for neighborhood and community parks, while 5 percent could be used in passive open spaces and no limit might apply in special use parks. Waivers from the lot coverage requirement would only be permitted where; (a) the character of the park and balance between its uses would not be negatively impacted; (b) the surrounding area would not be negatively impacted by the loss of open space; or (c) the improvement relates to the function of the park and other facilities already existing.

<!-- page 208 -->
If the City finds that it is covering open space at a faster rate than it is creating new open space, corrective actions should be taken before proceeding with new projects. This could include a requirement to include replacement open space funding within the budget for new projects, or even a moratorium on buildings within City parks until additional open space is added to the inventory. To avoid the need for such measures, the City should consider starting a land "banking" program. Under this approach, the City would designate a site as open space and receive "credit" that enabled future projects to be built without considering replacement open space needs. In the future, the City might also establish a fund for future open space acquisition or even a "replacement open space surcharge" similar to the 1.5 percent public arts surcharge now placed on capital improvement projects.

*(Note: this policy does not apply to projects that are consistent with park master plans approved prior to the date of the OSCAR Element's adoption, such as Chabot Observatory and the Knowland Park Zoo and Dunsmuir House and Gardens expansions.)*

### ACTION REC-1.2.1: MAINTAIN OPEN SPACE "BALANCE SHEET"

**Following the adoption of the OSCAR, develop and maintain a computer spreadsheet which tracks: (1) additions of floor area to Oakland parks; (2) additions of uncovered (pervious) open space; and (3) the net difference between (1) and (2). Prepare an annual staff report to the Parks and Recreation Commission which summarizes the findings.**

### POLICY REC-1.3: SITING OF BUILDINGS IN PARKS

**To the maximum extent practical, accommodate new recreational buildings in City parks by expanding the park onto nearby vacant or underutilized land rather than covering open space within existing park boundaries. Strongly discourage new non-recreational buildings in City parks unless their construction is a matter of public necessity and the use cannot be reasonably accommodated in another location. Exceptions to this policy may be made in cases where there are (a) no feasible alternatives to placing buildings in parks; (b) the buildings are being developed in accordance with an overall Master Plan for the impacted park; and (c) replacement open space will be provided as specified in Policy REC-1.2.**

Policy REC-1.3 is intended to protect heavily utilized parks from overdevelopment with buildings, recreational or otherwise. All three of the "exceptions" in this policy must be met before a building is placed in a park.

There are a few other cases where this policy may not be applicable. It would not apply to new buildings which are replacing existing buildings. It would not apply to parks which are being developed in accordance with an already adopted master plan, such as the Knowland Park Zoo.

There may also be cases where the public value of a recreational development provides a compelling argument for construction on an open space. This may be true in parks which are seriously underutilized, compromised by security problems, or in areas severely lacking in certain indoor recreation facilities. In such cases, construction of a park building must be preceded by completion of a park master plan and assurance of replacement open space.

In no way should this policy be interpreted as a disincentive to pursue new indoor recreational facilities. Many Oakland neighborhoods urgently need more gymnasiums, swimming pools, cultural buildings, recreation centers, and other indoor facilities. However, Oaklanders should not sacrifice their limited urban open space to accommodate these facilities. Facilities should be placed adjacent to the parks, or should compensate for their impact on the park with replacement open space.

<!-- page 209 -->
Parks must not be viewed as "vacant sites" for new public buildings.

***

### ACTION REC-1.3.1: IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE LIMITS

*Structure the "Urban Park" zoning district to place a percentage limit on the area in City parks that may be covered by structures or impervious surfaces. Coverage limits would vary depending on the size and classification of the park. Allow exceedances of this limit only if specific findings can be made regarding the consistency of the project with an adopted master plan, the level of public support for the project, compliance with Policy REC-1.2 (No Net Loss of Open Space), and the project's ability to enhance an underutilized open space.*

***

### POLICY REC-1.4: PARK IMPROVEMENT OR CHANGE IN USE

**Require any improvement or change in use within a City of Oakland park to be subject to a formal review and approval process. Provide potential park users and local residents with opportunities to participate in this process.**

On March 31, 1992, the Oakland City Council adopted interim controls governing land use changes within Oakland city parks. These controls were to remain in effect until the new OSCAR was adopted. Table 13 describes permanent controls which will replace the interim controls. Since these controls are predicated on new zoning being in place, the interim controls will need to remain in effect until the zoning ordinance is amended.

The new development review procedure would require a widely noticed predevelopment meeting (conducted by staff) prior to any improvement or change of use in a city park. Modifications to the project would be made based on initial public comment.

Minor projects that are consistent with the classification of the park would then proceed to a public hearing held by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC). The PRAC would hear staff analysis and public comment on the project and would approve, deny, or modify the project based on their ability to make certain findings (see Table 13). Appeals of PRAC decisions could be made to the Planning Commission.

Major projects or projects which are not consistent with the classification of the park would be forwarded to the Planning Commission after a public hearing by the PRAC. The Commission would approve, deny, or modify the project based on the PRAC recommendations, additional public testimony, and their ability to make certain findings on the project. Appeals of Planning Commission decisions could be made to the City Council.

City Council approval would be required when applying for grants which would enable major new projects to be constructed, or when acquiring land or dedicating land for park purposes. As with the PRAC and Planning Commission, findings would need to be made before approving grant applications or accepting land dedications.

***

### ACTION REC-1.4.1: PERMANENT LAND USE CONTROLS

*After establishing new open space zoning designations (see Actions OS-1.1.1 and OS-2.1.1), adopt an ordinance based on Table 13 (Proposed Procedures for Improvement or Change in Use Within Oakland Parks) establishing permanent controls for park improvements and land use changes.*

<!-- page 210 -->
### Table 13: Proposed Procedure for Improvements or Change in Use Within Oakland Parks

All improvements or changes in use within Oakland city parks would be subject to requirements outlined below. An "improvement" would be defined as any project which, if proposed by a private applicant, would require issuance of a building, grading, or demolition permit by the City of Oakland (routine maintenance would be excluded). A "change in use" would be defined as the establishment or authorization of any activity which is not already established in the particular park, or the expansion of any existing use (excluding recreational programming or one-time facility uses). Projects approved by the City Council in conjunction with the public art program, Measure AA or Measure K (Series A only) are exempt from these requirements.

The following procedure would be followed:

1. **Determination of Compliance with Zoning and Park Classification System.** The Office of Parks and Recreation (OPR) would make a determination as to the conformance of the proposed improvement or change in use with (a) the list of permitted or conditionally permitted uses in the new zoning ordinance, (b) the development standards listed in the new zoning ordinance, and (c) the intended function of the park based on its adopted classification (as a neighborhood park, community park, special use park, etc.).

2. **Predevelopment Neighborhood Meeting.** A neighborhood meeting would then be convened at a location in the vicinity of park or open space land affected by the proposed change in use or improvement. The purpose of the meeting would be to inform concerned citizens of the proposed project. The meeting would be noticed via public notice posting on the premises of the park or open space land and on all utility poles within 300' of the park border. Notices would also be mailed to all neighborhood organizations and schools within a one-mile radius of the park border.

3. **Administrative Project Review.** Once preliminary feedback has been obtained from the community and factored into the design of the project, the OPR would follow the requirements of Administrative Instruction 3002, including CEQA review of the project by the Office of Planning and Building.

4. **Public Posting and Notice of Public Hearing.** A public notice would then be posted on each utility pole within 300' of the impacted park's borders, on the premises of the park, and at all branches of the Oakland Public Library. In addition, notices would be mailed to neighborhood groups and affected Community Development District Boards. Public notices would be posted at least 10 days prior to the date of the public hearing and would contain: (a) a description of the project, including its location; (b) the date, time, and place of the public hearing, and (c) the City staff contact person.

5. **Public Hearing by the PRAC.** A public hearing would be required for any project which falls on the list of facilities requiring such a hearing by the PRAC. The purpose of the hearing would be to review the proposed change in use or improvement and hear all public comments and suggestions on the project. The PRAC would be required to make specific findings of fact on the project, namely that: (1) the project will be compatible with and will not adversely affect abutting properties or the surrounding neighborhood, with consideration given to scale, bulk, coverage, views, and density; neighborhood character, traffic, and any other relevant impacts; (2) the project is consistent with the development standards specified in the zoning ordinance; (3) the project will provide a convenient and functional public environment and will be as attractive as possible; (4) the project will enhance the public use or successful operation of the park or open space and that sufficient open space remains on the site to meet local needs; (5) the project will enhance or augment public open space lands in the surrounding area; (6) the project serves an identified need and will provide an essential service to the community. The PRAC would have the authority to require any modifications to the project which it deems necessary and appropriate.

<!-- page 211 -->
Table 13, continued...

| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| 6. | **Public Hearing by the Planning Commission**. Projects which meet the zoning criteria for Planning Commission approval would be forwarded to the Commission for public hearing(s) after the public hearing by the PRAC. A similar process would be followed and the same findings of fact would be required. The Commission would consider the recommendation of the PRAC and would have the authority to approve, deny, or modify the project. |
| 7. | **Appeals**. Any interested party could appeal a decision of the PRAC to the Planning Commission within 5 days of the date of their decision. Decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. The appeal would specifically claim where there was an error or abuse of discretion by the PRAC or Planning Commission or wherein its decision is not supported by the evidence in the record. Upon receipt of the appeal by the City Clerk, a hearing would be scheduled at the next available Planning Commission or City Council meeting. On considering the appeal, the Commission/Council would determine whether the proposed change of use or improvements conform to the applicable criteria and could approve, deny, or require such changes in the project that it deems necessary. |

***

### POLICY REC-1.5: PARK MASTER PLANNING

**Use master plans as a tool for making long-range decisions for park land use, determining needs for capital improvements and funding sources, and soliciting community opinion on how parks should be managed.**

Park master plans should provide guidance in the management of park resources, placement of new facilities or amenities, and resolution of land use and traffic issues. Several parks stand out as being in urgent need of master plans by virtue of their heavy use, large size, location in severely underserved areas, or social challenges. While a priority should be placed on plans for these parks, the ultimate goal should be to develop a citywide park plan and a master plan for each park in the city.

All park plans should be developed with maximum input from park users, neighborhood residents, and nearby businesses. Public meetings and design workshops should be held to set objectives, develop and evaluate alternatives, and formulate recommendations. Public hearings before the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission and City Council should be held to adopt each plan.

### ACTION REC-1.5.1: ADOPTION OF CITYWIDE PARK PLAN

*Adopt a Citywide Park and Recreation Master Plan by the year 2000, including a 5-year capital improvement program. Update the Plan every 10 years.*

A Parks and Recreation Master Plan is needed to guide decisions regarding the delivery of services and programs, and the expenditure of funds for operations, maintenance, and capital improvements. The OSCAR Element provides general policy direction on these topics. However, more specific recommendations are beyond the scope of the City's general plan.

Other large California cities, including San Francisco, San Jose, and Sacramento, maintain park master plans in addition to their General Plan Recreation Elements. These plans typically focus on leisure services and operations/ maintenance issues rather than the land use issues addressed in the OSCAR.

Once a Parks Plan has been adopted, it should be updated every 10 years. An implementation plan, including a five-year capital improvement schedule, should be prepared every year.

<!-- page 212 -->
<<FIGURE>>

*Bushrod Park is among those targeted as needing a park master plan.*

### ACTION REC-1.5.2: PREPARATION OF PARK MASTER PLANS

***Adopt master plans for individual Oakland parks, focusing first on those parks where major land use or resource management issues exist (including Lakeside Park, Joaquin Miller Park, Bushrod Park, San Antonio Park, Dimond Park, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Regional Shoreline). Base future land use and facility decisions within City parks on these master plans.***

Each park plan should include a resource analysis of the site, a needs assessment of the service area, an overview or opportunities and constraints, and a land use and activity plan. Each plan also should have a capital improvement plan and funding strategy. Park plans should address a range of issues, including views, traffic, pedestrian circulation, safety, and infrastructure. The plans should also explain existing and future maintenance and renovation needs, as well as sources of funding to meet these needs.

A priority should be placed on master plans for Lakeside Park, Joaquin Miller Park, Bushrod Park, San Antonio Park, Dimond Park, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Regional Shoreline (EBRPD) due to the size of these parks and the issues at hand.

### ACTION REC-1.5.3: OPEN SPACE COMPONENT OF OTHER PLANS

***Include an open space and parks component in any area plan, neighborhood plan, or redevelopment plan undertaken by the City.***

This action acknowledges the importance of open space and recreation as an urban planning consideration. Area plans, neighborhood plans, rezoning studies, neighborhood commercial revitalization (NCR) and redevelopment plans should consider needs and opportunities for open space and recreation.

### ACTION REC-1.5.4: OSCAR ELEMENT UPDATES

***Update the OSCAR Element at least once every 10 years and supplement it where appropriate with detailed planning studies of specific areas or subjects.***

The City should make every effort possible to update the OSCAR at least once every ten years. To the extent feasible, these updates should be timed with updates of the other elements of the General Plan so that OSCAR-related issues are addressed concurrently with land use, public safety, transportation, and housing issues.

In the interim period, more specific studies on parks and open space should be pursued, particularly those identified as "Action" items in the OSCAR. An on-going effort should be made to make the OSCAR Element background data available to the public, with reports and maps distributed to schools, libraries, and recreation centers. The Comprehensive Planning Division of the Office of Planning and Building will remain the repository for all OSCAR files and data.

<!-- page 213 -->
### OBJECTIVE REC-2: PARK DESIGN AND COMPATIBILITY OF USES

To ensure that park are well designed, and that facilities and activities within parks are compatible with each other, the natural environment, historic resources, and the surrounding community.

### POLICY REC-2.1: PARK CONVERSIONS TO OTHER USES

Protect parks from conversion to other uses, except for minor boundary changes which would improve their value or usefulness. In any case, as prescribed by Policy REC-1.2, replace whatever land and facilities are given up with land and facilities of at least equal value and capacity.

Parks should be protected from conversion to non-park uses, including freeways, port facilities, and urban development. If there is a compelling reason for a park to be converted, replacement open space and facilities must be provided.

<<FIGURE>>

### POLICY REC-2.2: CONFLICTS BETWEEN PARK USES

Site park activities and facilities in a manner which minimizes conflict between park uses. Wherever feasible, use National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) standards to determine the area and dimensional requirements for new facilities. In new parks, arrange activities and land uses to accommodate all of the intended uses, in optimal relationship to one another and making the most efficient use of the space possible.

This policy directs the Office of Parks and Recreation to site new park facilities in a manner which maximizes the usefulness of the facility while minimizing its impact on existing uses.

The design of any park should be based on the particular uses to be accommodated, the site conditions, and the surroundings. A nature study area in the hills, a neighborhood playground in the flatlands, and a downtown plaza will require completely different design solutions, making it hard to generalize about project design.

The following basic principles, first articulated in the 1976 OSCAR Element, should continue to be followed:

*   Large enough areas should be provided for each activity.
*   Multi-purpose spaces should be created for compatible activities (e.g.; softball and baseball).
*   Separate domains should be provided for conflicting activities (i.e.; softball and picnicking, etc.).
*   Baseball diamonds, game courts, and other spaces should be oriented to minimize wind exposure and glare from the sun.
*   Restrooms or drinking fountains should be conveniently located, although not so prominently that they dominate the site.

<!-- page 214 -->
* Efficient pedestrian circulation between various activity areas should be accommodated.

* An area for off-street parking should be provided at those sites where parking is appropriate (community parks, athletic fields in areas with on-street parking shortages, parks with major attractions, parks without easy transit or pedestrian/ bicycle access).

* Where feasible, spaces should be designed for easy adaptation to different activities as future user populations dictate.

* Greenery should provide relief from the harsh aspects of urban life as well as a chance for direct contact with nature. Trees are especially desirable.

* Features which enhance the identity of the space, such as historic buildings, creeks, sculptures, and masses of trees should be encouraged.

* Safety and maintenance considerations should be paramount.

* The design of the park should be related to the surrounding land uses and neighborhood. In some cases, this may require screening of park uses; in other cases, this may involve emphasizing vistas by thinning vegetation within the site.

* Fencing, when used, should be attractive and should not detract from the aesthetic quality of the space.

* Diversity and innovation should be emphasized. Parks and recreational facilities should appeal to the user's imagination and creative impulses.

* Potential users and community residents should be fully involved in park planning and design.

### POLICY REC-2.3: ENVIRONMENTALLY-SENSITIVE DESIGN

Protect sensitive natural areas within parks, including creeks and woodlands, and integrate them into park design. Require new recreational facilities to respect existing park character, be compatible with the natural environment, and achieve a high standard of design quality.

The design and planning of new park buildings, facilities, or landscaping should strive towards design excellence. All improvements should contain design elements which are compatible with the natural environment and the park environment. Building additions should be architecturally compatible with existing buildings. For parks which are historically significant, efforts should be made to incorporate historic features in the design. Traditional street lights, fountains, and street furniture can be used to enhance the overall appearance and integrity of such parks.

The policy also supports maintaining or improving the visual integrity of Oakland's parks. Any new utilities through the parks should be placed underground to maintain visual quality.

### ACTION REC-2.3.1: PARK DESIGN GUIDELINES

*Prepare design guidelines for park improvements.*

Such guidelines would focus on the design of new buildings and additions, street furniture (including lighting), landscaping, and playground equipment.

<!-- page 215 -->
### POLICY REC-2.4: OFF-SITE CONFLICTS

**Manage park facilities and activities in a manner which minimizes negative impacts on adjacent residential, commercial, or industrial areas.**

Park activities should minimize negative off-site impacts as much as possible. While some of Oakland's parks are capable of handling large crowds and additional activities, other parks are already too crowded and are located in areas with severe parking shortages. In general, large group activities should occur in region-serving parks, community parks, and appropriate special use parks rather than in neighborhood parks. Major festivals and concerts should generally occur in non-residential area parks to avoid noise conflicts and other related problems. First priority for improvements like night lighting of baseball fields should be in those areas where potential negative impacts (noise, light, etc.) will be lowest. This would include parks in industrial areas or along major arterials or freeways.

### ACTION REC-2.4.1: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY GUIDELINES

***Develop criteria to determine which park activities are potentially incompatible with residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation uses.***

Such criteria also could be used during project-level environmental review. For instance, noise compatibility criteria could state the ambient noise levels acceptable for different recreational activities.

### POLICY REC-2.5: PARK VISIBILITY

**Plan and design parks in a way which maximizes their visibility while minimizing conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists, and automobiles.**

Community and region serving parks should generally have some frontage on an arterial street to increase the visibility of park activities, promote recognition of the park, and provide direct transit access. Within such parks, major attractions like recreation centers or public assembly places should be located close to the major street. Tot lots, playgrounds, and other areas where children congregate should generally located away from the major street for traffic safety and noise purposes. Such facilities should still be relatively close to the less heavily traveled streets around the park so that activities remain plainly visible.

Wherever a children's play area abuts a street directly, provisions should be made to reduce the risk of accidents. Fencing should be provided around the play area, and where appropriate, traffic signals and crosswalks should be provided.

Parks should be designed in a manner that minimizes reliance on automobiles. The 1992 Resident Survey found that about two-thirds of all flatland residents walked or bicycled to their parks. Provisions for bicycles (racks, etc.) and pedestrians should be made at all parks. The City should work with AC Transit to improve bus service to Oakland's parks and ensure that routes along parks include stops at the parks.

For those parks that are bisected by roads, measures to discourage or reduce through-traffic should be considered during the master planning process. The use of speed humps, stop signs and other devices to slow traffic down should be considered. Consideration might also be given to restricting through-traffic during peak times, either through a fee (as is currently done on Bellevue Drive during the weekends) or a prohibition on cars (similar to weekend rules in Golden Gate Park).

<!-- page 216 -->
### POLICY REC-2.6: HISTORIC PARK FEATURES

**Respect historic park features when designing park improvements or programming new park activities.**

Many of Oakland's parks provide opportunities to learn about the events, people, and places that have shaped the city's history. Among Oakland's historic parks are:

✓ Those dating from the 1854 deed of partition, including Jefferson, Lafayette, Harrison, and Lincoln Squares;
✓ Town squares in the old communities of Clinton and San Antonio;
✓ Lakeside Park, with its many noteworthy structures and design elements;
✓ City Hall Plaza; and
✓ Joaquin Miller Park, both for the legacy left by poet Joaquin Miller and various WPA improvements.

Several parks contain former residences and grounds which are historically significant, including Dunsmuir House and Gardens, Peralta Hacienda, Mosswood Park, Knowland Park, and DeFremery Park. Other parks are noteworthy for their design features (fountains, bridges, ornamentation, etc.), including Oak Glen Park in the center of Richmond Boulevard. Still other parks may contain natural features of significance such as Lake Merritt or the old survivor redwood tree in Leona Heights Park. Historic significance might also be associated with historic events which occurred in parks, or with famous individuals who regularly used the parks (professional athletes, artists, writers, etc.).

Table 14 identifies historic features within Oakland's parks and open spaces. The table should be used as a guide for determining which parks are impacted by local Historic Preservation policies and ordinances. The City will continue to pursue the addition of new historic parks or park features to the National Register and locally-designated lists. New parks also may be added to the Preservation Study List over time. Once a park or park feature has been landmarked, a variety of incentives and regulations are imposed according to the specific importance of each property.

As with all historic structures, preservation efforts should consider the *context* of the historic feature as well as the feature itself. For instance, if a fence is built beside a historic park building, its design should be compatible with the building and its grounds. Likewise, it may be inappropriate to site a tot lot or basketball court on the grounds of a landmarked residence that is now a city park. Where recreational improvements are made at historic parks, it is important that they not compromise the integrity of the historic features.

In most cases, landmarking of specific park features rather than the entire park will provide sufficient protection of historic resources. Landmarking of entire parks is only recommended where the land itself has historic significance. This is the case for the original city squares in downtown Oakland and the former Town of Clinton, and in San Antonio Park, established as a public square in 1854.

<<FIGURE>>

*The historic features of Oakland's parks include the Camron Stanford House, in Lakeside Park on the shores of Lake Merritt.*

<!-- page 217 -->
Table 14: Landmark Status of Oakland Parks

| National Register of Historic Places | Location |
| :--- | :--- |
| Lake Merritt Wild Duck Refuge (1966)[^p217-1] | Lakeside Park |
| Joaquin Miller House (the Abbey) (1966) | Joaquin Miller Park |
| Dunsmuir House (1972) | Dunsmuir House/Gardens |
| Camron Stanford House (1972) | Lake perimeter area |
| Peralta House (1977) | Peralta Hacienda Park |
| USS Potomac (1987) | Jack London Square |
| Oakland Museum (1993) | 1000 Oak Street |

| Locally designated Historic Landmarks | Location |
| :--- | :--- |
| Camron Stanford House (1975) | Lake perimeter area |
| Tower to General Fremont (1975) | Joaquin Miller Park |
| Moss Cottage (1975) | Mosswood Park |
| Peralta House (1975) | Peralta Hacienda Park |
| Site of Adobe Hdqtrs. (1975) | Peralta Hacienda Park |
| Dunsmuir House/ Carriage House (1980) | Dunsmuir House/Gardens |
| Morcom Amphitheater of Roses (1980) | Morcom Rose Garden |
| De Fremery House (1981) | De Fremery Park |
| Jefferson Square (1983) | Jefferson Square |
| Lincoln Square (1983) | Lincoln Square |
| Necklace of Lights (1985) | Lake Merritt Perimeter |
| Preservation Park (1979) | Preservation Park |
| Leimert Bridge (1980) | Dimond Park Extension |
| Latham Square Fountain (1984) | 15th/ Telegraph |
| North Field (1980) | Oakland International Airport |

| Locally Designated Landmark Natural Features | Location |
| :--- | :--- |
| Arbor Villa Palm Trees (1978) | Ninth Avenue |
| Old Survivor Redwood Tree (1980) | Leona Park |
| Lake Merritt (1980) | Lakeside Park/Wildlife Refuge |

| Preservation Study List (rating, A= highest importance) | Location |
| :--- | :--- |
| Veterans Memorial Building (A) | Adams Park |
| Harrison Square (A) | Harrison Square/Railroad Park |
| 1520 Lakeside (Boathouse) (A) | Lake Merritt Perimeter |

| Developed parcels with substantial open space/landscaped areas on Preservation Study List |
| :--- |
| Claremont Hotel |
| Highland Hospital |
| Mills College (Bell Tower and Mills Hall) |

[^p217-1]: (\*) = includes seven individual features within the Park; see Ordinance 9978 C.M.S.

<!-- page 218 -->
### ACTION REC-2.6.1: LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF HISTORIC PARKS

*Designate Lafayette Square, Harrison Square, Clinton Square, San Antonio Park, City Hall Plaza, and City Stables as Oakland landmarks.*

Although these parks are among the most historic sites in the city, none are presently landmarked. Harrison Square is on the Preservation Study List, and San Antonio Park and Lafayette Square are under consideration for landmarking. Since Lafayette Square is located within the S-7 Historic Preservation overlay zone, some degree of protection has already been provided. The only parks that have already been landmarked are Lincoln and Jefferson Squares and the Morcom Rose Garden. Additional park features, such as the 1911 bridge and fountain in Oak Glen Park, should be considered for landmark designation in the future.

*(see also Historic Preservation Element Action 3.2.2 requiring City-owned historic properties to be managed to ensure their preservation).*

***

### ACTION REC-2.6.2: HISTORIC RESOURCE INVENTORIES

*Continue the efforts of the Oakland Heritage Alliance, the Cultural Resources Survey, the Oakland Museum, and other groups working to inventory historic resources in Oakland's parks.*

### OBJECTIVE REC-3: PARKLAND AND PARK FACILITY DEFICIENCIES

To reduce the deficiencies in park acreage and recreational facilities in the most equitable, cost-effective way possible.

Virtually every Oakland neighborhood has some type of land or facility deficiency. None of the city's Planning Areas meets the adopted park acreage standards and most are deficient in recreational facilities. Because money is limited, priorities must be established.

Priority-setting should begin with a look at the kinds of problems that need to addressed. First, some neighborhoods lack parks and recreational facilities altogether. Second, some neighborhoods have parks, but they are too small to meet local needs. Third, some neighborhoods have parks that were once adequate but have declined because of deferred maintenance, outdated facilities, and factors like vandalism and safety concerns.

Each type of problem requires a different type of solution. In the first instance, the most effective strategy may be to make the most of existing open space in the neighborhood. This could mean improving access to schoolyards, acquiring vacant land for park development, including parks within redevelopment projects, and creating linear parks along creeks. In the second instance, the focus will be on expanding existing parks and facilities, primarily through land acquisition. This provides a more manageable solution than scattering new mini-parks throughout the neighborhood.

In the third instance, the focus should be on maintenance, rehabilitation, and safety improvements. This is currently the City's highest priority since it protects public investment and maximizes the effective delivery of park services. In general, the City's resources should not be directed towards new parks until the deficiencies in maintenance and safety at existing parks have been addressed.

<!-- page 219 -->
### POLICY REC-3.1: LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS

**Use the level of service of standards in Table 15 (Level of Service Standards for Oakland Parks) as a means of determining where unmet needs exist and prioritizing future capital investments.**

As mentioned on Page 4-9, level of service standards are a way to measure the need for parks and figure out where deficiencies exist. Two types of service standards are proposed. *Per capita standards* prescribe the acreage in parkland (or recreational facilities) that should exist per 1,000 residents. *Service area standards* prescribe the expected area that will be served by a given park or recreational facility.

In both cases, the standards are based on National Recreation and Park Association guidelines, adapted to local conditions.

While the ultimate goal is to achieve these standards in every Oakland neighborhood, the city's built-out character presents a major obstacle in most cases. The immediate goal is to make significant inroads in the gap between what exists now and what is ultimately desired. The City should work towards reducing that gap in its annual capital improvement program.

Table 15 should be consulted for a comprehensive listing of service standards. The table is consistent with Table 8, and with the text found on Pages 9-10 of this chapter.

| Table 15: Level of Service Standards for Oakland Parks | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| *Overall Service Goal: Wherever practical and not precluded by environmental constraints (such as steep terrain), a local-serving park should be provided within 1/4 mile of all residents of the Oakland flatlands, and within 1/2 mile of all residents of the Oakland hills. "Local-serving" parks include neighborhood parks, community parks, athletic fields, school playgrounds, city squares, active mini-parks, and the portions of region-serving parks containing active facilities.* | | |
| | | |
| | **Acres/1,000 residents** | |
| **Park Type** | **1994** | **Goal** |
| Total park and public open space acreage | 8.26 | 10.0 |
| Local-serving park acreage | 1.33 | 4.0 |
| | | |
| | **Facilities per resident** | |
| **Facility Type** | **1994** | **Goal** |
| Baseball/ Softball diamonds | 1/8,500 | 1/5,000 |
| Tennis courts | 1/9,000 | 1/5,000 |
| Soccer or football fields | 1/23,250 | 1/15,000 |
| Swimming Pools | 1/62,000 | 1/25,000 |
| Golf Courses (18 holes) | 1/150,000 | 1/150,000 |
| Gymnasiums | 1/41,000 | 1/25,000 |

<!-- page 220 -->
### POLICY REC-3.2: SYSTEMATIC ALLOCATION OF FUNDS

Follow a systematic process in allocating park and recreation funds. In general, allocate the greatest expenditures to those areas with the greatest unmet needs and place a priority on projects which maximize reductions in deficiency for the amount of money spent. However, maintain the flexibility to consider such factors as site opportunities, the availability of grants or matching funds, and linkages to other kinds of projects.

***

This policy combines several which first appeared in the 1976 OSCAR Element. Its message is still applicable today. Park funds must be spent with a conscious and deliberate effort to reduce shortages and address unmet needs. Priorities need to be reassessed each year, since park needs are dynamic and always changing.

The following steps should be followed on an annual basis:

1. Quantify unmet needs in dollars. The Office of Parks and Recreation already conducts this task on a regular basis. Current cost estimates for unmet needs are in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The authorization of $60 million in bonds through Oakland's Measure K (supplemented by Measure AA) has made and will continue to make a significant dent in these needs, but will by no means eliminate them entirely.

2. Prioritize expenditures. In general, the highest priority should be given to areas where there the needs are greatest. These include areas with the lowest park acreage per capita, highest population density, lowest income, and highest concentrations of children. A lower priority would be placed on areas that are served by private open space, including private yards, and areas with highly mobile populations. The idea is to concentrate service improvements in the most deficient areas without totally neglecting those areas which are relatively well off.

The OSCAR Needs Assessment identified San Antonio-Fruitvale, Central East Oakland, and North Oakland as having the highest priority for new parks, and all flatland planning areas as having the highest priority for park rehabilitation and updating. However, allocations should be flexible enough to seize opportunities for non-local funds when they come along. Such funds may become available through grants or matching funds from other agencies, or from new development projects constructed in areas currently lacking parks.

3. Decide what proportion of the City's overall budget can be spent for parks and recreation. This is done by the City Manager and City Council through the annual budgeting process. Parks must compete for a limited pool of funds with libraries, police, and other city services. The share allocated to parks varies from year to year depending on the overall budget and perceptions of need. In any case, the proportion should continue to be significant, since parks are basic city amenities and are fundamental to the quality of life in Oakland.

4. Allocate expenditures to specific projects. This will require balancing maintenance/ rehabilitation projects with new construction/acquisition projects, and local-serving projects with region-serving projects. OSCAR policies emphasize local-serving projects and urge the Regional Park District to meet a greater share of the demand for region-serving projects.

<!-- page 221 -->
### ACTION REC-3.2.1: ANNUAL LIST OF PROJECTS

***Compile and annually update a list of projects requiring funding, including cost estimates for each project, proposed funding sources, and a relative priority ranking. Include capital improvement projects, land acquisition projects, and major maintenance/ rehabilitation projects on the list.***

The current "unfunded projects list" does not include the full range of projects that would be required to meet the level of service standards. The list should be expanded and should become a comprehensive source from which park and recreation projects can be picked as money becomes available. It should reflect the needs analysis and deficiencies identified in this Element and should include long-range as well as immediate needs. Table 16 provides a summary of unmet needs in Oakland parks, based on the analyses done during the OSCAR Update program.

### ACTION REC-3.2.2: REGULAR NEEDS ASSESSMENTS

***Reassess recreational needs and standards on a regular basis, using demographic data, surveys and questionnaires, updated facility information, leisure trends, and NRPA guidelines. Initiate an on-going evaluation or suggestion box process to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the park system and conduct a random sample survey similar to the OSCAR resident survey at least once every five years.***

The Office of Parks and Recreation should keep abreast of changes in recreational needs and should update its plans and programs regularly. A regular procedure for feedback on park programs should be established. At a minimum, this should include evaluation forms for all park programs and suggestion boxes at all recreation centers.

<<FIGURE>>

Among the City's unfunded capital improvement projects is completion of the "missing link" on the planned trail between Lake Merritt and the Estuary.

The Recreation Advisory Councils should sponsor periodic community meetings to obtain feedback on park and recreation service issues. In addition, surveys like the one completed for the OSCAR update should be conducted at least once every five years to see how recreational needs have changed. Input from meetings, surveys, and program participants should be used to structure future plans, programs, and budgets.

<!-- page 222 -->
| Table 16: Major Unmet Capital Needs in Oakland Parks (not necessarily in priority order) |
| :--- |
| 1. General safety and security improvements, particularly in flatland parks |
| 2. General rehabilitation and updating needs for play apparatus, ballfields, recreation centers, and irrigation systems (citywide; particularly in flatland parks) |
| 3. Additional local-serving parks (citywide, and especially in San Antonio-Fruitvale, Central East Oakland, and North Oakland) |
| 4. Swimming pools (especially in Elmhurst. Additionally, at least one indoor swimming pool should be provided somewhere in the city). |
| 5. Baseball fields (especially in the Lower Hills, Central East Oakland, Central/ Chinatown, and Lower Fruitvale). |
| 6. Tennis courts (especially in Fruitvale, Central/ Chinatown, and South Hills). |
| 7. Football/soccer fields (especially in Elmhurst, Central/ Chinatown, and Lower Fruitvale). |
| 8. Additional fishing piers and shoreline access points (especially in San Antonio-Fruitvale and in the Harbor area near West Oakland). |
| 9. Recreational bikeways (citywide). |
| 10. Retrofitting of facilities for disabled users (citywide). |
| 11. Night lighting of additional facilities (especially for playfields in non-residential areas). |
| 12. "Dog" park, providing exercise/play areas and possibly providing obedience training, veterinary and vaccination services, and a kennel (citywide). |
| 13. Places for nature study and education within existing open space reserves (especially in the hills, and along the shoreline and creeks). |
| 14. Additional downtown plazas and mini-parks (and rehabilitation of City Hall Plaza). |
| 15. Bowling alley (citywide). |
| 16. Ice rink (citywide). |
| 17. Expansion of "undersized" parks (especially Brookdale, Rainbow, Sanborn, Manzanita, and Poplar). |
| 18. Redesign of poorly laid out parks (especially Bushrod, Foothill Meadows, Golden Gate, Lazear, Sobrante, Stonehurst, and Tyrone Carney). |
| 19. Improvements to Lake Merritt (bulkhead walls, etc.) and the surrounding parkland (promenade, duck pond, park buildings, etc.). |
| 20. Improvements to Greenman Field, including possible expansion into Havenscourt Schoolyard. |

<!-- page 223 -->
### POLICY REC-3.3: PARK LOCATION FACTORS

**Consider a range of factors when locating new parks or recreational facilities, including local recreational needs, projected operating and maintenance costs, budgetary constraints, surrounding land uses, citizen wishes, accessibility, the need to protect or enhance a historic resource, and site visibility.**

***

A number of factors should be considered when creating a park or building a new recreational facility. The text below expands on Policy REC-3.3 by discussing these factors.

The first step in locating any kind of park project is to identify its purpose and function. The activities to be accommodated, site constraints and assets, intended user groups, and use patterns must all be considered.

For new parks, the sites must contain enough space to accommodate these desired activities. This sounds like a basic premise, but it has not always been followed in the past. As a result, some Oakland parks are too crowded and have too many overlapping functions going on within the same area.

Factors like shape, grade, vegetation, and other physical characteristics should be taken into consideration. Different sites offer different kinds of advantages. Linear sites may bring recreation closer to a larger number of people but are more difficult to develop with active recreational facilities. Very small sites can bring "breathing room" into underserved areas but if they are poorly sited they can also become local "hangouts" and fail to attract the users they were designed to serve. In general, new neighborhood parks should contain at least two acres of relatively level (less than 5 percent grade) ground and new community parks should contain at least five acres of relatively level ground.

Sites with unique vegetation, topography, or other natural features are especially desirable for Resource Conservation parks (see "Open Space" policies). However, even in community and neighborhood parks, features like mature trees give the park a headstart in serving an aesthetic function within the community. Locating new parks on such properties provides a means to conserve natural resources as well as enhance the recreation experience.

New parks or recreational facilities must be convenient and accessible to potential users. This general rule implies different things for different sites. For a neighborhood park or playground, the most important concern is good pedestrian access. For the typical community park, pedestrian access is still significant but the site should also be easy to get to by bike, transit, and car. This suggests a location on a major street. For region-serving parks, many users will be coming by car although it will be important to offer alternatives in the form of good bikeway, pedestrian, and transit access.

Visibility is another issue to be considered in siting new parks. Where a feeling of seclusion is important, as it is in the Resource Conservation Areas, obscured visibility may be desirable. On the other hand, hard-to-find neighborhood parks can reduce patronage and may create security problems. For community- and region-serving parks, visibility from major travel routes is desirable. Even for neighborhood parks, a fairly prominent location is usually desirable.

Compatibility with adjacent land uses is another important factor. This varies somewhat for different kinds of parks and recreation areas. A passive open space or landscaped mini-park is usually a good neighbor to housing. A large active recreation area which produces noise and draws big crowds generally is not. Unless an adequate buffer strip or other separation can be provided next to the houses, this kind of recreation space may be better located in a non-residential area. At the same time, some non-residential uses (scrap yards, noisy industrial plants, uses with noxious odors) make a location undesirable for recreational use altogether. Depending on the activity, there may be other instances where the park itself can work effectively as a buffer between such industrial uses and nearby residential areas.

For most kinds of parks and recreation areas, a location next to a local civic building--especially a school--is desirable. This can enhance the site's identity and encourage patronage and user safety. A location next to a commercial center may be desirable for intensively used community or region-serving parks.

<!-- page 224 -->
Opportunities for park dedication may also arise when historic buildings become available to the city for preservation or restoration. For instance, the old AMTRAK station in West Oakland could become part of a city park. In the past, parks have been created at a number of historic residences in Oakland, including the homes of Antonio Maria Peralta and Josiah Stanford. In addition, parks have been created on historic sites where buildings once stood. For instance, Vantage Point Park in the San Antonio District was once the site of the local Wells Fargo office, a hotel, and the stables for the Town of Clinton.

### ACTION REC-3.3.1: PROJECTIONS OF OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

*Include a projection of operating and maintenance costs for new parks or recreational facilities whenever such parks or facilities are proposed.*

This action underscores the need to consider operating and maintenance costs when programming future projects. If such costs are projected to be inordinately high or might impair the city's ability to maintain existing facilities, the project should not be pursued. High operating and maintenance costs may also require that sites be developed in phases rather than all at once. The City should explore a number of solutions to reduce maintenance costs, including community-run maintenance programs.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 225 -->
# PARK OPERATIONS

| GOAL REC-2: SAFE, CLEAN, ACCESSIBLE, EFFICIENTLY-RUN PARKS THAT COMPLEMENT THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN OAKLAND. |
| :--- |

### OBJECTIVE REC-4: MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION

**To maintain park facilities so that their ability to meet recreational needs is optimized and to rehabilitate recreational facilities on a regular basis so that they remain useful, attractive, and safe.**

Objective REC-4 addresses two critical facets of park operations: maintenance and rehabilitation.

Regular maintenance of parks and park facilities is essential to permit public use and enjoyment of Oakland's parks. The age of Oakland's parks, decrease in staff and operating funds, heavy use of many facilities, and incidence of vandalism have made maintenance a higher priority than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Although most residents polled in the 1992 household survey indicated that park maintenance was satisfactory, there is a widespread feeling that new park facilities should not be built if maintenance levels at existing facilities would suffer.

Rehabilitation of park infrastructure is also critical. Many park improvements and recreation centers have been in service continuously for decades without being restored or renovated. With the passage of Measure K by Oakland voters in 1990, a greater percentage of public funds has been expended on renovation and rehabilitation of Oakland's aging park system. The emphasis on rehabilitation is likely to continue in the future, considering the high cost of new construction and the limited availability of vacant land.

Despite Measure K, there are still enormous unmet capital needs for rehabilitation. Nearly all of the recreation centers are in need of updating. Typical *interior* needs are for improved bathrooms, security features, general modernization, room additions, and gymnasium renovations. In some cases, the centers are operating beyond their design capacities or are overtaxed by heavy use. In other cases, they have simply deteriorated with age. Typical *exterior* needs are for turf improvements on playing fields, benches, landscaping, new irrigation systems, fence replacement, and lighting.

### POLICY REC-4.1: SYSTEMATIC MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS

**Provide for on-going, systematic maintenance of all parks and recreational facilities to prevent deterioration, ensure public safety, and permit continued public use and enjoyment.**

The City of Oakland will strive to provide adequate maintenance services at all City parks. Routine maintenance needs should be evaluated on a regular basis. Parks which receive very heavy use should receive more frequent maintenance than those with lesser use.

Given budget constraints, the City will promote improvements which reduce maintenance costs. These might include low-maintenance landscaping, more efficient mowers, and automated irrigation systems. Budget constraints also make it imperative to search for new financing mechanisms which provide a reliable funding source for long-term maintenance needs.

<!-- page 226 -->
Maintenance costs might also be reduced by reorganizing the way services are provided. Presently, park maintenance falls under the jurisdiction of several different departments. The Park Services Division maintains outdoor areas in city parks; the Office of Public Works maintains roads, sidewalks, restrooms, and buildings and is responsible for most repair work. The School District maintains its recreational facilities, although the City has certain responsibilities for jointly used areas. These arrangements should be closely examined for their cost-effectiveness and efficiency.

***

### ACTION REC-4.1.1: PRIORITY ON MAINTENANCE

**Establish an annual budgeting process within the Office of Parks and Recreation which assigns a very high priority to park maintenance.**

***

### ACTION REC-4.1.2: IMPROVEMENTS WHICH REDUCE MAINTENANCE COSTS

**Undertake improvements and upgrades at Oakland parks which reduce annual maintenance costs. Consider community-run maintenance programs for specific parks or park areas as a means of controlling costs.**

Community maintenance programs include those run by the East Bay Conservation Corps, Sierra Club, Urban Creeks Council and other non-profit conservation groups. The City will support continued partnerships with the East Bay Conservation Corps in the maintenance of the natural landscape within city park and open space areas.

***

### ACTION REC-4.1.3: SCHOOL DISTRICT COORDINATION

**Issue Administrative Instructions and Joint Use Agreements as needed to clarify maintenance responsibilities with the Oakland Unified School District for jointly used properties.**

### POLICY REC-4.2: ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

**Encourage maintenance practices which conserve energy and water, promote recycling, and minimize harmful side effects on the environment. Ensure that any application of chemical pesticides and herbicides is managed to avoid pollution of ground and surface waters.**

The City should be a role model for Oakland residents and businesses in the maintenance of its parks and open spaces. The fire prevention, energy and water conservation, and habitat management measures described in the Conservation Chapter of the OSCAR Element must be followed on City-owned lands if they are to be expected on private land.

***

### ACTION REC-4.2.1: INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

**Develop and implement an Integrated Pest Management Program (IPMP) which emphasizes environmentally safe approaches to insect and weed control.**

The Offices of Parks and Recreation, Public Works, and General Services have developed a proposed IPMP for City parks, landscaped rights of way, and public buildings. The proposal includes pest control policies and procedures which minimize the indiscriminate use of herbicides and pesticides and promote the use of environmentally safe technologies.

<!-- page 227 -->
### POLICY REC-4.3: RENOVATION AND REHABILITATION PRIORITIES

Where cost savings and equivalent benefits would be achieved, renovate and rehabilitate existing facilities before building new facilities. Give rehabilitation priority to projects which would: (a) increase park safety and usefulness; (b) reduce operating and maintenance expenses; and (c) prevent a facility from deteriorating to the point of becoming unusable or expensive to repair. For projects meeting these criteria, give highest priority to projects in areas which are underserved by parks and recreational facilities, and projects which would benefit the greatest number of persons.

***

Past master plans for Oakland's parks emphasized land acquisition and construction of new park buildings. A shift in emphasis is needed due to constrained finances, the aging building stock, and the growing obsolescence of some park facilities. Repair of facilities is usually less expensive than full replacement and is the most cost-effective way to protect the city's investment in its parks.

Parks which are now marginally useful can be given new life through renovation. Most of Oakland's parks were developed at a time when safety standards were lower, expectations for "adventure play" were simpler, and considerations for special needs groups (including disabled persons) were absent. Some parks were developed to serve user groups that have since left the neighborhood, leaving current residents with parks that seem uninteresting. The City will strive to meet the needs of all residents, and to redesign those parks which have become obsolete.

Because renovation needs are so great, an emphasis must be placed on those projects with the greatest public benefit. In general, projects in areas where residents lack access to sufficient or adequate facilities should receive top priority. An especially high priority also should be placed on projects which result in long-term cost savings for operations and maintenance. This could include replacement of manually operated irrigation systems with automatic systems, use of more energy-efficient lighting, etc.

### ACTION REC-4.3.1: ANNUAL LIST OF PRIORITY PROJECTS

*Develop an annual list of priority rehabilitation projects based on an annual inspection of all sites and feedback from the public (see also Action REC-3.2.1).*

***

The list should be sufficiently flexible to take advantage of grants, outside revenue sources, and other funding opportunities that may arise during the course of the year.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 228 -->
### OBJECTIVE REC-5: PARK SAFETY

**To improve personal safety and reduce crime in Oakland's parks.**

There is a widespread perception, sometimes based on actual experiences and sometimes based on media reports and hearsay, that many of Oakland's parks are unsafe. This perception, combined with the visible impacts of vandalism and loitering, has contributed to a reduction in park use in many Oakland neighborhoods. Paradoxically, the biggest obstacle to making the parks safe is the lack of patronage by local residents. Bringing people of all ages back to the parks -- "taking back the parks" so to speak -- has proven to be the most effective way to combat crime and vandalism in parks around the country.

The problem of park safety is especially germane because it deeply affects Oakland's image and the quality of life in our neighborhoods. Although statistics tell us that the parks may be safer than the city streets around them, this provides little solace. One reason is that parks are intended to be safe havens from urban life. Another is that they are regarded as a resource for young children. Moreover, because parks are public spaces, park crime reflects poorly on the city's public image. Vandalism of park property becomes an affront to our efforts to improve Oakland and make it a better place to live.

The range of crime in Oakland parks mirrors that which takes place across the city. It varies widely in type, cause, and pattern of occurrence. The most prevalent crimes in Oakland's parks are auto break-ins, vagrancy, vandalism, narcotics possession, graffiti, sexual solicitation, and disorderly conduct. Between 1984 and 1993, the Ranger Unit reported 283 larceny thefts, 107 auto thefts, 96 burglaries, 154 narcotics offenses, 137 non-violent sex offenses, and 300 incidences of public intoxication. While rarely resulting in personal harm or injury, these crimes impart impressions of fear and neglect. Once these perceptions become rooted, they are difficult to eliminate.

A number of policies are proposed to address and combat crime in Oakland's parks. These range from reactive strategies such as adding burglar alarms and park rangers to pro-active strategies which address the roots of crime and deterrents to criminal behavior. In most instances, funding remains a significant constraint to developing a completely effective response. While there is no magic solution to completely eliminating safety problems, progress can be made through the combined efforts of the City and its residents.

### POLICY REC-5.1: INCREASED RANGE OF ACTIVITIES

**Promote an increased range of activities within Oakland's parks as a means of introducing new users to the parks and improving safety through numbers.**

The most effective strategy for making parks safer is to increase legitimate park use. This does not necessarily require increases in staffing and operating expenses. For instance, community gardening may bring dozens of people of all ages and cultures into the parks. This is primarily a volunteer-driven activity which can go a long way towards pride of ownership.

Another part of this strategy is to allow non-recreational use of the city's recreation centers. Encouraging community groups, social service organizations, senior groups, and clubs to use recreation centers can increase patronage at the centers and bolster the perception that the centers are a community resource.

#### ACTION REC-5.1.1: DESIGNATION OF COMMUNITY GARDEN AREAS

*Designate areas within neighborhood parks and mini-parks for community gardening where appropriate as a means of bringing new user groups to the parks.*

<!-- page 229 -->
### ACTION REC-5.1.2: NON-RECREATIONAL USE OF RECREATION CENTERS

***Allow the City's 22 Recreation Centers to be used for a range of non-recreational activities where appropriate, including the delivery of social services provided by other agencies. Develop rules specifying conditions and criteria for non-recreational use of recreational centers.***

---

The city's recreation centers should be used to deliver other community services, including senior services, day care, and meeting space for neighborhood groups and clubs. Many of the centers are already used in this manner. Multiple use of the space can promote a greater sense of community ownership, more activity by more users, and ultimately higher levels of safety in the park. Such activities should be promoted where space is available and should be monitored through written agreements.

---

### ACTION REC-5.1.3: OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH

***Expand recreational opportunities for young people to provide a viable, positive alternative to anti-social behavior. Consider extended hours of operation at certain recreation centers, evening sports events, and other after-hours activities oriented towards Oakland youth.***

---

Recreational and cultural programs, sports activities, and after-school programs for youth serve two clear benefits. First, they provide a constructive environment for young people, instilling positive values, providing education, encouraging physical fitness, emphasizing teamwork, and creating a sense of belonging and self-worth. Second, they provide a past-time for young people, filling the time void that exists after school and in the evening and in some cases, substituting for absentee or working parents.

Some opportunities for such programs have already been seized but many more exist. Expanding the hours at the recreation centers, expanding arts and crafts programs, classes, and services could go a long way towards meeting the needs of Oakland youth. Additional evening sports programs like Midnight Basketball also might be created. Other programs might capitalize on Oakland's natural resources, giving kids a chance to assist in tree planting, gardening, stream restoration, and fire prevention. All of these concepts require a commitment of human resources, including both paid and volunteer staff. The bottom line is that more money is needed. Efforts to increase state and federal funding for such programs should be vigorously pursued.

---

### POLICY REC-5.2: SAFETY-ORIENTED DESIGN

***Use a wide range of physical design solutions to improve safety at Oakland's parks, including lighting, signage, landscape design, fencing, vandal-resistant building materials, and emergency response features.***

---

Park facilities should be designed or redesigned to ensure personal safety and to facilitate security and policing. In some cases, this may be as simple as removing bushes or shrubs; in other cases, this may mean relocating parking lots closer to recreation centers or moving activity areas from the "back" of parks to the "front." For instance, Stonehurst Park would benefit if the children's play area was moved from a remote location in the back of the park to a more prominent location closer to the street. Bushrod Park would benefit from a relocation of its main facilities along lightly traveled 59th Street to the more visible Shattuck Avenue.

On a smaller scale, creating "defensible" space might mean adding windows to recreation centers so the play areas beside them are visible from within, or simply designing interior and exterior spaces to avoid hiding places.

Some of the structural solutions for improving park security are described below:

* Gates and Fencing. While gates and fences are not suitable for all parks, they may be appropriate at mini-parks and around equipment within some of the neighborhood parks. Even a low (3') fence can be an effective deterrent to crime. Higher fences can

<!-- page 230 -->
effectively secure parks at night and assist in enforcing curfews.

Where fences are used, it is essential that they are treated as an attractive, integral part of the park. Harsh, utilitarian designs like barbed wire should be avoided; ornamental iron and other materials which complement the park's design should be encouraged. Efforts to make the parks safe should not destroy the features which make them attractive environments.

* *Improved Lighting.* Lighting can be both a deterrent to crime and an attractor of crime, depending on which areas are illuminated and when lights are left on. Additional lighting would be most helpful around the recreation centers and in parking areas. Lighting might also be provided at a limited number of basketball courts, ballfields and tennis courts where evening staff are available or where programmed activities occur.

* *Traffic Control.* Bollards, barricades, and other devices can be used to prevent vehicles from using parking lots and roadways within the parks after hours. Such devices may also be effective in dealing with security problems on park perimeter streets.

* *Burglar Alarms.* The City recently installed burglar alarms in most of the recreation centers. These have been very effective in reducing vandalism during the evening and early morning hours. The centers without alarms should be equipped as soon as possible.

* *Emergency Call Boxes.* To discourage the use of pay telephones for illicit purposes, most Oakland parks do not have public phones. This creates potential problems for patrons in trouble as well as park users who may require medical assistance. Emergency call boxes similar to those found along freeways would provide a quick way to reach the police directly.

* *Signage.* Some of the more common offenses in parks are local ordinance infractions, such as drinking, dog walking, and curfew violations. These violations might be curbed if there were more prominent signs indicating that these activities are illegal. Information on park ordinances might also be posted at recreation centers or in park kiosks.

* *Vandal-resistant Design.* While totally "vandal proof" facilities may be impossible, some facilities are definitely more vandal resistant than others. For instance, concrete block restrooms meet the test of time much better than wood-frame restrooms. Pad-mounted aggregate garbage cans are more difficult to tip over than cardboard cans. Some surfaces are more resistant to graffiti than others. Lighting and irrigation systems should be similarly designed to discourage or obstruct vandalism.

### ACTION REC-5.2-1: DESIGNATION OF DRUG-FREE ZONES

*Explore the possibility of designating all Oakland parks as "Drug-Free" and "Weapon-Free" Zones.*

This action would make the penalty for sale or possession of narcotics or weapons in the parks more serious than elsewhere. This is already being done around public schools.

<<FIGURE>>

The "drug free zones" around Oakland schools might be expanded to include City parks.

<!-- page 231 -->
### ACTION REC-5.2.2: DESIGN REVIEW BY OFD AND RANGER UNIT

*On an on-going basis, involve the Ranger Unit and the Oakland Fire Department in the review of major planned park improvements and provide them with opportunities to suggest modifications which could improve public safety.*

### POLICY REC-5.3: LAW ENFORCEMENT

**Improve law enforcement at Oakland's parks through a combination of new rangers, reserve officers, neighborhood watch groups, coordination with East Bay Regional Park District rangers, and better communication between enforcement officers and neighborhood residents.**

Currently the Ranger Unit has 9 full-time and 6 part-time positions. Resources have been cut significantly in the post-Prop 13[^] era, despite an expanding number of parks and the more serious nature of park crime. The Unit is presently recruiting volunteer reserves to address the need for additional personnel.

The Ranger Unit has indicated that an additional 10 to 14 full-time staff positions are needed and that 24-hour patrolling would be beneficial to provide better enforcement of park curfews. The need for additional personnel has been echoed by park users and by recreation center staff. The visible presence of "beat officers" can go a long way to establish a higher level of comfort among both staff and park patrons.

### POLICY REC-5.4: CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY

**Promote civic responsibility among residents in the care of Oakland's parks and encourage broad community participation in making parks safer.**

The emphasis here is on pride of ownership and recognition that parks belong to everyone. Neighborhood watch and "adopt a park" programs should be promoted as a means of increasing neighborhood awareness and support for parks as well as reducing crime, litter and vandalism. Residents can also become involved in the planning process through the Recreation Advisory Councils, public hearings, and community meetings.

### ACTION REC-5.4.1: TAKE BACK THE PARK EFFORTS

*Support neighborhood "take back the park" efforts.*

### ACTION REC-5.4.2: GRAFFITI AND LITTER ABATEMENT

*Maintain graffiti and litter abatement programs.*

The City should continue its efforts at graffiti removal and litter abatement. Quick responses to graffiti are essential to convey the message that the City will not tolerate the degradation of its parks.

### POLICY REC-5.5: HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS

**Reduce hazards to park users resulting from hazardous equipment, building materials, or soil conditions.**

Building and park maintenance should minimize the use of hazardous materials, with chemicals and other treatments applied only by certified trained personnel. With the assistance of appropriate County, State, and federal agencies, the City will continue efforts to abate any problems resulting from past use of hazardous materials like lead and asbestos in park buildings.

Efforts should also be made to ensure the safety of patrons using play apparatus, sandboxes, ballfields, and other park facilities which may be in poor condition. Some of the parks contain outdated or vandalized play apparatus and hardscape surfaces that may be inadequate to cushion falls. Likewise, some of the ballfields are badly rutted and some of the hardcourts are uneven or

<!-- page 232 -->
cracked. Maintenance and renovation are needed to reduce the risk of accidents.

Soil toxicity would be most likely to occur where parks have been developed on sites once used for industry or fuel storage; along freeways where high levels of airborne lead may have settled in the soil; where lead paint on buildings formerly on park sites may have entered the soil; and where fill imported to a site (for berms, etc.) may contain hazardous materials. The City does not currently have a testing and monitoring program for toxics at its parks.

***

### ACTION REC-5.5.1: ASSESSMENT OF PLAY EQUIPMENT HAZARDS

*Prepare a hazard assessment of all play equipment in City parks comparable to the assessment recently prepared by the Oakland Unified School District.*

***

The assessment should include a cost estimate for the replacement of any hazardous equipment identified and a strategy for obtaining the funds needed to abate the hazards.

***

### ACTION REC-5.5.2: ASSESSMENT OF SOIL TOXICITY

*Prepare a list of those parks which are most likely to contain soil toxicity problems. Perform soil testing at the sites identified where remediation is required.*

***

It may be appropriate to perform some testing at certain sites where problems are suspected or have been reported. A larger scale program would be beyond the ability of the city to mitigate without state or federal assistance.

## OBJECTIVE REC-6: JOINT USE OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

To forge partnerships between the City, the Oakland Unified School District, and other agencies so that the joint use of facilities is maximized.

***

Partnerships between the different providers of recreational services in Oakland will be strongly supported. Coordination between the City and the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) has already enabled more facilities to become available to Oakland residents at a relatively low cost. Rather than building redundant facilities, or facilities which are only used during school hours, Oakland's parks and schools have a history of collaborating to make the most of each other's resources. Four of the city's six public swimming pools are next to high schools and about 30 of the public schools have playgrounds that are open and staffed by OPR after school and during the summer. Many of the schools (Garfield, Bella Vista, etc.) adjoin neighborhood parks and use the parks' fields and facilities for school programs.

Partnerships and joint use agreements with other agencies will also be encouraged. Agreements with the Peralta Colleges can improve access to athletic fields and tennis courts in neighborhoods lacking these facilities. Coordination with the Port of Oakland can help achieve shoreline access, Bay Trail construction, and possibly more waterfront parks. Partnerships with EBMUD can enhance linkages to regional open spaces, while cooperation with Alameda County Flood Control is essential for creek conservation and restoration programs.

<!-- page 233 -->
### POLICY REC-6.1: JOINT USE AGREEMENTS

**Promote joint use agreements and similar arrangements between the City, the Oakland Unified School District, and other public agencies to maximize the use of school and other non-park recreational facilities during non-school hours.**

***

An Agreement for Joint Use of Facilities was entered into by the City and the OUSD in March 1993. The intent of the joint use agreement was to make open space and recreational areas available to more residents, particularly in areas where neighborhood parks are less accessible or unavailable. The agreement establishes a *Joint Use Committee*, which coordinates scheduling of facilities and maintenance agreements. It also describes the conditions for joint use, sets priorities for user groups, and addresses funding. The new partnership has been accompanied by pilot After-School programs run by the Office of Parks and Recreation.

An important goal of the joint use agreement is to keep all schoolyards open during daylight hours after school. This includes the use of indoor facilities such as gymnasiums. There has been improved cooperation by school principals to accommodate the playground programs offered by the OPR, and a new agreement gives the OPR responsibility for all schoolyards after school hours.

***

<<FIGURE>>

*The neighborhood park at Franklin School includes a paved schoolyard and a City-owned ballfield and recreation center.*

### ACTION REC-6.1.1: CITY/ SCHOOLS JOINT USE AGREEMENT

*Regularly review the joint use agreement between the City and the Oakland Unified School District to respond to opportunities for joint use of facilities and grounds.*

***

The biggest concern at this juncture is the lack of funding for After-School program staffing. It was initially hoped that $5 million would be earmarked for After-School activities, but so far only $250,000 has been made available. This makes it all the more necessary to put an emphasis on volunteer playground staffers and to be selective in which schools have programs. An emphasis should be placed on the junior high schools, since they have more extensive facilities, and on those schools in areas which are underserved by neighborhood and community parks.

***

### ACTION REC-6.1.2: PERALTA COLLEGE JOINT USE AGREEMENT

*Investigate new joint use agreements with the Peralta College District to ensure the continued availability of their recreational facilities for community use.*

***

Coordination between the City and the Peralta College District should be encouraged. Increased access to playfields, gymnasiums, and fitness facilities by the community at large has been explored in the past and will continue to be pursued. A written agreement between the College District and the Office of Parks and Recreation, specifying facility usage, staffing, and maintenance conditions, would be helpful.

<!-- page 234 -->
### POLICY REC-6.2: PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Encourage "public private partnerships" as a means of providing new recreational facilities on privately-owned sites. Promote joint use partnerships with local churches, private recreational service providers, and local non-profits.

The concept of "joint use" should be expanded from schools to the private sector, churches, social service providers, and local non-profits. Because these groups already provide a great deal of recreational services to Oakland residents, they must be regarded as an important community resource. Establishments like the East Oakland Youth Development Center, St. Elizabeth's Church, and the YMCA are invaluable in supplementing the city's recreation programs.

The City will coordinate its programs and facility planning efforts with non-profits and other groups to maximize its own effectiveness. The use of non-City recreational facilities for City-sponsored programs and activities should be pursued. In such cases, the focus should be on areas with limited access to neighborhood and community parks.

The possibility may also exist to build creative partnerships with other public agencies and with the private sector to help meet local recreational needs. For instance, the City might become a joint venture partner in a private recreational development meeting the needs of lower income households in areas lacking neighborhood parks. The City could also underwrite land costs or provide redevelopment assistance to the private sector to assist in creating new recreational facilities. In such cases, priority should be placed on facilities that would serve lower income households in areas without comparable facilities.

#### ACTION REC-6.2.1: EAST OAKLAND SWIM AND DIVING CENTER

*Study the feasibility of a joint venture partnership with a non-profit or private entity in the development of an East Oakland Swim and Diving Center.*

### POLICY REC-6.3: USE OF SURPLUS OR UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTIES

In areas where park deficiencies exist, pursue recreational use of open space at surplus schools, military bases, utility and watershed properties, and transmission and transportation corridors. Recreational uses in such locations should not conflict with the functional use of the property and should be compatible with prevailing environmental conditions.

Education Code Section 39390 (the Naylor Act) allows cities to buy surplus school district properties at 25 percent of market value. Under this act, the City could buy the open space at Clawson School, Woodland School, Dag Hammersjold School, and other surplus OUSD properties at well below the price of comparable vacant land nearby. Surplus schools usually provide excellent sites for new neighborhood parks since they already contain recreational open space and are usually on level sites in residential areas. They may also be in areas that are grossly deficient in park acreage.

Similarly, the Fleet Industrial Supply Center, the Oakland Army Base, and the Naval Hospital each contain recreational areas, including playfields, hardcourts, and children's play equipment. Closure of the Naval Hospital will create an opportunity for a community-scale park within the site boundaries. Similar prospects exist at the other bases if and when they are converted *(see also Open Space policies under Objectives OS-2 and OS-3)*.

As mentioned in the Open Space Chapter, cooperative efforts with EBMUD, Caltrans, and PG&E should also be explored. Recreational facilities like tot lots and trails can be accommodated on some reservoir and transmission line sites with minimal impact and expense. Joint use agreements would be especially helpful in areas where there is little vacant land available for new parks.

<!-- page 235 -->
# HUMAN RESOURCES

| GOAL REC-3: RECREATIONAL SERVICES WHICH FULLY UTILIZE HUMAN RESOURCES AND PROMOTE PERSONAL GROWTH, CELEBRATE OAKLAND'S CULTURAL DIVERSITY, AND SERVE ALL COMMUNITIES EQUITABLY. |
| :--- |

### OBJECTIVE REC-7: RECREATION PROGRAMS

To provide a broad and basic array of programs which meet the athletic, social, educational, and cultural needs of Oakland residents and workers.

#### POLICY REC-7.1: PROGRAM DIVERSITY

Provide diverse recreational activities for all ages, with a progression of programs from youth to adulthood. Equitably distribute programs throughout all Oakland neighborhoods.

This policy emphasizes the importance of diversity and equity in recreational programming. The City should strive to provide balanced services and assistance to the entire community. At the same time, its programs should accommodate a range of specialized programs, such as aquatics, tennis, and equestrian events. Programs should be structured to eliminate the financial and cultural barriers which prevent some Oaklanders from access to these services. For instance, fees should be set with consideration given to the ability of patrons to pay and informational materials should be printed in non-English languages where appropriate.

The OSCAR Resident Survey and Needs Assessments should be used to provide guidance in determining where program improvements are needed. The survey indicated a significant unmet need for aquatic programs, especially in East Oakland where no public swimming pool exists. There is a citywide unmet need for after-school programs, particularly at the junior high or middle school levels. The San Antonio-Fruitvale, Central East Oakland, and Elmhurst areas have unmet needs for cultural arts programs comparable to those offered at Studio One in North Oakland. Based on the resident survey, there are also unmet needs for organized basketball programs, tennis programs, health and fitness programs (including organized walks), and baseball or softball programs in lower income communities.

#### ACTION REC-7.1.1: RESPONDING TO UNMET NEEDS

*On an on-going basis, explore ways to improve service delivery and respond to unmet community needs.*

The following specific goals should be pursued:

* Additional programs comparable to those offered at "Studio One" should be provided from a location in East Oakland by 1997.

* Participation in aquatics and boating should be increased, paying particular attention to programs which reach lower income households.

* Continued support should be provided for After-School programs, particularly at the junior high level. Possible ways to increase funding for such programs should be explored.

* New funding sources, including user fees, to reduce these and other program deficiencies should be explored.

*Additional program goals are included under other policies in this chapter.*

<!-- page 236 -->
### ACTION REC-7.1.2: STAFF PROVISIONS

*Establish minimum acceptable staffing requirements to carry out the City's recreation program goals, and do not allow staff levels to fall below these requirements.*

This action requires the continued commitment of public funds to staff the recreation centers. In the event future General Fund allocations are reduced, the City will make a concerted effort to explore new funding sources. In the event reductions are unavoidable, they should be achieved equitably and should avoid impacts on areas where other alternatives for recreation are most limited.

Recreation Center staff should provide supervision and leadership for patrons, particularly children and teens, and should be trained to be sensitive and responsive to the needs of different cultural groups and target populations. Staff also should be trained in first aid, fitness, and other skills which enable them to do their jobs most effectively.

***

### POLICY REC-7.2: COORDINATION WITH OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS

**Coordinate with other service providers, including the Oakland Unified School District, to maximize the effectiveness of service delivery and minimize duplication of efforts.**

The Office of Parks and Recreation will work with other City of Oakland departments, local non-profits, community groups, adjacent cities, churches, schools, the Regional Park District, and private recreation providers to make sure that their efforts are not redundant or duplicative. Where appropriate, the City will facilitate partnerships which increase recreational opportunities and will encourage private investment in the development and operation of recreational facilities which serve a public need.

### ACTION REC-7.2.1: AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS

*Strive to provide After School programs in every junior high or middle school in the City by the year 2000. Explore funding sources to expand the After School program.*

Just as there are opportunities to share school and park facilities (see Policy REC-6.1), there are also opportunities to collaborate in educational and recreational programming. School programs like intramural sports and fitness have a strong recreational component, while park programs like arts and music have an educational component. There are opportunities for school-park partnerships in such areas as vocational training and skills training in areas like home repair, first aid, and consumer education.

***

### POLICY REC-7.3: REDUCTION OF PUBLIC COSTS

**Promote volunteer and private sector involvement in recreational service delivery a means of reducing public costs. To this end, encourage local employers to develop programs which meet the recreational needs of persons working in Oakland.**

Although funding for recreational programs has steadily eroded since the 1970s, catastrophic cuts in service delivery have been avoided through the contributions of volunteers. The City has solicited and encouraged volunteers to supervise and lead numerous recreational activities and to participate in park maintenance, clean-up, and planting.

Groups like Volunteers for Oakland, the advisory councils (Boating, Aquatics, etc.), and the athletic leagues (Babe Ruth Little League, etc.) have made invaluable contributions to the city's recreational programs and will continue to do so in the future. Volunteers for Oakland should continue to solicit the assistance of Oakland residents in leading recreational programs and sporting activities.

<!-- page 237 -->
The City will also encourage local employers to provide facilities and programs which further meet recreational needs. Employer programs could include morning fitness or aerobics, luncheon jogs or walks, and after-work softball, baseball, or volleyball games. As funding permits, the City will provide technical assistance to help local employers design and implement such programs.

***

### POLICY REC-7.4: ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION FOR YOUTH

**Broaden the exposure of young people to Oakland's environment through programs and interpretive nature facilities in the City's parks.**

***

The City will promote opportunities for young people to learn more about conservation and natural resources in the city. This could include school curricula, brochures, exhibits, videos, printed materials, and special programs. The educational programs offered by the Aquatic Habitat Institute and the on-going displays at the Oakland Museum are excellent examples of how public awareness of urban natural resources can be enhanced. Increased awareness can also be achieved through interpretive trails, nature centers, and other facilities in or adjacent to natural resource areas. Field trips (to the zoo, San Leandro Bay, etc.) should continue to be encouraged as a way of broadening residents' exposure to local resources. Park rangers should be regarded as an important resource in this regard, acting as interpreters, conservationists, and educators at open space areas.

***

#### ACTION REC-7.4.1: URBAN NATURALIST VOLUNTEER PROGRAM

*Pursue formation of an urban naturalist volunteer program, wherein local conservation professionals and interest group members provide outreach at local recreation centers, schools, and parks.*

#### ACTION REC-7.4.2: DEVELOPMENT OF NATURE TRAILS

*Develop nature trails at public natural resource areas such as Claremont Canyon, Martin Luther King, Jr. Regional Shoreline, Beaconsfield Canyon, Glenn Daniel/ King Estate, Knowland Park, Leona Regional Open Space, and the UC Hill property.*

***

Where appropriate, self-guided interpretive trails should be used as a means of showcasing natural features in Oakland's parks. Such trails are already in place at San Leandro Bay and outside the city limits at Sibley and Huckleberry Parks. The potential for additional interpretive trails exists, particularly along creeks in flatland parks, in large open spaces like Glenn Daniel/ King Estate and Claremont Canyon, and even at Lake Merritt.

***

#### ACTION REC-7.4.3: RE-USE OF CHABOT OBSERVATORY

*After it is vacated, re-use the Chabot Observatory with a use promoting environmental education.*

***

The Observatory site on Mountain Boulevard will be vacated after a new observatory is built near Skyline Drive. Serious consideration should be given to the reuse of the 6.7-acre site for a land use combining recreation and environmental education.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 238 -->
### POLICY REC-7.5: MULTI-CULTURALISM

**Design recreational services which respond to the many cultures, ethnic groups, and language groups represented in Oakland. Design recreational programs to reflect the specific needs of Oakland neighborhoods and the values and priorities of local residents.**

***

In many neighborhoods, the city faces the challenge of adapting its services to reflect the customs and values of new populations. In other neighborhoods, the challenge is to adapt services to the needs of existing groups that have only recently become empowered. At community meetings held throughout the OSCAR Update participants voiced their interest in new park elements and programs celebrating African, Mexican, Central American, Southeast Asian, and Chinese heritage.

According to the Community Development boards representing Oakland's most ethnically diverse neighborhoods, there is a particular need to improve awareness of parks and recreation centers among non-English speaking residents. Public relations can be improved by printing brochures and flyers on programs, hours of operation, and directions to local parks and recreation centers in Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cambodian, and other languages.

It is also important that recreation center staff have the knowledge and background to respond appropriately to cultural differences. Hiring and training of employees should emphasize an understanding of the needs of the populations served. The use of multi-lingual volunteers can be especially helpful in making programs more accessible and meaningful to the non-English speaking community. Public opinion surveys, meetings, evaluation forms, staff input, Recreation Advisory Council input and demographic data can also be helpful in coming up with user profiles and evaluating how recreational needs change over time.

### ACTION REC-7.5.1: ADVOCACY GROUP LIAISON

*On an on-going basis, meet with agencies and organizations serving non-English speaking populations to explore ways to improve recreational service delivery to these populations. Encourage the City's 25 Recreation Advisory Councils to provide outreach to the City's diverse ethnic communities.*

***

The Office of Parks and Recreation will work with those agencies and organizations serving various cultural and ethnic groups to craft appropriate recreational programs and services. Programs should be structured based on information on the hobbies, sports and leisure activities of various groups, as determined through interviews, surveys, and anecdotal information.

### ACTION REC-7.5.2: FAIRS AND FESTIVALS

*Sponsor festivals, special events, and visitor programs that reflect Oakland's cultural diversity and neighborhoods and that foster community identity, stability, and cohesion.*

***

Recreationally-oriented festivals provide an opportunity for residents and visitors to learn about Oakland's heritage and culture. This includes events like "Festival at the Lake" celebrating cultural diversity, and events like "Cinco de Mayo" and "Juneteenth" which are oriented to particular cultures.

<!-- page 239 -->
### POLICY REC-7.6: RECOGNITION OF LOCAL HISTORY

**Promote programs, events, and markers at local parks which increase public awareness of local history and provide a sense of continuity with the past.**

The City should promote awareness and recognition of Oakland's history through its parks. This can be achieved through organized programs and events in historic parks, walking tours and self-guided tours, articles and other printed media, and the use of plaques, markers, and public art commemorating historic events or sites. Plaques and markers also might be used to identify parks where famous local athletes once practiced or elements of natural history, such as the location of the original shoreline.

A special effort should be made to relate local ethnic neighborhood history through interpretive efforts and programs in Oakland's parks. This could be achieved through displays and exhibits within park buildings as well as through park planning and design.

#### ACTION REC-7.6.1: RENAMING OF OAKLAND PARKS OR PARK FEATURES

*Rename Oakland parks where appropriate to commemorate local history and culture, or in honor of certain individuals who made a significant contribution to the community or the park.*

### OBJECTIVE REC-8: SPECIAL RECREATIONAL NEEDS

**To promote access to recreational services among residents with physical or financial hardships and others with special needs.**

The Office of Parks and Recreation provides a full range of recreational services to a broad spectrum of the population. Certain groups, including young children, teens, seniors, disabled persons, lower income households, and homeless persons have special needs which require a level of effort above that required for the population at large.

### POLICY REC-8.1: YOUNG CHILDREN

**Place special emphasis in recreational programming on the needs of young children, particularly "latch key" children and children from single parent households.**

The Office of Parks and Recreation will continue to work with organizations like Headstart to coordinate the provision of recreational services and day care. Special efforts will be made to meet the needs of children with no other after-school supervision.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 240 -->
### POLICY REC-8.2: TEENS

**Use recreational programming to promote self-esteem, responsibility, leadership, development, and employability among Oakland teens.**

Over the course of the OSCAR update, teens generally expressed the opinion that recreational programs and facilities were geared too heavily towards young children and adults, and that their needs were not being fully considered. Adequate recreational opportunities should be provided for all youth, particularly youth who are "at risk" of high school dropout, unemployment, gang involvement, or future health or behavior problems. Recreational programs should encourage youth leadership, fundraising, teamwork, and career guidance as well as promoting health and fitness. Drug abuse prevention, health services, environmental education, and employment counseling can be integrated with recreational programs to maximize the effectiveness of the programs. The new After-School programs offered at some of the junior high and middle schools have addressed these needs to some extent, but require greater financial support.

The Office of Parks and Recreation has already begun to implement this policy. It recently established eight teen centers, including sites at the Alice Arts Center, and at the recreation centers in Arroyo Viejo, Brookfield, DeFremery, Montclair (Jay VerLee), Golden Gate, Lincoln Square, and Sanborn Parks. A Citywide Teen Advisory Council also has been created to assist the OPR in developing teen center programs and services.

### ACTION REC-8.2.1: NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR TEENS

*Conduct a survey of Oakland teens to determine their preferences in recreation programming. Monitor participation rates in existing programs and compare to the survey results to determine where improvements might be made.*

The survey could be designed by students at UC Berkeley or another local college or university and could be administered and tabulated by student volunteers under city supervision.

### POLICY REC-8.3: SENIOR CITIZENS

**Provide quality recreational service delivery to senior citizens through collaborative efforts by the City, senior housing providers, and senior citizen groups and organizations.**

The Office of Aging coordinates the provision of services to Oakland's 45,000 senior citizens. Services are delivered from senior centers, multi-purpose centers, libraries, and recreation centers in neighborhoods throughout the city. The City's "Comprehensive Plan for Seniors" (1987) guides senior-oriented programs, including recreational programs provided by the Office of Parks and Recreation. Activities include dancing, cards, games, arts and crafts, dinners, community service projects, music, entertainment, holiday celebrations, and special events.

The Office of Parks and Recreation will continue to work with the Office of Aging in implementing the Comprehensive Plan's recommendations. These include improving access to recreation centers, constructing three new multi-purpose centers with Measure K funds, and providing outreach and special programs in senior housing areas. Each multi-purpose center will serve as a focal point for senior service delivery. In areas where there are no centers, the Office of Parks and Recreation will work with the senior population to ensure that quality services are made available.

<!-- page 241 -->
### ACTION REC-8.3.1: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR SENIORS

*Implement the "Comprehensive Plan for Seniors" prepared by the Office of Aging.*

***

### POLICY REC-8.4: DISABLED PERSONS

**Improve access to recreational services for persons with disabilities. Develop recreational programs which are specifically oriented to the needs of disabled persons, while at the same time removing barriers for disabled persons in "mainstream" recreational programs.**

***

OPR will continue to offer programs which are designed to meet the needs of disabled persons, including specialized aquatics, boating, and hiking programs. At the same time, the City will endeavor to make all of its programs more accessible to persons with disabilities and to eliminate barriers to the use and enjoyment of its facilities.

Rehabilitation of park facilities will include updating the facilities to meet ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) standards wherever feasible.

Under the ADA, new construction or modifications to existing improvements must provide:

* access to sanitary and convenience facilities, such as restrooms and telephones;
* access between parking and facility areas; and
* resilient flooring

Public facilities are subject to barrier-free design standards specified in the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines, the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards, and State Title 24. Within parks, these standards apply to such facilities as recreation buildings, picnic tables, trails, drinking fountains, and play apparatus.

### ACTION REC-8.4.1: RETROFITTING OF FACILITIES

*Continue Office of Parks and Recreation efforts to retrofit facilities for disabled access, placing first priority on facilities in underserved areas and facilities with large numbers of disabled users.*

***

Most park facilities were built long before the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and are not wheelchair accessible. The Office of Parks and Recreation is in the process of updating its facilities to meet ADA requirements.

An ADA Survey, evaluating each city facility for its compliance, was conducted in Oakland in 1993 by the Affirmative Action Division of the City Manager's Office. The Division is developing a transition plan to meet federal and state standards within each city department. Retrofitting of existing facilities is constrained by the current city budget and will be accomplished over many years. The OPR will continue its program of retrofitting facilities, placing first priority on facilities in underserved areas and on facilities with large numbers of disabled users.

The City is working to retrofit its existing parks in such a way that at least one of each type of facility is accessible at some location in the city. In other words, it may be infeasible to retrofit all six swimming pools at this time, but at least one will be made accessible in the short term.

***

### POLICY REC-8.5: LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS

**Give special consideration in service delivery to groups with limited ability to provide for themselves either through lack of income or other socio-economic factors.**

***

Some 16 percent of Oakland households were below the poverty level in 1990. These households (as well as many other households with incomes marginally above the poverty level) have very little discretionary income for

<!-- page 242 -->
recreation. Recreational services must be provided at little or no cost to be accessible. The City should explore the use of reduced and/or exempted fees in instances where the ability to pay would be a significant barrier to access recreational services.

### POLICY REC-8.6: HOMELESSNESS

**Promote a humane response to homelessness in the City's parks, considering the needs of homeless park residents and working with those residents to forge effective solutions.**

Without sufficient emergency shelter space and transitional housing, some of the city's parks have become refuges for the homeless. Most parks at least have benches and some vegetative cover, which make them more hospitable than doorways or sidewalks. Many have restrooms and covered shelters. Some have an active social scene, with regular card games or places to converse, and others are close to support services such as shelters or food banks.

The dilemma of homelessness is that it contributes to negative perceptions of parks but is also an inevitable byproduct of social service cuts and the shortage of low-cost housing in the city. On the one hand, vagrancy laws effectively make being homeless a crime. On the other hand, the resources do not exist to adequately house and provide social services for everyone.

Parks have become a resource for persons with no place else to go. The City has begun to develop a response to homelessness in parks, proposing a limited level of social services in Lafayette Square. The intent is to encourage shared use of the park, not just by the homeless but also by residents of the surrounding area and even by downtown office workers. Similar efforts might be tried in Jefferson Square, Peralta Park, and other parks with a visible homeless population.

### POLICY REC-8.7: TRANSIT-DEPENDENT POPULATIONS

**Improve access to parks and recreational services for adults without access to automobiles.**

Currently, 90 percent of Oakland's parks are less than three blocks from an AC transit stop. Bus stops have been located immediately adjacent to the most popular city parks, such as Lakeside, Dimond, Mosswood, and San Antonio. However, reaching the bus lines which stop at these parks may require one or more transfers from any given neighborhood.

Probably the most serious transit deficiency is the lack of service between flatland neighborhoods and the regional open spaces. Access without a car is very difficult, particularly for families with children. Improved trail connections between the flatlands and the hills could address the situation somewhat, but would still make it difficult for persons who are not inclined to make the two or three mile hike into the hills. Regular bus service would be prohibitively expensive, but could be explored on a weekends- only or demand-responsive basis.

#### ACTION REC-8.7.1: INFORMATION AT BART STATIONS

*Provide signs or directional information to community and region-serving parks on maps and kiosks at Oakland's BART Stations.*

<!-- page 243 -->
### ACTION REC-8.7.2: IMPROVED TRANSIT SERVICE TO REGIONAL PARKS

*Work with East Bay Regional Park District and AC Transit to develop a joint operating plan for improved weekend and summer weekday shuttle bus service between flatland neighborhoods, Redwood Regional Park, Joaquin Miller Park, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Regional Shoreline.*

The EBRPD has already made progress in this regard with their “Parks Express” programs providing direct transit service to regional parks, “campership” programs for single parent and lower income families, and increased accessibility to park facilities for disabled persons.

***

### ACTION REC-8.7.3: TRANSIT BROCHURE

*Develop a flyer showing how to get to each Oakland park using public transit. Make the flyer available at the recreation centers, schools, City offices, public libraries, and City and regional park facilities.*

***

Flyers on public transportation should be prepared and made available to the general public. Such information might be included in the “Fun Times” brochures produced by the Office of Parks and Recreation, in the program guides printed at each Recreation Center, and on AC Transit route maps.

## OBJECTIVE REC-9: COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

To strengthen community involvement and participation in recreational service delivery while increasing community use of park facilities and programs.

***

The participation and involvement of Oakland residents should be sought in the planning of all park space and the structuring of all recreation programs. An interactive planning process is needed to respond to the needs of different areas and effectively deal with local problems and concerns. Public involvement is also critical to gain the support necessary to increase (and in some cases even to maintain) basic services.

A number of policies are presented here affirming the city’s commitment to public involvement. Policies in earlier chapters (addressing park zoning and procedures for changes in park use) describe further opportunities for public input.

***

### POLICY REC-9.1: RECREATION ADVISORY COUNCILS

Use the Recreation Advisory Councils (RACs) as the primary means of public involvement at the neighborhood level.

***

Most of the recreation centers in Oakland have Recreation Advisory Councils (RACs) which provide direction on park management and recreational programming. There are also advisory councils dealing with specialized activities, such as aquatics. RAC members are local residents who act as liaisons between their neighborhoods (or interest group) and Office of Parks and Recreation (OPR) staff. They relay neighborhood or group concerns to the City and ensure that OPR decisions respond to local needs and interests. The operating manual for the RACs was revised in 1992 to establish clear operating policies, duties, and responsibilities for all members.

<!-- page 244 -->
Although the advisory councils are an important vehicle for public input, awareness of their role (and even their existence in some cases) is fairly low. RAC visibility should be increased. Meeting dates and times should be well publicized. Publicity and active outreach by Council members also should be encouraged. Better links to Parent Teacher Associations (PTAs), Community Development boards, and other community organizations would be helpful. In some cases, new RACs may be needed to reflect emerging areas of interest such as community gardening.

<<FIGURE>>

### ACTION REC-9.1.1: RECREATION ADVISORY COUNCIL COVERAGE FOR UNREPRESENTED PARKS

*Consider creating additional Recreation Advisory Councils to serve parks that are not currently represented, or expanding the role of existing councils to include multiple parks.*

Most of Oakland's neighborhood parks, special use parks, mini-parks, and athletic field parks are not represented by advisory councils. Consideration should be given to creating new advisory councils to shape policy decisions in some of these parks. Alternately, the role of existing councils could be expanded to include several parks within each community. In other words, the DeFremery Advisory Council might provide guidance on Lowell Park, Marston Campbell Park, and other parks in West Oakland. Another possibility would be for existing neighborhood groups to create subcommittees specifically dealing with park and open space issues. This has already happened in Rockridge and in West Oakland.

### POLICY REC-9.2: COMMUNITY RELATIONS

**Promote interaction between park and recreation staff, the Recreation Advisory Councils, school staff, the general public, volunteers, and others in the community who wish to contribute to park improvement efforts.**

Communication between staff and local residents and businesses should be encouraged to increase pride of ownership in local parks and improve park safety and upkeep. This is a basic step to make sure that parks remain a focal point of community life and source of community spirit. Staff should work with local residents in organizing special events and programs, providing information and referral services, and determining what steps are necessary to improve service and community relations.

<!-- page 245 -->
### ACTION REC-9.2.1: OUTREACH BY RECREATION CENTER STAFF

*Encourage recreation center staff to meet with neighborhood groups, businesses, organizations, and residents in the areas surrounding their parks to foster better communication, cooperation, and support.*

***

### POLICY REC-9.3: INVOLVEMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS

**Promote the involvement of neighborhood groups in park beautification, crime prevention, community gardening, park construction and maintenance, tree planting, creek restoration, and other activities which build pride and stewardship in the local park system.**

***

The City will promote neighborhood and community park clean-ups, tree plantings, and other measures which promote pride of ownership. Resident participation in the construction and maintenance of play equipment, landscaping, and other facilities can reduce vandalism as well as increase park usage. This policy has proven to be effective at locations like Courtland Creek (where plum trees were planted and "adopted" by local youth) and Rainbow Recreation Center (where Seminary Creek was recently cleaned by local residents). It is also positively reflected in the ongoing work of the East Bay Youth Conservation Corps.

The proposed zoning of Oakland's parks will establish a formal means of public notification and a forum for participation in park land use decisions. Park master planning will provide another opportunity for the community to shape the appearance of their parks. Development of any park master plan must involve widely publicized community meetings. Park planners should also work with park users, including children and teens, in the planning of park spaces. The City should coordinate its efforts with local schools to involve children in park planning, design, and equipment selection.

### ACTION REC-9.3.1: INVOLVEMENT OF LOCAL ARTISANS

*Incorporate the diverse skills of Oakland artists and craftspersons in the design and planning of public open spaces.*

***

There are hundreds of artists and craftspeople in Oakland that could participate in maintaining and beautifying the city's public spaces. While the city has a public arts program to capitalize on these resources, there may be additional opportunities to involve the community in designing, renovating, and building recreational facilities. In addition to the sculptors and painters traditionally involved in creating public art, there are metalworkers, woodworkers, glassworkers, landscape architects, and other artisans who can contribute to park improvements. Their participation should be encouraged through design competitions, exhibitions, volunteer programs, and other means.

***

### POLICY REC-9.4: USE OF MEDIA

**Use all forms of media, including printed materials, video, telecommunications, and computers, to increase patronage at Oakland's parks.**

***

The OSCAR Resident Survey indicated that a majority of Oakland residents were not aware where their local parks were located, what facilities existed in those parks, what programs were available, and how they could participate in park planning and program development. Despite the City's publication of the "Fun Times" insert to the Oakland Tribune, announcements in newspapers and flyers, and broadcasts on radio and community access television, the message is still not reaching many residents. Additional advertising and outreach is needed, particularly in the promotion of the neighborhood-serving parks.

<!-- page 246 -->
### ACTION REC-9.4.1: MEDIA MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

*Develop a media management program to increase awareness of local park issues and services.*

The program should consist of the following components:

* On-going publicity of Recreation Advisory Council meeting dates and times through the neighborhood newsletters and other local papers.

* Coordination with neighborhood newsletter editors (and the City's "Intercom") to publish a series of articles highlighting parks within Oakland neighborhoods. The articles could describe the history of each park, existing facilities and programs, and relevant planning issues.

* Coordination with the Montclarion, Oakland Tribune, and Oakland Post to present a series of articles on "Oakland's hidden parks" or "natural wonders." The topic might become a regular weekly feature.

* Development of promotional materials aimed specifically at children, using creative word and picture games to tell them about their neighborhood or community parks.

* Development of printed brochures or flyers for Oakland's community-serving and region-serving parks, similar to the brochures for each park in the East Bay Regional Park system.

### ACTION REC-9.4.2: FUNDING SOURCES FOR PUBLICITY

*Solicit corporate support, grants, advertising sales, and donations to offset the costs of promotional materials and efforts.*

### ACTION REC-9.4.3: LEISURE REFERRAL SERVICE

*Establish a program for leisure referral and information on the Citynet information system. Explore expanding the system to the Internet.*

The Office of Parks and Recreation has considered implementing a computerized leisure referral service system for more than a decade. When first conceived, the system was to consist of a computerized data base on all parks and park services, including recreational facilities operated by quasi-public and private organizations. The data base was to be located in OPR's main office, where a telephone operator would access information when calls were received.

Today, new technology could create a much more sophisticated and accessible information system. The advent of computer bulletin boards and touch-tone telephone menus makes it possible to make basic information on parks and leisure services available to thousands of Oakland households. The data base should be updated twice a year and should contain current information on park location, facilities, and programs. The data base should be networked to all Oakland libraries, schools, and neighborhood centers, and possibly to on-line subscribers.

### ACTION REC-9.4.4: PARK VISIBILITY AND NAME RECOGNITION

*Improve park visibility and name recognition by funding improvements for signage, orientation markers, and park site maps.*

Oakland's parks are not consistently marked or signed. There are occasional directional signs to the East Bay Regional Parks but signs from major trafficways to city parks are absent. This is problematic for parks without frontage on a major street, such as Arroyo Viejo and Raimondi Field. Such parks are invisible to many potential users.

<!-- page 247 -->
Other parks have no signage on-site or have had their signs vandalized or obscured by shrubs. New signs or sign maintenance may be needed in such locations.

A citywide effort to improve signage is recommended. Capital improvement programming for the next five years should include regular allocations to improve directional signs, create map boards, mark trailheads, and refurbish park identification signs. The assistance of local artisans should be solicited in the design of signs, while community residents might assist in sign installation and landscaping.

***

<<FIGURE>>

Signs like these can direct visitors while improving the image and visibility of Oakland's parks.

<!-- page 248 -->
# FUNDING

### OBJECTIVE REC-10: FUNDING

To stabilize existing funding sources, develop new funding sources, and effectively manage park expenses.

The lack of funding is probably the most pervasive issue confronting park services in Oakland today. Before the City can reduce the deficiencies identified in this Element, existing funding sources must be stabilized and secured. New funding sources and cost-reduction measures are needed before substantial new parks or park facilities can be developed. Vigilant management of operations, pursuit of grants and other alternative funding sources, new public/private partnerships, and a growing emphasis on "market-driven" services are essential.

The following policies should provide guidance in funding park services:

<<FIGURE>>

### POLICY REC-10.1: GENERAL FUND SUPPORT

Continue to provide General Fund support for park and recreational services, acknowledging the importance of these services to the quality of life in Oakland.

Although a number of new funding sources are proposed, the Office of Parks and Recreation will continue to rely on ad valorem taxes (i.e.; the General Fund) for basic support. In the annual budgeting process, park programs, maintenance, and operations should be recognized as fundamental city services. Cost-reduction measures should strive towards more efficient operation rather than elimination of essential services.

#### *ACTION REC-10.1.1: ACCOUNTING IMPROVEMENTS AND FUNDING STRATEGIES REPORT*

*Improve the City's financial data base and accounting system to determine appropriate general fund allocations and the need for other funding sources. Prepare a Parks Funding Strategies Report which investigates what resources might be available to meet Office of Parks and Recreation needs through 2005.*

The Offices of Parks and Recreation and City Budget Office should implement this policy by improving the Financial Management System so that revenues and expenditures can be tracked more closely and more clearly. Consideration should be given to producing an Annual Report which identifies specific revenue sources and explains how revenues were spent. In an effort to improve cost recovery, the Offices should also identify potential new revenue-generating park services within the city, as well as potential new funding sources.

<!-- page 249 -->
### POLICY REC-10.2: PARKLAND DEDICATION AND IMPACT FEE

**To the extent permitted by law, require recreational needs created by future growth to be offset by resources contributed by that growth. In other words, require mandatory land dedication for large scale residential development and establish a park impact fee for smaller-scale residential development, including individual new dwelling units. Calculate the dedication or fee requirement based on a standard of four acres of local-serving parkland per 1,000 residents.**

Over the years, the citizens of Oakland have contributed their tax dollars to create a first class park system. As new development has occurred, demands on these facilities and the need for additional services has increased. This policy directs that appropriate fees be enacted to ensure that new populations contribute to and maintain the service level of the system.

One way of acquiring open space to meet the City's needs is to use California Government Code Section 66477, the Quimby Act. This law allows cities to require builders of residential subdivisions to dedicate land for parks and recreation areas or to pay an in lieu fee to the city. The Subdivision Map Act also authorizes cities to require dedication of park improvements or payment of in-lieu fees for park and recreational facilities (as a condition of subdivision approval).

Oakland is one of the only cities in the Bay Area that does not currently have a Quimby Act requirement. The great deficiencies in park acreage and the potential for new development and redevelopment create a compelling argument for changing this situation. The Association of Bay Area Governments projects that Oakland could gain more than 25,000 new residents by the year 2010. Park standards suggest that about 100 acres of parkland will be needed to meet the recreational needs of the new residents alone.

The amount of land dedicated or money collected should be based on the size of the project. The goal should be an equivalent of 4 acres of additional local-serving (e.g., active recreation) parkland per 1,000 residents. The requirement excludes land which is set aside as conservation easements, utility easements, medians, etc., since such areas do not meet the need for active recreation.

The choice to dedicate land on-site or pay an in-lieu fee will depend on the size and location of the site being developed and the estimated population of the development. On-site dedication is most appropriate for large, level sites located in areas deficient in neighborhood and community parks. In-lieu/ impact fees are most appropriate for:

* properties in areas where the money would be better spent expanding an existing substandard park or upgrading facilities or equipment at a local park; and
* sites that are too small to accommodate a useful neighborhood park.
* individual residences

If in-lieu fees are collected, revenues must be spent on improvements which benefit residents of the development (either new facilities or expansion of existing facilities). Quimby Act revenues may not be spent on regular maintenance, or on improvement of parks in other parts of Oakland.

At this time, a dedication requirement or impact fee for non-residential development is not proposed. Such fees are allowed in California, provided that a strong connection is demonstrated between the development, the need for parkland, and the way the fee is spent.

<!-- page 250 -->
<<FIGURE>>

*New housing in Oakland increases the demand for park facilities. Most communities in California have park impact fees to meet this demand.*

### ACTION REC-10.2.1: ADOPTION OF QUIMBY ACT FEE

*Adopt an ordinance authorizing a Quimby Act parkland dedication and in-lieu/impact fee requirement. Prior to adoption, perform the necessary fiscal studies to determine the dollar amount of park impact fees to be charged for single family and multi-family dwellings. Following adoption, prioritize the expenditure of in-lieu fees collected from new development to ensure that the fees are spent in the appropriate areas.*

The park impact fee would most likely be charged on all permits for new single and multi-family housing units issued in the city. Proceeds could cover both land acquisition costs (including the costs of expanding existing parks), and capital improvement costs. Prior to its adoption, the City will need to determine the cost of providing park services to a new dwelling unit and the way in which fees will be calculated. Fees could be structured so that a single family unit paid more than a multi-family unit. Fees could also be structured so that units with more bedrooms paid higher amounts. Typical Quimby Act fees in surrounding cities are typically between $1,000 and $3,000 per unit. Allowances for fee waivers or reductions (for affordable housing units, etc.) would be made in the adopting legislation.

The funds collected would be spent on specific projects serving the area where the unit was added. Provisions of the Quimby Act should be researched to determine if improvements serving the entire city (e.g., renovations at Lakeside Park, Joaquin Miller Park, Estuary Park, etc.) are eligible.

### POLICY REC-10.3: EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT BENEFITS

Work with the East Bay Regional Park District to ensure that Oakland receives an equitable share of benefits from the District, including improved access between Oakland neighborhoods and the hill and shoreline parks.

Oakland contributes about 20 percent of the EBRPD's revenues. Because the District already has extensive landholdings in the East Bay Hills, and because the Oakland service area is growing less rapidly and is less immediately threatened by urbanization than southern Alameda and eastern Contra Costa Counties, the EBRPD has focused its land acquisition program on other parts of its service area. While it is true that Oakland does enjoy many benefits from its regional parks, most of the parks are located in the most affluent parts of the city. Many lower income Oakland households receive limited benefits from the regional park system.

This policy supports the expenditure of a greater share of regional park dollars on improvements within Oakland, particularly on improving connections between flatland neighborhoods and the hills and shoreline. Regional park dollars could be directed towards trail and linear park projects in Oakland, improvements to Martin Luther King, Jr. Regional Shoreline on San Leandro Bay, outreach to flatland neighborhoods, and other means of making its parks more accessible to Oakland residents.

The City will also urge the EBRPD to expand the programs and services available to Oakland residents, especially in ways that will reduce deficiencies in flatland neighborhoods and meet the needs of lower income households. EBRPD will be encouraged to invest more

<!-- page 251 -->
of its resources in these areas directly, and to improve access to regional park programs from these areas.

***

### ACTION REC-10.3.1: ACCESS AND FACILITIES AT MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. SHORELINE

*Participate in the update of the Land Use and Development Plan for Martin Luther King, Jr. Regional Shoreline, encouraging the East Bay Regional Park District to develop new recreational facilities on appropriate upland sites and to improve connections between this shoreline park and Central East Oakland neighborhoods.*

***

### ACTION REC-10.3.2: DUNSMUIR RIDGE

*To the extent permitted by law, work with landowners and the East Bay Regional Park District to maximize the open space potential of Dunsmuir Ridge and other sensitive open space lands.*

***

<<FIGURE>>

*The East Oakland Youth Development Center is operated by a non-profit organization with City Assistance. Similar arrangements might be used to provide other park services.*

***

### POLICY REC-10.4: PRIVATE SECTOR PROVISION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

**Promote and support partnerships with the nonprofit and private sectors in the development and operation of facilities which serve a public recreational need. Where financially feasible, consider joint financing and operating agreements for recreational facilities with other public and private agencies.**

***

The City should explore opportunities for public/private partnerships to meet recreational needs. This could include public assistance (donations of surplus city land, block grants, etc.) for the development of private recreational facilities that are open to the general public where such uses fill a niche not filled by the City, provide services affordable to lower income households, and are located in areas that are underserved by such facilities. Typical uses might include swimming and diving centers, bowling alleys, skating rinks, and gymnasiums, among others. This approach has already been used to fund and operate the East Oakland Youth Development Center and to finance the new downtown ice rink.

The City should also explore the concept of new "Enterprise Parks" to offset its recreational deficiencies. Such parks would essentially operate like private businesses and would have their operating costs covered by revenue-generating activities or facilities on the site. This is basically the concept used for the golf courses and the zoo. New parks with facilities like swimming pools and tennis courts could operate similarly. The downside of such facilities is that full cost recovery may require user fees that are not affordable to lower income households.

<!-- page 252 -->
### POLICY REC-10.5: OTHER LOCAL FUNDING SOURCES

**Promote the use of other local funding sources, including tax increment financing, assessment districts, and general obligation and revenue bonds, to produce the revenue necessary for park improvement and operation.**

***

### *ACTION REC-10.5.1: USE OF TAX INCREMENT FUNDS*

*Within designated redevelopment areas, use tax increment funds for park, plaza, and open space improvements which promote the overall goals of the redevelopment agency.*

Most of downtown Oakland and about 6,000 acres near the Coliseum have been designated as redevelopment areas. This designation can assist in the financing of a wide range of front-end capital improvements which in turn help spur redevelopment activity. Improvements are paid for through tax increments that accrue as the value of land and buildings within the area increases. A wide range of park and open space improvements are eligible for tax increment financing, including street trees, landscaping, street lights, new open spaces, and refurbished park facilities.

***

### *ACTION REC-10.5.2: SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS*

*Use special assessments where feasible and necessary to ensure that park operations and maintenance can be carried out effectively and without service reductions. For any assessment, provide an annual report to the City Council indicating precisely how funds are expended.*

Since the imposition of Proposition 13 in the late 1970s, local governments throughout California have used special assessments to supplement the General Fund in providing park services. Assessment Districts (including flat parcel taxes and taxes based on specific criteria, such as lot area) may be created by two-thirds voter approval within a designated area of benefit. Such districts are useful in funding services that are unique to specific areas, such as Oakland's Fire Suppression District in the hill area.

The Mello Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Govt Code 53311 through 53365.7) also allows local governments to levy a special tax after approval by the voters. Mello Roos funds may be used to finance special tax bonds, but rather than paying an annual assessment to the city, property owners pay through a community facilities district. Where there are more than 12 persons residing in a proposed District, its creation requires two-thirds voter approval. Because of this requirement, Mello-Roos districts are usually used in newly developing areas and would have limited applicability in Oakland.

Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts (LLAD) provide a flexible method for financing park acquisition, development, and maintenance. Since the State legislature gave cities the authority to create LLADs in 1972, they have been used throughout California to acquire, develop, operate, and maintain parkland; enhance parks, medians, sidewalks, street trees; and develop and maintain street lighting. Such a district can be created by a majority vote of the City Council and remains in effect unless a majority of voters protest. Oakland adopted a LLAD in 1988 and today it contributes $12 million a year towards the maintenance of parks, park buildings, street trees, and landscaping, and $3,000,000 for street lighting. Continuation of this funding source is imperative to avoid reductions in these services.

<!-- page 253 -->
### ACTION REC-10.5.3: GENERAL OBLIGATION AND REVENUE BONDS

*Support the use of local general obligation and revenue bonds for park improvements and rehabilitation, and the passage of State bond measures which would provide significant benefits to Oakland.*

Subject to the required two-thirds voter approval, the City will support the use of park bonds which provide direct benefits to Oakland. General obligation bonds such as Measure K (approved in 1990 by 70 percent of Oakland voters) offer the opportunity to finance packages of large scale improvements such as park renovation, new facilities, and land acquisition. The bonds involve long-term borrowing secured by the general credit and taxing powers of the city. Bond proceeds are traditionally used for capital improvements and are repaid through property taxes.

Revenue Bonds may also be considered for park improvements, but are likely to have more limited applicability. These bonds are supported by revenue generated from the projects they finance (stadiums, etc.). Usually they do not require voter approval, but they do require facilities which generate sufficient revenue to pay off the bonds.

### POLICY REC-10.6: GIFTS AND GRANTS

*Promote gifts and donations of land, cash, services, and equipment from business, individuals, and community groups. Aggressively pursue public and private grants, making the maximum use of non-local funds to acquire and develop parkland and park facilities.*

Oakland will actively encourage efforts to solicit funds from industry and private sources to improve and maintain open space. Friends of Oakland Parks and Recreation (FOPR) should continue its role as an umbrella organization for park interest groups and should continue its advocacy, educational, and fundraising efforts. FOPR was formed to create a central donation fund to support parks and recreation in Oakland. During the last two years alone, "Friends" has participated in or directed the renovation of 10 tot lots, Montclair Pond, the Woodminster Cascades, and City Stables. The group served as fiscal custodian for renovation of several baseball and soccer fields and is currently negotiating a contract with the City to replace the Oakland Raiders practice field with new and renovated baseball and soccer fields.

Because "Friends" is a non-profit corporation, donors can deduct their contributions from their income taxes and the group can seek donations from many organizations which cannot offer grants directly to public agencies. The City will continue to support and provide staff assistance to FOPR.

Additional support should also be provided through "Volunteers for Oakland." This group coordinates and places Oakland residents interested in community service. Voluntary contributions of cash, services, and materials by local citizens or businesses (including nurseries, lumber yards, woodworkers, etc.) also can go a long way towards enhancing open space in underserved areas. The city also will encourage the donation of private property to serve as public parkland. This value of such donations for the owner (tax benefits, etc.) should be publicized.

Grant funding sources include Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), Intersurface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) Grants, gas tax funds, and Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) grants, among others. CDBG funds are especially useful in assisting lower and moderate income areas. ISTEA grants can be used for bikeway and pedestrian improvements and for park projects that are linked to local transportation improvements. Likewise, gas tax funds can be used for landscaping, bikeways, and other transportation facilities with a recreational function. LWCF grants are administered through the State Department of Parks and Recreation and can provide assistance for sites of regional importance. State and federal funds may also be available for specific types of projects like creek restoration and habitat enhancement. Various programs and grants are also offered by nonprofit groups such as the Nature Conservancy, the Trust for Public Land, and the Ford Foundation.

<!-- page 254 -->
### Funding

Another approach is to pursue multi-purpose or multi-jurisdictional projects which involve the use of matching funds by other agencies. This could include improvements along flood control channels (ACFCD), the shoreline (developed jointly with the Port), and facilities developed jointly with the Regional Park District.

To better serve areas of high need, the OPR should maintain data which documents Oakland's eligibility for government grants. This includes the "needs assessment" data included in the OSCAR Element. Figures on park and recreational resources and deficiencies should be updated each year to reflect new projects. Estimates of recreation demand should be adjusted as new population data becomes available.

### ACTION REC-10.6.1: JOINT VENTURE WITH OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY

**Work collaboratively with the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) to pursue federal funds for the improvement of parks that are proximate to OHA properties, particularly Lockwood/ Coliseum Gardens.**

This 5-acre park on 66th Avenue is underutilized and is located in an area with substantial park deficiencies. Federal (HUD) funds may be available for capital improvements, since the project would primarily benefit residents of nearby San Antonio Villa and Lockwood Gardens public housing.

### POLICY REC-10.7: LEGISLATION FOR PARK FUNDING

**Promote legislation at the State and national level which enhances the availability of funds for development, maintenance, and operation of parks.**

This legislation could include increases in the amount of gas tax funding that can be used for bikeways and landscaping, or changes which facilitate the acquisition of parts of surplus military bases for parks. Legislative changes could also provide new incentives for landowners to conserve property as open space or dedicate parkland to the city. State and national legislation might also be effective in providing more local assistance to cities in the operation and maintenance of their parks.

### POLICY REC-10.8: FEE-SUPPORTED, MARKET-RESPONSIVE SERVICE EMPHASIS

**Emphasize fee-supported and market-responsive services. Evaluate fees periodically to determine whether they should be modified for inflation, rising costs, market demand, and other factors. Set fee schedules to make allowances for residents with limited ability to pay and to take into consideration such factors as residency within the City of Oakland (higher fees might be charged for non-residents).**

User fees at such facilities as golf courses, swimming pools, and the Oakland Zoo partially offset the cost of operating and maintaining the facilities. In most cases, the fees are nominal and do not nearly cover operating expenses. Fees should be evaluated regularly to ensure that they are adequate for the services provided. At the same time, the goal of keeping recreational services affordable to all Oakland residents should be kept in mind. To the extent feasible, fees should be structured to provide discounts for families, seniors, children, and others with limited discretionary income.

<!-- page 255 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 256 -->
# Chapter 5

# Planning Area Strategies

<!-- page 257 -->
# INTRODUCTION

The 12 Planning Area Strategies set forth the basic concepts to be followed in park and open space planning within different communities in Oakland during the coming decades. Each Strategy translates the broad, citywide policies outlined in the OSCAR Element into more specific priorities for smaller geographic areas.

The Planning Areas encompass the entire city and range in size from 1,600 acres to 6,300 acres. Two of the 12 areas have no permanent population; the ten others have populations ranging from 15,000 to nearly 60,000. Each area has very different needs and priorities due to their distinct natural features, development patterns, and demographics. The Area Strategies provide a tool for responding to these differences within the overall framework established by the OSCAR Element.

Unlike the first three chapters of the OSCAR, which present binding policies to be adopted by the City Council, the Strategies present recommendations to be considered as future decisions are made on the City's parks and open spaces. The Strategies are not binding and are not intended to be the "last word" on the matters they address. Continued planning will be needed and more information will be required as site plans are developed for individual parks and strategies are prepared for conserving or enhancing specific open spaces.

Each Planning Area Strategy consists of a brief introductory statement followed by separate sections on open space and parks. The open space recommendations are based on the physical opportunities unique to each Area, such as underutilized sections of waterfront, creeks with potential access improvements, or surplus City properties with the potential to become new parks. The recommendations are based on the findings of the OSCAR natural resource and open space inventories, feedback from the OSCAR Advisory Committee, and suggestions from community meetings and neighborhood groups.

The park recommendations provide a synopsis of the major needs and opportunities for each park in each Planning Area. The recommendations are based on the OSCAR Resident Survey; feedback from neighborhood and community groups; interviews with staff, park users, and Recreation Advisory Council members; and visits to each park.

Each Strategy includes a map summarizing the recommendations. Again, any of these recommendations would require further study before being translated into specific capital improvement projects. As such projects are formulated and designed, additional input from the community and in some cases additional environmental review will be required.

<!-- page 258 -->
# NORTH OAKLAND

North Oakland encompasses 2,324 acres and has a population of about 46,000. The area contains two community parks, three neighborhood parks, one active mini-park and one passive mini-park, two linear parks, and one swimming pool/arts studio complex. There is also a large athletic field at Oakland Technical High School that is used for public recreation. Three of North Oakland's parks contain recreation centers.

Total park area, including the public schoolyards and athletic fields, is 54.50 acres. Per capita park acreage in North Oakland is 1.18 acres per 1,000 residents, which is just over one-fourth the citywide standard.

Figure 20 summarizes open space and park recommendations.

### Open Space Recommendations

North Oakland is one of the most heavily urbanized parts of Oakland and, with a few exceptions, lacks undeveloped natural areas. Like West Oakland and the dense neighborhoods east of Lake Merritt, it is landlocked. However, because North Oakland is physically closer to the hillside open spaces, it is perceived as having greater access to open space than some of the other flatland districts. The hills are clearly visible from most of North Oakland and several of the regional parks (Lake Temescal, Claremont Canyon, etc.) are close by and accessible by bus or bicycle.

About 4 percent of North Oakland's total area (108 acres) consists of open space, including nearly 30 acres of schoolyards. The schoolyards offer great potential to enhance the area's appearance as well as its recreational amenities. Most are completely paved and, in many neighborhoods, they are the only available public open spaces. Claremont Middle, Emerson, and Wilson Schools in particular, appear to have high potential for schoolyard "greening." Piedmont Avenue School includes a buried section of Glen Echo Creek and offers some potential for a creek daylighting project.

Opportunities for new parks on vacant land are limited, although there may be some potential through street closures, redevelopment, and re-use of institutional uses. To the extent permitted by law, specific recommendations are laid out below:

$\checkmark$ Retain wooded open space around St. Albert's and consider acquiring part of the site as a neighborhood park if it ever becomes available.

$\checkmark$ Require daylighting of Temescal Creek as a condition of development approval for the old Vern's Shopping Center site (now a vacant lot)

$\checkmark$ Pursue a trail connection between Hardy Park and Temescal Creek (DMV) Park along the flood control right of way.

$\checkmark$ Include provisions for a public plaza or mini-park in any redevelopment or urban design plan for the area around the MacArthur BART station.

$\checkmark$ Consider ways to enhance the flood control right-of-way along Temescal Creek between Martin Luther King Junior Way and Emeryville. Community gardening is already occurring at one site along the right-of-way and could be pursued elsewhere.

$\checkmark$ Pursue a trail link from the Rockridge BART Station to the hills, via Chabot Neighborhood Park, Lake Temescal, and the North Oakland Sports Center.

$\checkmark$ Consider the recreational potential of the old quarry pond adjacent to the Rockridge Shopping Center on Pleasant Valley Road.

$\checkmark$ Encourage any new large-scale development in the College and Piedmont Avenue commercial districts to include small plazas or "pocket" parks.

$\checkmark$ Promote improvements to the overall visual quality of the area through street tree planting, particularly in the neighborhoods west of Telegraph Avenue.

<!-- page 259 -->
✓ Work with the Cities of Emeryville and Berkeley to improve pedestrian/ bicycle access between North Oakland and the new Eastshore State Park.

### Park Recommendations

North Oakland contains two of Oakland's best known and well used *community* parks, Mosswood and Bushrod. These spacious parks are more than 80 years old and have played an important role in shaping North Oakland's development. The *neighborhood* parks of North Oakland are less well known and generally lack the facilities and acreage associated with neighborhood parks located elsewhere in the City. Many of the area's smaller parks were developed in conjunction with flood control or highway construction projects during the 1960s and 1970s. Some occupy less-than-ideal sites along (or even underneath) freeways and flood control easements.

Many parts of North Oakland are underserved by parks, particularly the Santa Fe, Rockridge, Temescal, and Piedmont Avenue neighborhoods. New neighborhood parks in these areas might be created through school greening projects or redevelopment, but opportunities on vacant sites are limited. Mini-parks or community gardens might be possible on individual vacant lots within these areas.

In the Temescal neighborhood, the athletic field at Oakland Tech might be more closely linked to the Studio One crafts center so that the complex could function more as a neighborhood park. In the Piedmont Avenue area, the Glen Echo Creek mini-park has some potential for expansion. Access improvements across MacArthur and Broadway might create stronger linkages from Piedmont Avenue to Mosswood Park.

Specific recommendations for North Oakland parks are laid out below. OSCAR Technical Report Volume 2 (Chapter 4) should be consulted for a comprehensive assessment of each park and more specific recommendations.

*Bushrod Park.* A Master Plan should be prepared for Bushrod Park. The Plan should explore changes in the park's design to make it more inviting, accessible, and visible, and to resolve conflicts between the different uses that occur within the park. Changes to be considered should include:

* relocating the gymnasium to Shattuck Avenue and reversing the orientation of the softball field;

* developing the new gymnasium as a multi-purpose facility, similar to the new Brookfield gym;

* increasing the range of activities accommodated in the park, including neighborhood fairs;

* improving physical connections between the park and Washington School, allowing them to function more as a unit;

* improving lighting, visibility, pedestrian access, and directional signs within the park;

* making miscellaneous physical improvements: updating the tot lot, new turf on the soccer field, improving the hard court play surfaces, providing water to the BBQ pits, new paths within the park, etc.;

* setting aside an area where dogs are allowed; and

* creating a central focus point (a fountain, etc) to draw people in.

*Mosswood Park.* As funding permits, the existing recreation center should be updated or replaced. Security improvements are needed at the center and teen activities also are needed. To avoid overflow impacts on the neighborhood, special events in the park should be community-oriented rather than regionally-oriented. The following specific recommendations are made for park improvements:

* Additional off-street parking may be needed near the recreation center;

* New bathrooms are needed (near the softball field); and

* The old croquet building next to the parking lot needs to be removed or refurbished. The horseshoe

<!-- page 260 -->
courts and concessions building need to be refurbished.

*Golden Gate.* As at Bushrod Park, a master plan could benefit this park by proposing alternatives to the current site plan. The recreation center might serve the community better if it were located on San Pablo Avenue, where it would be more visible. Lighting improvements, better signage, and other improvements which make the park more accessible would be helpful.

*Grove Shafter/ Marcus Garvey.* This park actually occupies three of the four quadrants underneath the I-980/I-580 interchange. Stronger connections between the quadrants would be helpful. The children's play area might be relocated so that it is more visible from Martin Luther King Junior Way.

*Hardy Park.* Hardy is presently too small to adequately serve as a neighborhood park. Expansion west along Temescal Creek should be pursued, linking this park to the existing linear park behind the Department of Motor Vehicles. Better signage and lighting are needed at the park. A portion of the park has been approved for use as a dog run area. Ideally, a larger area for dogs should be established elsewhere in North Oakland, possibly at Bushrod Park.

*Linden Street Park.* The park provides a good example of a successful active mini-park. Continued maintenance and landscaping should be encouraged, and opportunities to expand the park on nearby underutilized sites (possibly for community gardening) should be explored.

*Colby Park.* Maintenance of the new tot lot should be encouraged. Due to the small size and passive character of the park, no further structural improvements should be pursued.

*Glen Echo Park.* Expansion of the trail within the flood control easement (from Panama Court to Glen Avenue) should be pursued.

*Temescal Creek Park.* Possibilities to expand this linear (creek) park in either direction should be explored, with a connection to Hardy Park on the east and Shattuck Avenue on the west.

*Temescal Pool/ Studio One/ Oakland Tech Field.* This complex of recreational uses is generally not regarded as a City park. However, with comparatively little investment, it could function as one. Studio One itself could use renovation and possible expansion. Stronger physical connections to the swimming pool and high school would be helpful.

<!-- page 261 -->
<<FIGURE>>

City of Oakland
Open Space, Conservation, & Recreation Element
### Figure 20: North Oakland
### Major Recommendations
Source: Oakland Office of Planning & Building, 1995

<!-- page 262 -->
# WEST OAKLAND

West Oakland encompasses 1,610 acres and has a population of about 23,300. The area contains one community park, six neighborhood parks, five active mini-parks, and two athletic field areas. Two of the parks contain recreation centers.

Total park area, including schoolyards and athletic fields, is 56.70 acres. This equates to 2.43 acres of improved parkland/playground area per 1,000 residents, which is 60 percent of the proposed service standard. Despite the deficiency, West Oakland has more park acreage per capita than any other flatland neighborhood in Oakland. It is the only Planning Area with two public swimming pools and it contains the highest concentration of athletic fields and mini-parks in the city. Even so, West Oakland's parks tend to be clustered in the center of the District (about 80 percent of the park acreage is located between 12th and 20th Streets); some of the outlying areas are deficient and have no neighborhood parks.

Figure 21 summarizes open space and park recommendations.

### Open Space Recommendations

Most of the open space in West Oakland consists of storage yards, parking lots, land around vacant buildings, and other "functional" uses. In fact, about 10 percent of West Oakland consists of open space of one kind or another. There are very few remaining "natural" features such as creeks, forests, and grasslands; however portions of the neighborhood were once forested with oak trees while other areas contained marshes and sloughs. The community is also quite flat, an attribute that is reflected in its rectangular street grid.

The Mandela Parkway median is one of the largest open spaces in the area, forming a mile-long, block-wide swath through the neighborhood. The parkway offers an exciting opportunity to link some of the existing parks and open spaces in West Oakland, and to connect West Oakland with the Estuary and Bay shorelines. Other opportunities for parks may exist within redeveloping industrial sites (Judson Steel, Carnation, Coca Cola, etc.), at the old AMTRAK station, and along the edge of the new Cypress Freeway.

To the extent permitted by law, specific recommendations are laid out below:

√ Accommodate pedestrian and bicycle travel from West Oakland BART to the Emeryville via the Mandela Parkway median. At least one of the re-use options for Mandela Parkway should consider retaining the median as a landscaped park, possibly incorporating the "African cultural village" envisioned by the Coalition for West Oakland Revitalization.

√ Improve access to the shoreline. This should include construction of the Bay Trail, along with spur trails along Maritime and 7th Street/ Middle Harbor Road.

√ Where feasible, incorporate connections (arcades, landscaped easements, etc.) to parks in West Oakland (DeFremery, Lowell, Raimondi) as old industrial sites along Mandela Parkway are redeveloped.

√ Pursue a South Prescott Park (near 3rd and Henry Streets) adjacent to the new Cypress Freeway.

√ Pursue schoolyard "greening," particularly in the northeast part of West Oakland (Hoover/ Foster), where there are no neighborhood parks. McClymonds High School is located in an area with relatively little open space and its field could become a more accessible community resource.

√ Establish stronger connections between the existing parks in the Oak Center neighborhood. The area contains a high concentration of parkland (Lowell, DeFremery, Wade Johnson, Marston Campbell), but there are no bike lanes or signs indicating how to get from one park to the next.

<!-- page 263 -->
✓ Include provisions for a public plaza in any redevelopment plan or urban design plan for the West Oakland BART Station.

✓ Continue street tree planting efforts and other programs to "green" West Oakland.

✓ Explore opportunities to restore natural landscape features, including oak trees and drainageways.

### Park Recommendations

West Oakland includes a mix of old, established parks that have been around for nearly a century, and newer parks that are the result of urban renewal efforts in the 1960s and 1970s. Park area increased by about 50 percent during these two decades. However, parts of West Oakland are still not adequately served by neighborhood parks, particularly the Prescott/ South Prescott areas and the Hoover/ Foster areas.

While the older, more established parks like DeFremery tend to attract large numbers of people, some of the newer parks are underutilized. These parks could benefit from improved access, better signage, new activities, supervised programs, and additional security. For the most part, the cluster of parks at the heart of West Oakland are an amenity with the potential to bolster efforts to revitalize the neighborhood and maintain a strong sense of community.

West Oakland also contains a large number of mini-parks and plazas. Some provide a recreational amenity for young children, and others are primarily attracting the homeless and unemployed. A greater variety of activities (community gardening, etc.) along with security improvements (lighting, ornamental gates, etc.) might help make these parks more hospitable to a broader range of users.

Recommendations for specific West Oakland parks are outlined below. OSCAR Technical Report Volume 2 (Chapter 4) should be consulted for a comprehensive assessment of each park and more specific recommendations.

*DeFremery.* A DeFremery Master Plan should be prepared at some point to guide the long-term use of this very heavily used park.

The park would benefit from updated play equipment, resurfaced basketball courts, and a refurbishing of the DeFremery House to make it more functional for recreational uses (lighting improvements, painting, drinking fountains, carpet, etc.). The swimming pool building also is in need of remodeling. Bleachers adjacent to the softball field would be helpful.

*Lowell.* Lowell handles much of the overflow from DeFremery and accommodates a large number of organized ball games. Stronger physical connections to DeFremery (signs, a bike lane, etc.) would be helpful. The park could also use updated children's play equipment and restored basketball courts.

*Poplar.* This neighborhood park has some potential for expansion on to the unused right-of-way "triangles" along Peralta Street and the lawn area behind Clawson School. Any re-use plan for the school should consider opportunities to enlarge the park in that direction. The existing recreation center is quite small, and would benefit from modernization, additional storage space and showers.

*Wade Johnson.* This little known park suffers from poor visibility. It would benefit from access and signage improvements, as well as new activities like community gardening. The park could be better linked to Mandela Parkway, one block west, and Lowell Park, two blocks east.

*Marston Campbell.* This park is more visible than Wade Johnson, but also suffers from low name recognition. Many residents regard it as an extension of nearby Lafayette School rather than a neighborhood park. The park would benefit from bike path linkages to DeFremery Park and Lowell Park, each a few blocks away, and to Downtown Oakland, just five blocks east. During OSCAR community meetings, some residents expressed interest in using part of this park as a miniature golf course.

<!-- page 264 -->
*Willow Street.* This small neighborhood park works well but is not large enough to meet the needs of the Prescott neighborhood. Opportunities for expansion should be pursued.

*Bertha Port.* Greater name recognition (or a new name commemorating a historic figure) would be helpful.

*Durant Mini-Park.* Improved connections to Foster Middle School would be helpful, possibly integrating the park with a partially "greened" schoolyard and developing such amenities as a community garden or adventure play area. The park currently feels "lost" between the MLK Jr. Way commercial strip and the school.

*25th Street Mini-Park.* Public safety and landscaping improvements would be helpful.

*McClymonds Mini-Park/ Athletic Field/ Pool.* This open space area is located in a part of West Oakland with relatively poor access to open space. The ideal solution would be to relocate the mini-park to a site adjacent to the athletic field, so that the entire complex could function as a new neighborhood park (similar to Franklin Park in the San Antonio area). Until this becomes feasible, the existing facilities should be maintained and their availability for public use should be made more clear.

*Raimondi Field.* This park is an important resource not only for West Oakland but for the entire city. Raimondi is the largest and oldest park in the area and is one of the few Oakland parks located in a non-residential setting. The site is also one of the few in the city that consists of a large, flat, unobstructed lawn. Raimondi can potentially accommodate more evening/ weekend games and special events than it does currently. Visibility and access to the park will be improved by the completion of the new Cypress Freeway. The field and adjacent properties (including the nearby AMTRAK station) would benefit from a master plan which looks at the long-term relationship between uses and the potential for complementary development nearby.

<!-- page 265 -->
<<FIGURE>>

Underserved Area: Investigate possible new park sites.

Improve connections between Grove Shafter Freeway "quadrant" parks

Maintain pedestrian connections as dormant industrial sites are redeveloped

Maintain/landscape Mandela open space and develop linear trail from BART to Emeryville.

Improve pedestrian link to Lake Merritt & downtown

Enhance access to McClymonds Field

Create linkages between Oak Center area parks; link to Mandela Pkwy

Consider expansion of Poplar Park to underused city "triangles" & part of Clawson schoolyard

Underused park: potential site for new facilities

Improve access to Estuary

Increase activity level at Raimondi Park. Park can become catalyst for redevelopment of surrounding area

Improve acces from West Oakland neighborhoods to the shoreline

Develop new neighborhood Park along new freeway in general vicinity of BART station.

**Legend**

| | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 1 | DeFremery | 9 | Chester Street |
| 2 | Lowell | 10 | Durant |
| 3 | Poplar | 11 | 25th Street |
| 4 | Grove Shafter I | 12 | McClymonds |
| 5 | Wade Johnson | 13 | McClymonds Pool |
| 6 | Marston Campbell | 14 | Raimondi |
| 7 | Willow Street | 15 | McClymonds High |
| 8 | Bertha Port | | |

City of Oakland
Open Space, Conservation, & Recreation Element
### Figure 21: West Oakland: Major Recommendations
Source: Oakland Office of Planning & Building, 1995

<!-- page 266 -->
# CENTRAL

The Central Planning Area encompasses 1,607 acres and has a population of about 28,800. It includes Downtown, Chinatown, Pill Hill, South-of-Nimitz, and the Adams Point and Richmond Boulevard areas. The area contains one Region-Serving Park, five Neighborhood Parks, one mini-park, four Linear Parks, and five Special Use Parks. The Special Use Parks include three city squares which date back to Oakland's incorporation in 1852. The one Region-Serving Park, Lakeside, is probably the best known and most heavily used park in the city. The area's parks include two recreation centers.

Total park area, including two schoolyards, is 117 acres. The bulk of this acreage is within Lakeside Park which serves a much broader radius than the Central District. Discounting Lakeside to account for its regional draw, park acreage per capita is 1.65 acres per 1,000 residents.

Figure 22 summarizes park and open space recommendations.

### Open Space Recommendations

About 12 percent of the Central/ Chinatown Planning Area consists of open land. Other than parkland, most of the open space consists of large surface (pay) parking lots and vacant development sites in Downtown Oakland. Major concentrations of parking exist in the triangle between San Pablo and Telegraph Avenues, along 12th Street, and in the Downtown blocks immediately north of Grand Avenue. Other major open spaces include the Laney College athletic fields and vacant sites at Jack London Square. The neighborhoods north of Grand Avenue have very little open space.

To the extent permitted by law, major recommendations for open space are outlined below (*The Open Space Chapter of OSCAR includes additional recommendations for Downtown*).

$\checkmark$ Make provisions for sunlit plazas, pedestrian spaces, and "pocket" parks as Downtown redevelopment occurs. The feasibility of a "Fox Plaza" in front of the Fox Theater should be further explored as revitalization plans for this area evolve.

$\checkmark$ Implement the plan for City Hall Plaza, making this space more useable and attractive while retaining its historic elements.

$\checkmark$ Continue to improve access between Downtown Oakland and Jack London Square.

$\checkmark$ Improve shoreline access within Jack London Square (*see the Open Space Chapter on this subject*).

$\checkmark$ Explore possible sites for a mini-park or community garden in the Adams Point area.

$\checkmark$ Pursue a new city square or small neighborhood park in the neighborhood west of Broadway and north of 14th Street. The area has no public open space and has considerable residential development potential.

$\checkmark$ Include linear shoreline access where feasible in any future redevelopment plans for the Clinton Basin/ 9th Avenue Terminal area.

$\checkmark$ Capitalize on the presence of Lake Merritt and Lakeside Park in the perimeter neighborhoods. This could include creating a more strongly defined "Lake District" neighborhood within Oakland, with stronger gateways, views, and pedestrian connections to the perimeter park.

$\checkmark$ Encourage circulation changes on the perimeter of the lake which widen park borders or make the lake more accessible from nearby neighborhoods. A pedestrian system that weaves together Downtown parks, offices, residential areas, the waterfront, and Lake Merritt should ultimately be achieved.

<!-- page 267 -->
√ Make better use of rooftops in the denser parts of the Central Area. Projects like the Kaiser rooftop garden should be encouraged.

√ Construct a pedestrian bridge over the double railroad tracks separating Channel Park from Estuary Park, and consider converting the old Union Pacific rail bridge across the tidal channel into a pedestrian/bicycle bridge.

### Park Recommendations

The Central Area's parks are unique among those in Oakland, reflecting the area's historic character, its longstanding position as the region's civic and business core, and its proximity to Lake Merritt. Only a handful of the parks are traditional neighborhood parks, with familiar facilities like baseball and soccer fields. Many of the parks serve primarily aesthetic rather than recreational functions. On the other hand, Lakeside Park is Oakland's recreational melting pot and draws visitors from all across the East Bay.

The Central Area provides a cross-section of all the various conditions to be found in Oakland's parks within a relatively small geographic area. Some are immaculately maintained and very highly regarded; others appear neglected and may even feel unsafe to walk through in broad daylight. The area's parks are supplemented by Laney College athletic fields and facilities, urban plazas and lawn areas, and roof gardens at such locations as the Oakland Museum.

Several of this area's parks are historically significant. Lafayette, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Harrison Squares date back to the city's first deed of partition (1853). Today, the squares provide an important recreational and visual resource for the Central Business District. Lakeside Park (1907) includes a number of historic structures, such as the bandshell and McElroy Fountain.

Specific recommendations for the parks are presented below. OSCAR Technical Report Volume 2 (Chapter 4) should be consulted for a comprehensive assessment of each park and more specific recommendations.

*Lakeside Park*. Short-range, mid-range, and long-range park improvement needs for Lakeside Park were identified in a 1988 Community Assistance Team Study by the American Society of Landscape Architects. A Lake Merritt Advisory Committee was formed as a result of that study, and the group is now pursuing funding for a park master plan. One goal of the plan is to increase the perception of the park as a single unit rather than a series of disjointed spaces (Lakeside, Snow, Eastshore, Adams, Pine Knoll, Athol Plaza, Cleveland Cascade, Rancho Peralta, and Channel Park).

Among the short-range needs are erosion control and bulkhead restoration, restoration of the fountain and bandshell, and creation of park "gateways." Local residents also have identified short-range needs for better play equipment and better connections between the park and the 19th Street BART Station. Mid-range needs include widening of park borders and improvements to the perimeter trail. Long-range possibilities include redesign of the 12th Street viaduct to create a "lid park" between the lake and the Kaiser Convention Center.

The Lake Merritt Master Plan should also address conflicts between park activities and nearby neighborhoods. If special events like the Festival at the Lake are to continue, they must be planned to minimize off-site noise, traffic, and parking problems. More stringent parking restrictions and more frequent bus and BART shuttle service may be needed.

*Estuary Park*. Estuary Park has tremendous potential but suffers from poor visibility, isolation from other parks, and poor internal circulation. Improvements should include better signage, redesign of the parking area, renovation of the pavilion, and construction of a pedestrian bridge across the railroad to Channel Park. A landscape screen is needed between the park and Portobello to buffer the residential units from park noise. A boating center has been proposed for the Park and may be constructed in the future.

<!-- page 268 -->
*Lincoln Square.* This urban space is the most popular park in Chinatown and receives very heavy use. It would benefit from some greening of the asphalt area, an upgraded children's play area, and an enclosed outdoor patio area adjacent to the recreation center.

*Grove Shafter/ Marcus Garvey.* Stronger connections are needed between this park and the hospitals at Pill Hill. Currently, the park is not well used and is prone to vandalism.

*Jefferson.* This park has served the surrounding area for 140 years, but has suffered a decline in use as a result of the construction of freeways on two sides, and the change in the neighborhood from a residential area to an institutional and marginal commercial area. The park would benefit if some of the adjoining parcels were redeveloped with housing (including transitional housing or SROs), or if there were organized activities such as fairs or concerts. Jefferson is the only lighted ballfield in the Central District and its increased use for league games (including Downtown offices and police leagues) could stimulate park activity. Renovation of the recreation center, either as a facility serving Downtown office workers, or as a multi-purpose center, could be considered as funding permits (renovation could be funded through development agreements as the surrounding area redevelops).

*Snow.* This busy Downtown park provides a model that might be repeated elsewhere in the Central district. Care should be taken to maintain the character of this park and not overload it with too many activities.

*Eastshore.* This neighborhood park is very heavily used, but is difficult to get to on foot or by bicycle. Circulation changes at the connector between Lakeshore and Grand (adjacent to the pergola) could potentially increase the park's area and improve access. The park is also a logical "gateway" to the lake area and would benefit from signage improvements or even a monument or fountain of some sort. The park would also benefit from modernized play equipment. It is generally a better site for active recreation than nearby Lakeside Park due to the large open lawn area.

*Oak Park.* This playground adjacent to the former Edison School requires improved signage, lighting, maintenance, and landscaping. Community assistance in park rehabilitation would be helpful.

*Channel.* The lack of a connection to Estuary Park is a strong deterrent to more intensive use of this park. A southward extension of the trail, including a railroad crossing, is needed.

*Oak Glen.* The park works well as a passive open space and aesthetic amenity. It provides a good opportunity to visit one of Oakland's few natural creek segments. Maintenance and lighting changes might improve park safety. The possibility of extending this park (and daylighting the creek) as far north as MacArthur Boulevard could be explored in the future. A creekside trail south to 29th Street and ultimately continuing on to Lake Merritt also should be pursued.

*Jack London Promenade.* The promenade should ultimately be improved and extended west to the FDR Pier and east to Estuary Park.

*Rancho Peralta.* The park provides a logical outdoor extension to the Kaiser Convention Center and might be more heavily used for outdoor receptions and events associated with the Convention Center. Maintenance and ornamental landscaping of this passive open space should be continued.

*Lafayette Square.* A Master Plan for the square was recently completed. The new Plan accommodates a diverse range of users (including neighborhood residents, homeless persons, and Downtown office workers) while preserving the historic character of the park and improving its safety and physical appearance.

*Madison Square.* The park is relatively successful and requires no major changes. The Chinese theme design has given the park character and helped create a sense of ownership in the neighborhood. This might be carried a step further through additional landscape design improvements.

*Harrison Square.* A Chinese Community Center was recently constructed in this historic park, dramatically changing its character. Access improvements across 7th Street are now needed to ensure pedestrian safety and the usefulness of the Park.

<!-- page 269 -->
_Adams Park._ This landscaped area around the Veterans War Memorial requires no major changes at this time.

<!-- page 270 -->
<<FIGURE>>

City of Oakland
Open Space, Conservation, & Recreation Element
### Figure 22: Chinatown/Central Major Recommendations
Source: Oakland Office of Planning & Building, 1995

<!-- page 271 -->
# SAN ANTONIO

The San Antonio Planning Area covers 1,876 acres and has a population of about 59,000. It has the highest population density of Oakland's twelve planning areas. The area contains one community park, nine neighborhood parks, one active mini-park and two passive mini-parks, a linear park, three special use parks, including a public swimming pool, and an athletic field at Oakland High School. Three of the parks contain recreation centers, and two more contain educational buildings. The parks are supplemented by about 7 acres of schoolyards and school playgrounds at eight schools.

Total park area, including schoolyards and school athletic fields, is 46.2 acres. This equates to about 0.78 acres of park/schoolyard area per 1,000 residents, which is about one-fifth the city standard.

Figure 23 summarizes open space and park recommendations.

### Open Space Recommendations

Although the San Antonio area has very little open space, its rolling terrain and ridges create panoramic vistas and provide some visual relief. Only about 5 percent of the district is open, and much of the open land is not readily accessible to the general public. The area's largest open space surrounds the covered EBMUD reservoir on 23rd Avenue.

The San Antonio area has a number of natural features which could be enhanced, including a mile of Estuary shoreline and several sections of Sausal Creek. Currently, the shoreline is difficult to get to, particularly on foot or by bicycle. The freeway and railroads present major barriers, and crossings are limited. The creek is mostly contained on private property but there are a handful of public and institutional uses along the banks where access might be improved.

As in other parts of Oakland, school grounds in the San Antonio area consist mostly of asphalt yards. However, some of the sites provide good examples of how adjacent school and park uses can be integrated. Both Garfield and Franklin combine City-owned ballfields with OUSD schoolyards, enabling them to serve as full neighborhood parks for the surrounding areas.

To the extent permitted by law, specific recommendations for open space are presented below:

✓ Develop the Bay Trail along the Embarcadero.

✓ Create stronger connections between the shoreline and the neighborhoods north of I-880; 16th Avenue provides a straight shot from San Antonio Park to the waterfront but the I-880 flyover is narrow and difficult to cross by foot or bike. Pedestrian and bicycle improvements would be helpful.

✓ Explore the possibilities for redevelopment of open spaces along the shoreline as parks or developments with shoreline access.

✓ Explore access improvements to Sausal Creek on public and institutional properties. On private properties, vegetation along the creek provides visual relief and should be retained.

✓ Additional tree planting should be encouraged. Street trees tend to be less abundant here than in North and West Oakland. The 14th Avenue median should be enhanced.

✓ Explore limited public access to some of the perimeter open space around the 27-acre EBMUD Central Reservoir.

✓ Increase the use of schoolyards for recreation, and the appearance of schoolyards in general. Schoolyards could partially offset the lack of greenery and open space within the neighborhood. With about 2 acres of blacktop, Roosevelt School would be a good candidate for greening.

<!-- page 272 -->
✓ As the East 14th Street corridor redevelops, pursue opportunities to create new plazas or small public open spaces.

✓ Establish a community garden site in the neighborhood. Individual vacant lots, schoolyards, and the larger parks (especially William Wood) offer possible opportunities.

### Park Recommendations

The San Antonio area contains some of Oakland's oldest parks, including two which began as "town squares" for the area's early settlements. The area includes a cluster of unique parks along the eastern shore of Lake Merritt, as well as the more traditional community and neighborhood parks. Three of the neighborhood parks adjoin elementary schools and are used jointly by the School District and the City. Most of the area's parks are very heavily used, due in part to the area's high density and the large concentration of children in the neighborhood.

Given the density, large household sizes, lack of private yards, and absence of other large parks in this neighborhood and in Fruitvale, San Antonio's parks are a critical local resource. They tend to be more heavily used than parks in other parts of Oakland.

Recommendations for specific parks are presented below. OSCAR Technical Report Volume 2 (Chapter 4) should be consulted for a comprehensive assessment of each park and more specific recommendations.

*San Antonio Park.* As the largest park in the District and the area's only "community" park, San Antonio is under great pressure to accommodate more intense activity. The pressure is compounded by the fact that the surrounding area is very dense and includes a large low-income immigrant population with high demand for social services and limited access to private recreation. It is imperative that the park remain as a large open space and that the need for social services be accommodated on properties around the park rather than in the park itself.

San Antonio is also a historic park. Measures which commemorate its colorful past, including historic landmark designation, plaques, and public art should be encouraged. Planned improvements to the soccer fields should be completed, but the character of the park should not be significantly changed. The park's tot lot was recently upgraded with a grant from an anonymous donor.

Opportunities to expand San Antonio Park or add recreational facilities on perimeter properties should be pursued. There are a few vacant sites near the park which could potentially accommodate new recreational or community buildings.

*Clinton Square.* This traditional urban square would benefit from refurbishing and overall landscape improvements. Like San Antonio Park, it is very heavily used and is an asset to the dense neighborhood which surrounds it. The park is currently planned for renovation.

*Manzanita.* The recreation center was recently renamed after the late Ernest Robinson, the man who was instrumental in the park's creation and who chaired its recreation advisory council. The park is presently too small to function as a true neighborhood park, and opportunities for expansion should be pursued. Better visibility from East 27th Street would improve security and access. The park should be promoted as a neighborhood focal point and should be considered as a site for neighborhood-oriented fairs and events.

*Francis Marion (FM) Smith.* The recreation center appears to be in need of seismic upgrading and disabled access improvements. The play equipment should be updated. Expansion of this park, which is very heavily used and quite small, should be pursued as opportunities arise and funding allows.

*Central Reservoir.* This neighborhood park suffers from poor access and low visibility. A second point of ingress/egress (from Sheffield Avenue) would be helpful. Signage improvements and new neighborhood-oriented activities (community gardening, etc.) would be appropriate.

*William Wood.* This park has much untapped potential. Sausal Creek is an underutilized asset and should be restored and enhanced as a park focal point. Access improvements are needed from the School Street (Fruitvale Avenue) side of the park. New passive activities, like community gardening and picnicking,

<!-- page 273 -->
would be appropriate. The site also could become a "dog walking" park, since it is relatively large and open. The passive quality of the space should be retained; because of its setting, Wood is not an appropriate location for ballfields or major physical improvements.

*Garfield.* New children's play apparatus would help Garfield better fulfill its role as a neighborhood park.

*Bella Vista.* Bella Vista does not currently fit the image of a neighborhood park since it is entirely paved and lacks trees or greenery. It would help to designate at least part of the site for passive uses, replacing the asphalt with grass and incorporating picnic tables and landscaping.

*Athol Plaza.* This small park should remain as a passive open space with adjacent tennis courts. Additional landscaping and seating areas (perhaps with built-in chessboards) would be appropriate but more intensive uses would reduce the value of the park as open space.

*Morgan Plaza.* This park suffers from very low name recognition, no signage, low visibility, and poor physical condition. The neighborhood should be involved in revitalizing the space, possibly with new play equipment and landscaping.

*Park Boulevard Plaza.* The plaza should remain a passive open space, possibly with minor landscape improvements.

*Vantage Point.* The park would benefit from an identification sign, a historic marker, and an additional access point (a staircase) to East 8th Street. It should remain a passive open space.

*San Antonio Pier/ Embarcadero Cove.* Better signage, kiosks, "You Are Here" maps, and public information would benefit these areas. The park and promenade are attractive and well maintained, but many nearby residents are not aware that they exist.

*Cleveland Cascade.* The Cascade should be considered for addition to the Historic Preservation Study List. As funding permits, restoration of its original features should be pursued.

*Pine Knoll.* Pine Knoll should remain a passive, landscaped open space.

*Live Oak Pool/ Oakland High Field.* The pool/ high school complex does not currently function as a park. Access improvements would be helpful, as the facility provides the only football field and swimming pool in the District.

<!-- page 274 -->
<<FIGURE>>

City of Oakland
General Plan Element
### Figure 23: San Antonio
### Major Recommendations
Source: Oakland Office of Planning & Building, 1995

<!-- page 275 -->
# FRUITVALE

The Fruitvale Planning Area encompasses 1,661 acres and has a population of about 35,700. The area contains one Community Park, three Neighborhood Parks, four Active Mini-parks, one linear park, and one Special Use (Historic) Park. Three of the parks contain recreation center buildings. The District also contains athletic fields at Fruitvale School and about 6 acres of playgrounds and schoolyards at seven public schools.

Total park area, including the school properties, is about 24.4 acres. In all, there are 0.68 acres of parkland/schoolyard per 1,000 residents in the area, or roughly one-sixth the standard adopted by the City. This is the lowest per capita ratio in the city.

Figure 24 summarizes open space and park recommendations.

### Open Space Recommendations

With just 77 acres of undeveloped land, Fruitvale has the smallest open space acreage of the city's twelve planning areas and ranks among the smallest in its percentage of total area in open space. With the exception of a few vacant sites along the Estuary and several underutilized industrial sites, the area lacks large open spaces. The small acreage that does exist is nearly evenly split between parks, parking lots, vacant lots, schoolyards, and land around vacant buildings.

Most of the open space is located below East 14th Street. Much of this space is not readily accessible to the general public and consists of old industrial sites awaiting redevelopment.

The handful of undeveloped natural areas in Fruitvale lie adjacent to its two creeks -- Sausal and Peralta. The area also contains about a mile of Estuary shoreline, although this area is industrial in character and is not easily accessible to the public.

Schoolyards provide an important supplement to the parks for local recreation. The baseball field adjacent to Fruitvale School doubles as a neighborhood park, providing amenities that are lacking in Brookdale, Allendale, and other area parks. Schoolyards at Jefferson, Hamilton, Whitton, Hawthorne, and Lazear Schools consist of asphalt play surfaces.

Opportunities for new parks exist within redevelopment sites, particularly below East 14th Street and along the Estuary. Other opportunities may be created through street closures, re-use of older institutional uses, improved access to parks in nearby areas, and access to flood control easements.

To the extent permitted by law, specific recommendations are outlined below:

$\checkmark$ Improve the condition of the creeks at Whitton, Hawthorne, and Hamilton schoolyards. The schoolyards are traversed by creeks which are either buried or depressed in ditches on the school property. They have the potential to become visual, ecological, educational, and recreational resources.

$\checkmark$ Retain natural vegetation along Sausal and Peralta Creeks and pursue creekside parks or trails as opportunities arise.

$\checkmark$ Accommodate pedestrian access and include public open space in major developments along East 14th Street, particularly around the BART station.

$\checkmark$ Retain the Santa Rita Land Trust property ("Jungle Hill") as open space and possibly develop the site as a park or community garden.

$\checkmark$ Pursue extension of the linear trail along Peralta Creek at Peralta Hacienda.

$\checkmark$ Include provisions for a new neighborhood park in the redeveloping sites south of East 14th Street (Kennedy Tract/ Lazear School neighborhood). The park should replace lost open space at the former Kennedy Tract Park and the poorly sited tot lot at 29th Avenue and I-880.

<!-- page 276 -->
√   Construct the Bay Trail along an alignment as close as possible to the waters edge. An "interim" trail alignment should follow local streets in the industrial areas, and an "ultimate" trail alignment should be indicated along the waterfront as properties redevelop.

√   Wherever feasible, incorporate shoreline access as sites along the Estuary are redeveloped.

√   Pursue a new shoreline park or fishing pier between Union Point Basin and High Street.

√   Consider opportunities for a landscaped bike path in the BART right of way between Fruitvale Station and High Street.

√   Achieve better shoreline access through improvements to the 23rd, 29th, and Fruitvale Avenue crossings of I-880 and the railroads.

√   Promote improvements to the overall visual quality of Fruitvale through street tree planting.

### Park Recommendations

The Fruitvale area lacks a large central urban park on the scale of San Antonio Park or Arroyo Viejo. The parks that do exist tend to be very heavily used; maintenance and facility conditions vary from park to park, but there appears to be a consistent need for modernization and updating of playground equipment and recreation buildings as well as a severe shortage of overall open space.

One key deficiency in Fruitvale is that the parks that do exist are too small to serve the necessary functions. For instance, Brookdale is less than half the size of an "ideal" community park, and Sanborn is less than half the size of an "ideal" neighborhood park. Both parks are already very crowded and there is great pressure on the limited open space areas to accommodate yet more activities. As a result of the small size of the parks, there is also a shortage of active recreational facilities such as ballfields and tennis.

Other parts of Fruitvale lack access to parks altogether. The Harrington/ Jefferson area (38th Ave/ Santa Rita) and the Kennedy Tract lack neighborhood parks. Fruitvale's parks are also generally lacking in "natural" open space. Peralta Hacienda is the only one which contains woodland vegetation. Sanborn includes a creek, but it has been buried and backfilled for flood control.

Specific recommendations for Fruitvale's parks are laid out below. OSCAR Technical Report Volume 2 (Chapter 4) should be consulted for a comprehensive assessment of each park and more specific recommendations.

*Brookdale.* At 4.7 acres, Brookdale is the smallest community-serving park in the city. Opportunities for site expansion should be pursued and the park should provide a level of service on par with DeFremery, Mosswood, and other community-serving parks in Oakland. The expansion area should include a site for a new gymnasium and recreation center, as the existing center is outdated and is too small to meet the community's needs.

As the major park serving an area of 35,000 people, the park also needs updated children's play equipment, security and lighting improvements, and some off-street parking. The possibility of a swimming pool also should be considered (not within existing park borders, but on an expansion site).

Despite the small size of the park, parts of the site are not well used and have poor visibility. Maintenance and landscaping of the wooded hill and grassy knoll behind the recreation center should be a priority. The park would also benefit from a pedestrian crosswalk at High Street and a connection to the new linear trail and park being constructed along Courtland Creek.

*Sanborn.* This neighborhood park is even more of a community focal point than Brookdale, although it is much smaller and less visible. The park is one of the most crowded in the city, serving an area with relatively high densities, low incomes, and poor access to recreation. The park would benefit from modernization (or full replacement) of the outdated recreation center, newer and more interesting children's play equipment, new patio tables and benches, and restoration of the basketball courts. To this end, Sanborn Park is scheduled for renovation in the future with a grant from the Lilah

<!-- page 277 -->
improvements, and possible extension of the creek trail to Hamilton Junior High School. The house itself should continue to be used for community meetings and should eventually include a historical museum. Additional public information on its history, location, and significance should be made available.

*Fruitvale School.* Continued public access to this OUSD property is essential, as it is the only football field in the Fruitvale area.

<!-- page 278 -->
Wallace Foundation. If the recreation center is modernized, it needs to be retrofitted for disabled access.

Evening lighting and security both need to be improved at Sanborn Park, and regular maintenance is imperative due to the very high levels of use. The park is appropriate for small neighborhood fairs, but is too small for larger events. New social service buildings within park boundaries would be inappropriate due to the small size and crowded condition of the park.

Sanborn provides a good site for community involvement in park improvement, since there are a number of social service, church organizations, and schools in the immediate vicinity. One immediate project that might be considered would be the daylighting and restoration of Sausal Creek. The creek could potentially become a wonderful park amenity, as well as an opportunity for nature study by the nearby schools.

*Allendale.* This popular neighborhood park would benefit from modernization and possible redesign of the recreation center. Its design should improve the visibility of the outdoor play areas and parking lot from inside. More efficient utilization of space would also be helpful, since there are so many diverse activities going on at one time within the center. Allendale would also benefit from updated children's play equipment.

The park is a good example of a "neighborhood"-serving park and succeeds in part because of neighborhood watch efforts and the extensive use of the park by local residents.

*Foothill Meadows/ Foothill Meadows Annex.* This neighborhood park needs security and maintenance improvements. Considering the lack of open space in the neighborhood, it is not used nearly as much as it could be.

A community-oriented planning program would be helpful to explore options for making the park safer and introducing new activities. Possibilities might include removing the picnic rotunda, slowing traffic along Foothill Boulevard and improving the crosswalk, creating a community garden, improving pedestrian circulation and lighting within the park, resurfacing the basketball court and maybe adding a spectator area, and clearing out and restoring Peralta Creek. The park's tot lot was recently upgraded with a grant from an anonymous donor.

The nearby Foothill Meadows annex site (a small mini-park) is also in need of maintenance and security improvements.

*Kennedy Tract Park.* The park is currently occupied by portable classrooms and is not in use. A long-term replacement site is needed.

*Lazear Tot Lot.* This mini-park should be relocated to a more hospitable site, preferably adjacent to the school property on 29th Avenue. The existing site under the 29th Avenue overpass is difficult to reach and provides a less than suitable environment for small children.

*Nicol.* This mini-park is in need of maintenance and renovation. As the site was initially a land trust park, community involvement should be solicited in regular maintenance. Community gardening could also be explored here.

*Fruitvale Bridge.* The pier is attractive and in good condition but is difficult to find. Ultimately, it should be linked to the Bay Trail, with connections to Martin Luther King Jr Regional Shoreline on the east and Embarcadero Cove on the west.

*Peralta Hacienda.* This historic park centered around the home of Antonio Maria Peralta is being developed in phases according to an overall master plan prepared in the 1970s. Phase One included a picnic area, lawn, and trail along Peralta Creek, as well as street closures and the conversion of the Peralta House to a community meeting place. Phase Two will expand the park west to Coolidge, reconstruct the garden and adobe walls, and provide off-street parking.

There are also plans to create a children's play area. In siting such uses, care should be taken to respect the historic character of the property and maintain its overall integrity. The passive character of the park, particularly the densely wooded area along the creek, should be retained.

Other improvements should include an improved street crossing at Davis Street, better lighting and other security

<!-- page 279 -->
<<FIGURE>>

| Legend | |
| :--- | :--- |
| 1 Brookdale | 8 Nicol |
| 2 Sanborn | 9 Fruitvale Bridge |
| 3 Allendale | 10 Peralta Hacienda |
| 4 Foothill Meadows | 11 Fruitvale School |
| 5 Kennedy Tract | |
| 6 Lazear | |
| 7 Foothill Meadows Ext. | |

City of Oakland
General Plan Element
### Figure 24: Fruitvale
### Major Recommendations
Source: Oakland Office of Planning & Building, 1995

<!-- page 280 -->
# CENTRAL EAST OAKLAND

Central East Oakland encompasses 2,870 acres and has a population of about 47,000. The area includes four neighborhood parks, one athletic field park, a swimming pool, and a linear park now under construction. One of the parks includes a recreation center. Central East Oakland's parks are supplemented by schoolyards at nine elementary schools, two junior high schools, and one high school.

Adding schoolyard and park areas, the District has 41.7 acres of recreational land. This equates to 0.89 acres per 1,000 residents, which is about one fifth the standard previously adopted by the City. Central East Oakland actually has more acreage in asphalt schoolyards (22.1 Ac) than it does in traditional parks (19.6 Ac). More effective use of the schoolyards could help address some of the great recreational deficiencies in the neighborhoods.

Figure 25 summarizes open space and park recommendations.

### Open Space Recommendations

Although there are nearly 400 acres of open space in Central East Oakland, very little of this land is recreational in nature. Large, freestanding parking lots encompass nearly 100 acres and another 120 acres consists of wooded open space around Mills College. There are large vacant lots in the hilly Millsmont area and in the industrial area along San Leandro Street. Some of these sites may have the potential to become neighborhood parks. The Planning Area also contains a number of creeks which could provide a framework for linear parks or trails.

Central East Oakland is relatively close to large open spaces along San Leandro Bay and in the South Oakland Hills. However, access to these areas is difficult without a car. Better access through transit, bike lanes and pedestrian trails or walkways would relieve some of the shortage of parkland in the area.

As in other parts of the city, Central East Oakland would also benefit from improvements to schoolyards. With the exception of Fremont High School, all of the yards are asphalt. Many provide the only public recreation areas in their vicinities and others are adjacent to parks and have significant potential for enhancement.

To the extent permitted by law, specific recommendations are presented below:

✓ Maintain creekside vegetation, reduce erosion and illegal dumping, and explore opportunities for public access along Courtland Creek, Seminary Creek, and Lion Creek. Below MacArthur Boulevard, the creeks are among the only remaining natural features in the area. Lion Creek in particular may provide an opportunity to link the Coliseum area with the shoreline.

✓ Create a stronger connection between Central East Oakland and Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline. Presently, the only link is the 66th Avenue overpass. Signage and access improvements to King Shoreline are needed, particularly between Curt Flood Field and the Lockwood Gardens/ Coliseum Gardens neighborhoods. Access improvements could include provisions for pedestrians and bicycles on the 66th Avenue bridge and a linear trail along Lion Creek/Arroyo Viejo.

✓ Include provisions for a public plaza in any redevelopment plan or urban design plan for the Coliseum BART Station. The overall appearance and design character of the BART to Coliseum walkway should be improved.

✓ Consider ways to better integrate the Havenscourt Junior High/ Lockwood Elementary Schoolyards with Greenman Field, possibly creating the equivalent of a community park. This could involve a cooperative effort with the Oakland Unified School District to partially "green" the 3-acre asphalt schoolyard or to create additional recreational facilities to supplement the athletic fields.

<!-- page 281 -->
### Planning Area Strategies

√ Consider ways to enhance the appearance of other asphalt schoolyards in the area, particularly Melrose and Horace Mann Elementary Schools (which are located in the most park-deficient parts of the Area).

√ Improve the appearance of the Coliseum parking lot. While recreational potential may be limited, the lot could potentially be made more of an amenity with trees, landscaping, access to Arroyo Viejo Creek, and other attractions.

√ Retain the wooded character of the Mills College border along MacArthur Boulevard and Seminary Avenue. The dense vegetation creates an attractive edge to the Millsmont and Maxwell Park neighborhoods.

√ Due to the significant shortage of parkland in the area, include a park component which considers existing deficiencies in any major redevelopment project.

√ Promote improvements to the overall visual quality of Central East Oakland through street tree planting.

### Park Recommendations

When Central East Oakland was developed in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, inadequate provisions were made for parks and open space. As recently as 20 years ago, the area only had one sizeable park, and it was used exclusively for ballgames. Although several parks were created in Central East Oakland during the 1970s and 1980s, the area is still grossly deficient both in terms of acreage and facilities.

Central East Oakland still lacks a community-serving park. Most of its neighborhood parks are smaller than three acres and are not capable of supporting a full array of recreation activities. Some have been impacted by vandalism and safety problems and are not as heavily used as they could be.

At the present time, the Melrose and Fairfax areas lack neighborhood parks altogether and must rely on schoolyards for recreation. Melrose includes a number of open storage yards and underutilized industrial properties which could potentially support neighborhood parks; Fairfax is more intensively developed and has less vacant land. The Millsmont area (above MacArthur Boulevard) also lacks a neighborhood park, although the shortage is offset somewhat by private yards, greater access to the hill area open spaces, and proximity to Burkhalter Park in Elmhurst.

Specific recommendations for Central East Oakland's parks are laid out below. OSCAR Technical Report Volume 2 (Chapter 4) should be consulted for a comprehensive assessment of each park and more specific recommendations.

*Rainbow Recreation Center.* The park provides the only active recreation site in a large area with very little access to open space. Although it works relatively well, its small size and landlocked location limit its future use and service area. The following specific changes could improve the park's ability to meet local needs:

* redesign the lawn and play areas to make them more inviting, attractive, and visible from the perimeter of the park;

* update the children's play equipment, which is now minimal and outdated;

* improve clean-up, maintenance, and security (including better early evening lighting);

* expand the use of the facility for community events;

* improve awareness of the park's presence, including making the sign (now obscured by shrubs) more prominent and making the park's facilities (which are mostly located on the interior of the block) more visible from East 14th and Seminary;

* capitalize on Seminary Creek as an asset, possibly doing a creek restoration project on-site and cracking down on illegal dumping; and

* expand the park as funding allows, and opportunities arise.

*Concordia Park.* This is a relatively new park which was formerly part of Concordia College. While the park has good visibility, signage is inadequate and the site's

<!-- page 282 -->
function as a neighborhood park is unclear. Concordia is a good candidate for ballfield renovation, tot lot improvement, and community involvement in park planning and clean-up.

*Maxwell Park.* This former residential estate provides the only wooded open space in the Maxwell Park neighborhood. It would benefit from better signage, landscape improvements, and renovation of the restrooms and children's play area.

*Coliseum Gardens Park.* This neighborhood park created in the 1980s is a major opportunity site that has suffered as a result of vandalism and disinvestment. It is one of the largest parks in East Oakland and serves an area with an exceptionally high need for recreational improvements. More than 500 units of public housing are located within three blocks of the site. Redesign of the park with assistance from the community is necessary. The redesign could incorporate security improvements, new uses like community gardening, and possibly a recreation center partially funded by HUD or another federal agency serving the needs of very low income households. Because the site is the closest city park to the Oakland Coliseum, a collaborative effort with the Oakland Athletics or Raiders also might be pursued. The park is also very close to BART, and could be tied into a plan to revitalize the area around the BART Station. There is also an opportunity to restore Lion Creek, which currently traverses the site in a flood control channel.

*Courtland Creek.* This linear park is presently under construction and should be completed according to its adopted master plan. An eventual connection to Brookdale Park should be pursued.

*Fremont Pool.* The pool provides the only swimming site in Central East Oakland and Elmhurst. It should be maintained and renovated as funding permits. An additional pool site is needed to serve the Elmhurst district and prevent overuse of this facility.

*Greenman Field.* This athletic field complex is the most heavily used park in Central East Oakland. Renovation of the ballfields has been funded through Measure K and should be underway shortly.

Despite heavy use, there are a number of areas within Greenman Field that are dormant at this time. As mentioned above, the adjoining Lockwood and Havenscourt schoolyards also could be better integrated with the ballfields, enabling Greenman to become a full-service community park comparable to DeFremery or Mosswood in its amenities. This would require a collaborative effort with the school district, additional funding, and extensive input from the community. Partial daylighting and restoration of Lion Creek could also be possible in some locations.

A master plan for Greenman Field should be prepared during the next five years to explore these possibilities. Development of the site as a community park could substantially reduce the shortage of recreational facilities in this area.

<!-- page 283 -->
<<FIGURE>>

Increase activity level at Concordia Park

Underserved area: explore sites for new Fairfax neighborhood park

Continue creek restoration efforts. Expand park as opportunities arise.

Expand into full service community park, greening portion of Havenscourt/ Lockwood schoolyard

Develop new facilities/improvements in Coliseum Gardens Park

Complete Courtland Creek improvements, and connect to Brookdale Park

Underserved area: explore sites for Melrose neighborhood park, possibly within redeveloped industrial sites

Improve link to Regional Shoreline, possibly along creek or with 66th Ave bike path from Greenman Field to Curt Flood

### Legend
1 Rainbow
2 Concordia
3 Maxwell
4 Coliseum Gardens
5 Courtland Creek
6 Fremont Pool
7 Greenman Field

City of Oakland
Open Space, Conservation, & Recreation Element
# Figure 25: Central East Oakland Major Recommendations
Source: Oakland Office of Planning & Building, 1995

<!-- page 284 -->
# ELMHURST

The Elmhurst District encompasses 3,871 acres and has a population of about 57,700. The area contains two community parks, seven neighborhood parks, four active mini-parks, and one natural resource area. There are also several athletic field complexes -- some on city property and others on school property. Five of the Elmhurst area parks contain recreation centers. The parks are supplemented by schoolyards and playgrounds at 14 public schools.

Total park area, including the athletic fields and schoolyards, is 174.9 acres. Subtracting the Glenn Daniel/ King Estate Natural Area, which is a large passive open space rather than an active recreational area, leaves 99.9 acres of "local-serving" acreage. This equates to 1.73 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, which is less than half the standard adopted by the City.

Figure 26 summarizes open space and park recommendations.

### Open Space Recommendations

Elmhurst is the largest of the seven "flatland" planning districts and has the greatest variety among these districts in its natural features, open space, and overall land use mix. Elmhurst includes the wooded canyon of Arroyo Viejo, the open knoll of Glenn Daniel/ King Estate, truck farms and nurseries along San Leandro Creek, and a considerable amount of vacant industrial property. Elmhurst is also close to the regional open spaces along San Leandro Bay and the South Hills, although topography, freeways, and other barriers create the perception that these areas are further away than they actually are.

Nearly 12 percent of Elmhurst (441 acres) consists of open space. Only a third of this area consists of city parks; the rest consists of schoolyards or private land, or is used for functional purposes, like water storage, power transmission, or freeway buffering. The value of the functional open space might be enhanced in the future, with landscaping and access provided as opportunities arise. Some of these areas could potentially become open space connectors between Elmhurst and nearby regional parks.

The Elmhurst area contains a large number of scattered infill sites, especially along the major thoroughfares like MacArthur, East 14th, and Bancroft. Some of these sites provide opportunities for small parks, either in their entirety or as parts of larger developments. Closer to the Nimitz Freeway, Elmhurst contains some of Oakland's largest vacant properties, providing major opportunities for mixed use redevelopment. Given the unmet recreational needs in the area, parks should be included as the area redevelops.

School grounds occupy about 68 acres in Elmhurst, the highest acreage in this use category among the twelve planning areas. This is a function of the large number of schools in the area (14) and the fact that the school grounds themselves tend to be newer and larger. Although Elmhurst area schools tend to be "greener" than their counterparts in other flatland neighborhoods, some could use aesthetic improvements and be better used to offset local shortages of parkland.

To the extent permitted by law, specific recommendations are laid out below:

* Incorporate a neighborhood park or special recreational use as one component of the redevelopment plan for the Imo Delaval Engine Plant on 85th and Edes Avenues.

* Extend the existing San Leandro Creek trail from Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline to the Columbian Gardens and Sobrante Park neighborhoods. The trail should continue from its current terminus to 98th Avenue, and should eventually be linked to Columbian Gardens Park and Brookfield Park.

* Create better connections between Elmhurst and the large parks on the east side of Interstate 580 (Knowland and Lake Chabot). One possibility

<!-- page 285 -->
would be a creek trail along Arroyo Viejo from MacArthur to Golf Links Road.

*   Improve landscaping on the Bancroft Avenue median and consider developing a Bancroft bike trail from Eastmont Mall to the San Leandro city limits.

*   Establish a community garden site in the neighborhood. Opportunities within existing parks and on vacant city-owned infill sites should be explored.

*   Pursue new neighborhood park sites or improve the schoolyards in areas which are currently deficient. These areas include: (a) Las Palmas-Durant Manor-Iveywood; (b) Fitchburg-Woodland; (c) Toler Heights; and (d) Highland/ Elmhurst Park. Schools in these areas currently provide the only sites for public recreation.

*   Consider ways to take advantage of the functional open spaces in Elmhurst, including the PG&E and CalTrans rights of way, and the 21-acre wooded EBMUD Reservoir site on Seneca Street.

*   Maintain the open character of the 75-acre Glenn Daniel/ King Estate tract, incorporating trails which connect the flatlands and hills. A future connection to the Naval Hospital site would be helpful as the hospital is redeveloped.

*   Continue street tree planting and other efforts to "green" Elmhurst.

### Park Recommendations

The Elmhurst area contains two community-serving parks -- Brookfield and Arroyo Viejo. These large, attractive parks each provide a good complement of recreational facilities and serve the surrounding areas well. The neighborhood and mini-parks include a mix of facilities that date back to the area's initial development in the 1930s and 1940s, and newer facilities that resulted from urban renewal in the 1970s. Several of Elmhurst's parks are located adjacent to schools, allowing the joint use of park and school grounds.

Safety and crime problems have taken a heavy toll on Elmhurst area parks and have hampered their ability to serve the community. Security improvements are the clear priority in most of the existing parks. A variety of measures have been proposed in the OSCAR Element to make parks throughout Oakland safer and less prone to vandalism.

While security is a priority, there are some parts of Elmhurst that lack neighborhood parks altogether. Arroyo Viejo and Tassafaronga (85th Avenue) both serve very large areas and would benefit from additional neighborhood-scale parks in their vicinities. Opportunities may exist along East 14th and on some of the vacant industrial sites in the San Leandro Street Corridor. Some potential for new parks may exist along MacArthur Boulevard, possibly through the reuse of old motel sites.

Specific recommendations for Elmhurst parks are laid out below. OSCAR Technical Report Volume 2 (Chapter 4) should be consulted for a comprehensive assessment of each park and more specific recommendations.

*Arroyo Viejo.* A master plan should be prepared for Arroyo Viejo. The park has been the recreational focal point for East Oakland for nearly 60 years. However, it is not living up to its full potential, considering the very large area it serves and the range of facilities it offers. A master planning process could solicit community input and reshape Arroyo Viejo into a park which is more inviting, accessible, visible, and useful.

Specific recommendations to be considered in a master plan are laid out below.

*   Improve the park's visibility. At minimum, this could entail better signage on Bancroft and 73rd Avenues. Other measures could include expanding the park to create an "outlet" to Bancroft or landscaped connection to Eastmont Mall.

*   Restore the creek. A number of community-based efforts are underway to restore Arroyo Viejo. The creek should be capitalized upon as a park amenity. A trail connection to Bancroft (and possibly beyond) might be possible in the future.

<!-- page 286 -->
* Improve security. Probably the greatest deterrent to the use of Arroyo Viejo is security. A combination of measures (evening lighting, park curfew enforcement, more programmed activities, more varied uses, greater ranger presence, neighborhood watch, etc.) should be considered. More supervision is needed on the weekends, including staffing of the recreation center.

* Develop the park as a community focal point. Arroyo Viejo should be a center for neighborhood fairs and festivals, special events, and performances.

* Replace dated children's play equipment, worn out turf, and vandalized ballfield lights.

* Improve connections between the park and Webster Academy.

* Consider creating an area where dogs are permitted.

* Due to the park's large size and the great need for recreational facilities in the area, consider developing new uses such as a swimming pool or arts and crafts center (comparable to Studio One).

*Brookfield.* This large community park has benefitted greatly from the construction of a new recreation center and gymnasium. The surrounding park grounds work fairly well. Maintenance and security should remain priorities.

*Tassafaronga.* "Tassa" is located in an area with very high needs and limited access to private recreation or backyards. A new gymnasium was recently constructed in the park with Measure K funds. The old gym will be demolished, and the vacated site should be used to replace the basketball courts displaced by the new building. The park has other maintenance and rehabilitation needs which should be addressed. These include new turf on the ballfield and replacement of irrigation systems, corrective drainage measures, updating of the children's play area, resurfacing of various hard courts, and some renovation of the recreation center.

*Verdese Carter.* Verdese Carter Park is currently being renovated. The park would benefit from landscaping improvements, a tie-in to a bike trail along Bancroft, and additional security provisions around the recreation center.

*Burkhalter.* Burkhalter needs general maintenance, security, and rehabilitation improvements. Functionally, the park works well, although most of the facilities (tennis, etc.) are not visible from the street. Additional off-street parking would be helpful given the park's proximity to the freeway and high patronage by persons from other Oakland neighborhoods. Picnic, bathroom, and ballfield areas are all in need of upgrading.

*Elmhurst Plaza.* The age of this park (1916), formal layout, and mature vegetation give it a more urban feel than most of the area's parks. Elmhurst Plaza functions fairly well but is quite crowded with recreational facilities. At the same time, it appears to be underutilized. Expansion of the park site would be beneficial and might be possible since there are a number of abandoned buildings in the vicinity.

*Columbian Gardens.* This park makes effective use of a transmission line right of way through a residential area without other recreational amenities. Maintenance and rehabilitation of the facilities are needed. Opportunities for access to San Leandro Creek, which is now completely fenced off at the back of the park, should be explored.

*Stonehurst.* Stonehurst Park has very poor visibility and is not even recognized as a park by many local residents. The sign is completely obscured by shrubs, and the park is generally regarded as belonging to the adjacent elementary school. A school/park master plan would be very helpful here, with the goal of bringing some of the hidden park facilities (children's play area, etc.) closer to E Street, creating park visibility from San Leandro Street, and better integrating the park with the adjacent Stonehurst neighborhood.

*Sobrante.* Like Stonehurst, this park has poor visibility and is usually thought of as part of the nearby Elementary and Junior High School complex. The park is difficult to find, and the facilities are not clearly visible from the street. Facilities are in below average condition. As one of the largest open spaces in the Elmhurst area, the park and adjoining football field are a major untapped

<!-- page 287 -->
resource. While the mix of recreational uses works well, better access, signage, and public information would help make this park more successful.

*Tyrone Carney.* This mini-park currently has security problems that reduce its use for legitimate purposes. It would benefit from a community-led, city-supported effort to rethink the park's function and explore ways it could be made more secure or even relocated. The possibility of adding ornamental fencing around the site or introducing new uses such as community gardening should be considered.

*Eula M Brinson/ 88th Avenue Mini-Parks.* Both parks would benefit from landscape improvements and better security. Fencing and gates could help secure both sites and improve their usefulness for neighborhood children and families. The play apparatus at Eula Brinson Park was recently updated but the 88th Avenue Park still requires new equipment.

*Glenn Daniel/ King Estate.* Excluding Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline, this is the largest open space in Oakland below the MacArthur Freeway. The development of active facilities on the 75-acre site is constrained by steep topography, sensitive ecological features, a history of landslides, and proximity to the Hayward Fault. To the extent feasible and legally permissible, the site's role as a passive open space should be retained in the future. A park master plan which implements this vision has recently been prepared.

On the other hand, Glenn Daniel/ King Estate is also an important open space link between the flatland neighborhoods and the South Oakland Hills. Better trail access to and across the site would be helpful. Picnic areas and interpretive nature facilities might be developed, and improved connections might be established to the existing ballfields behind King Estate Junior High.

*Elmhurst Lions.* This junior high school athletic field would benefit from general maintenance and clean-up, as well as the construction of bleachers. Night lighting does not appear feasible at this time due to the proximity of nearby residences and lack of landscape screening.

*Castlemont High.* Castlemont's football field and track are a recreational resource for the surrounding community but are generally not used for city-programmed activities. Continued maintenance of the field is recommended and additional public use of the field might be considered sometime in the future. Restoration of Arroyo Viejo Creek on the Castlemont property should be encouraged.

*King Estate Junior High.* This school athletic field accommodates a limited amount of City OPR activities. The field was recently renovated with the help of Friends of Oakland Parks and Recreation. Continued turf maintenance is recommended.

<!-- page 288 -->
<<FIGURE>>

### Legend
| | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 1 | Arroyo Viejo | 10 | Tyrone Carney |
| 2 | Brookfield | 11 | Holly |
| 3 | Tassafaronga | 12 | Eula Brinson |
| 4 | Verdese Carter | 13 | 88th Avenue |
| 5 | Burkhalter | 14 | King Estate |
| 6 | Elmhurst Plaza | 15 | Elmhurst Lions |
| 7 | Columbian Gardens | 16 | Castemont High |
| 8 | Stonehurst | 17 | King Estates JHS |
| 9 | Sobrante | | |

City of Oakland
Open Space, Conservation, & Recreation Element
## Figure 26: Elmhurst
## Major Recommendations
Source: Oakland Office of Planning & Building, 1995

<!-- page 289 -->
## LOWER HILLS

The Lower Hills encompass 2,467 acres and have a population of about 36,500. The area contains one community park, two neighborhood parks, one passive mini-park, and three special use parks. Two of the parks contain recreation centers.

Total park area, including about 13 acres in school playgrounds at seven elementary and two middle schools, is 48.9 acres. Excluding Davie Tennis Stadium, which is actually outside the City limits, park area is about 44 acres. This equates to 1.20 acres of local-serving parkland per 1,000 residents, which is well below the adopted standard.

Figure 27 summarizes open space and park recommendations.

### Open Space Recommendations

The Lower Hills occupies a critical position between the dense Central, San Antonio, and Fruitvale Districts on one side and the suburban hill areas on the other. There may be opportunities to link the denser neighborhoods on the south to the less dense areas on the north. The canyons and creeks provide the most logical physical linkage, but bike trails along local streets may be more practical in some cases.

The Lower Hills neighborhoods are nearly completely built out, with very little open space (just over 100 acres). Most of the open space that does exist is steep and wooded and is contained in private yards. The potential for new parks is limited. Most of the opportunities lie in the wooded area along Upper Peralta Creek, on "functional" sites like the EBMUD covered reservoirs and freeway buffers, and on a handful of infill lots in neighborhood commercial districts. As in other areas of Oakland, most of the schoolyards are publicly accessible but consist of asphalt play surfaces.

The lack of open space in the Lower Hills is offset somewhat by its proximity to Lake Merritt and to the large parks in the North and South Oakland Hills. Some of the area has access to private greenbelts and many of the homes have large backyards. At the same time, parts of the Lower Hills are very dense and do not have adequate access to open space. Improvements would be beneficial in a number of areas, highlighted below:

✓ Conserve riparian vegetation and maintain setbacks along Sausal and Peralta Creeks.

✓ Explore trail access or easement acquisition along Peralta Creek from Wisconsin Street to Monterey Boulevard, providing a connection from the Laurel District to the only natural open space in the area.

✓ Pursue the long-term extension of the existing Sausal Creek (Dimond Canyon) trail from Dimond Park to MacArthur, either via the creek or along local streets. A link across I-580 to William Wood Park should eventually be created.

✓ Enhance the visual quality of the medians and traffic islands on Park Blvd, High Street, and 35th Avenue. Community-led efforts to beautify, clean up, and maintain these areas should be supported.

✓ Retain the wooded edges along Highways 580 and 13 to screen adjacent residential neighborhoods and maintain the high visual quality of the freeways.

✓ Work with EBMUD to explore access improvements to the 8-acre wooded open space surrounding the 39th Ave reservoir, including the possibility of community gardening in this area.

✓ Improve the appearance of the area's schoolyards, particularly at schools in areas without access to local parks and open spaces.

✓ Retain wooded areas on the area's institutional uses (Altenheim Retirement Home, Fred Finch Youth Center, Lincoln Child Center Foundation, Cerebral Palsy Foundation Center, etc.) if any should become available for redevelopment in the future. In such cases, use of these areas as neighborhood parks

<!-- page 290 -->
should be considered where existing parks do not exist.

### Park Recommendations

The Lower Hills contain some of Oakland's best known and most successful parks. Because the area contains a wider variety of terrain and vegetation than the nearby flatlands, its parks tend to be heavily used by patrons from other neighborhoods. Both Dimond and Redwood Heights Parks serve very large geographic areas, despite the fact that comparable facilities are available elsewhere in those areas. The varying terrain and woodlands also have contributed to the development of several special use parks in the area, including the Morcom Rose Garden, Davie Tennis Stadium, and the McCrea Trout Ponds.

There is a shortage of neighborhood-oriented parkland in the Lower Hills. This is particularly noticeable in the Laurel and Grand Lake neighborhoods but is also true in Glenview, Trestle Glen, and around the Rose Garden. The small neighborhood park in Avenue Terrace provides a model that might be copied in these neighborhoods, but high land costs and the lack of vacant land limit the options.

Specific recommendations for Lower Hills parks are laid out below. OSCAR Technical Report Volume 2 (Chapter 4) should be consulted for a comprehensive assessment of each park and more specific recommendations.

*Dimond.* A master plan for Dimond Park should be prepared. While the park's layout is functional, there are compatibility problems between park activities and the surrounding residential area. Neighborhood concerns about park security and noise levels should be addressed through more visible ranger presence, stronger enforcement of ordinances and regulations, parking gates, and better lighting. The following additional recommendations should be considered in the park plan:

* Maintain the park's lush, wooded character and maintain Sausal Creek as a park amenity. The "Dimond Oak" should be designated as a local historic landmark.

* Create a clear main entrance or park gateway. Because Dimond Park does not front on a major street, access to the park is confusing. There is a formal pedestrian gateway on Fruitvale Avenue, but most vehicle traffic enters on El Centro or Dimond Avenues.

* Rehabilitate park infrastructure and older buildings. This could include restrooms, the basketball courts (in need of resurfacing), and the recreation center.

* Improve lighting around the recreation center and in the parking lots.

* Establish a stronger connection between the isolated play area on Fruitvale Avenue and the rest of the park. Also, establish better connections between the Glenview and Dimond commercial areas and the park.

* Develop a long-term solution to parking problems. This might include gated parking in the lower portion of the park and adding a security gate at the Wellington Avenue parking lot.

* Limit the number of additional uses in the park due to existing heavy use and high demand. New uses should be of relatively low intensity, such as a sand volleyball court.

*Redwood Heights.* The new recreation center, constructed with voter-approved funds from Measure AA, has become a popular addition to the park and has increased the park's use by community groups and local residents. Although the siting of the building has prevented the park's use for league ballgames, the lawn is still popular for casual play. The park would benefit from a number of additional improvements, including updating of the old swings and climbing structure near the parking lot and renovation of the old recreation center building. The southeast corner of the park (the picnic area) could also be better integrated with the rest of the park. The park could also use speed control and a guard rail along Redwood Road for traffic safety.

<!-- page 291 -->
*Avenue Terrace.* Although Avenue Terrace is much smaller than a "standard" neighborhood park, it fits very well into the fabric of the surrounding neighborhood and requires very little change.

*Mandana Plaza.* This passive open space provides a visual amenity for the Grand Lakeshore neighborhood and works fairly well in its current configuration. Ongoing maintenance and landscaping should be encouraged. Due to the small size and narrow width of the park, more intensive uses of the space are not recommended at this time.

*McCrea Park.* McCrea provides a one-of-a-kind amenity in Oakland in its two fly-fishing casting ponds and its "learn to fish" trout ponds. The park works well but might benefit from better signage and public information. The continued assistance of the East Bay Youth Conservation Corps and Police Activities League should be supported in the operation and maintenance of the park.

*Morcom Rose Garden.* The park is currently being renovated using Measure K funding. Following completion of the project, ongoing maintenance and security improvements should be supported.

*Davie Stadium.* No major changes are recommended at this time.

<!-- page 292 -->
<<FIGURE>>

Conserve riparian area along Peralta Creek

Improve trail connection to Leona Heights Park

Complete Rose Garden restoration

Underserved Area: pursue potential sites for Laurel neighborhood park

Pursue long-term extension of Sausal Creek trail: Dimond Park to Wood Park

**Legend**

1 Dimond
2 Redwood Heights
3 Avenue Terrace
4 Mandana Plaza
5 McCrea
6 Morcom Rose Garden
7 Davie Stadium

City of Oakland
Open Space, Conservation, & Recreation Element
### Figure 27: Lower Hills Major Recommendations

<!-- page 293 -->
# NORTH HILLS

The North Hills Planning Area encompasses 6,362 acres and has a population of about 26,100. The area contains 19 parks, including several which contain both active recreation and resource conservation areas. Six of the North Hill parks are owned and operated by the Regional Park District; four of these are located mostly outside of Oakland's city limits. The Area has three region-serving parks, one community park, two neighborhood parks, one passive mini-park, one athletic field park, one special use (golf course) park and one linear park. Five additional parks in the North Hills are used exclusively as resource conservation areas and are undeveloped.

Total parkland area in the North Hills is 969.5 acres. The parks are supplemented by more than 5,000 acres of open space in the regional parks just beyond the ridgeline, and over 700 acres of permanent open space on the UC Berkeley Campus. While the figures are impressive, particularly compared to the nearby flatlands, the vast majority of the hill area parks consist of very steeply sloping lands which are undeveloped and are poorly suited for active recreation. Total local-serving park acreage is estimated to be 61 acres, for a ratio of 2.34 acres per 1,000 residents. Although this is among the highest ratios in the city, it is still about 60 percent of the adopted standard.

Figure 28 summarizes open space and park recommendations.

### Open Space Recommendations

This Planning Area includes the city's steepest slopes and most dramatic terrain as well as some of its largest open spaces. The North Hills contain a complex mix of suburban-density development, hillside open space, and vacant lots in hillside subdivisions. Even many of the developed neighborhoods are heavily wooded and retain a rustic or semi-rural character. About 50 percent of the area consists of open space, including over 2,000 privately-owned vacant lots.

Most of the area was subdivided in the early 1900s in a manner which did not reflect its steep slopes and poor access. As a result, the hills have developed incrementally, with the flattest lots developing first and the steeper lots developing more recently.

While access to open space is excellent for hill area residents, the area presents many open space planning challenges. Foremost among these is the need for vegetation management on the area's 3,000 acres of undeveloped land, a need made very apparent by the 1991 firestorm. Approximately one-quarter of the North Hills Area was destroyed in the 1991 firestorm and is now being rebuilt. Other natural hazards, including landsliding, earthquakes, and erosion, require that the area's open spaces be carefully managed to minimize risks to life and property. North Hills open spaces also contain many of Oakland's special status plant species, much of its remaining wildlife habitat, the headwaters of many of its creeks, and some its most outstanding scenery.

Where compatible with resource conservation goals, access to the area's public open spaces should be improved. This should include better trail connections to the flatlands, as well as trail linkages between the various hill area parks. On the area's private open spaces, a variety of measures should be used to reduce the environmental and visual impacts of future development. In some cases, this could mean public acquisition of land or conservation easements.

To the extent permitted by law, specific recommendations for open space are outlined below (*The Open Space and Conservation sections of the OSCAR Element have additional policies and actions specifically aimed at the hill areas*).

✓ Within the constraints of applicable state and federal laws, explore a range of options for conserving sensitive natural and visual resources on the remaining large private hillside open spaces in the North Hills Area, including Castle Canyon, the Lands of Varney, Caldecott Canyon, and the outparcels between Claremont Canyon and existing city and regional parklands.

<!-- page 294 -->
$\checkmark$ Maintain a vegetation management program for all North Hill open spaces, focusing on fuel reduction.

$\checkmark$ Develop a Specific Plan for Panoramic Hill which resolves access and infrastructure issues and indicates the maximum number of units that can be built in the area.

$\checkmark$ Work with the University of California in improving trail access and habitat management on those areas designated for ecological study in the UC Berkeley Long Range Development Plan.

$\checkmark$ Improve trail links between hill area parks and the flatlands, including a connection between North Oakland Sports Center, Lake Temescal, Chabot Park, and Rockridge BART; extension of the Shepherd Canyon bike trail up to the ridge and down to Lake Temescal; and better marking and maintenance of the Dimond Canyon Trail.

$\checkmark$ Improve lateral trail connections between hill area open spaces and the hill neighborhoods, using the existing parks (such as Beaconsfield Canyon, Shepherd Canyon, Grizzly Peak Open Space, etc.) as "stepping stones."

$\checkmark$ Maintain (and expand where feasible) the network of mid-block pedestrian paths and stairsteps in the hill neighborhoods.

$\checkmark$ Conduct a more thorough inventory of vacant subdivided hillside lots and determine which have extreme development constraints; explore options for managing these vacant lots in the future.

$\checkmark$ Work with EBMUD to explore opportunities for tot lots, gardens, and other recreational amenities adjacent to the water tanks in the hill areas.

$\checkmark$ Work with PG&E and Caltrans to explore opportunities for trail connections in the rights-of-way in Shepherd and Caldecott Canyons.

$\checkmark$ Retain existing city-owned open space along Skyline Boulevard where development would otherwise block views or change the scenic character of the roadway and neighborhood.

$\checkmark$ Create a resource conservation area on public land around the Caldecott Tunnel and pursue grants for fire-resistant demonstration gardens.

$\checkmark$ Continue creek restoration and erosion control measures on the upper reaches of Claremont, Vicente, Caldecott, Temescal, Sausal, Shepherd, and Palo Seco Creeks.

$\checkmark$ Develop a bike trail on the east shoulder of Park Boulevard between Leimert Avenue and Monterey Boulevard.

### Park Recommendations

Although the North Hills have more parks than any other Planning Area, they are still deficient in active recreation sites. It might seem logical to reduce this deficiency by turning some of the area's passive parks into active parks, but this is not feasible in most cases. Most of the area's parks were specifically acquired to preserve environmentally sensitive land. On the other hand, the deficiency is offset somewhat by parks like Redwood and Tilden which serve the North Hills as well as the rest of the East Bay. The gap is also offset by large backyards, high mobility, and incomes which permit relatively easy access to other recreational opportunities in Oakland and other parts of the Bay Area.

Most of the ballfields, playgrounds, tennis courts, and other active recreation areas are located in the narrow valley defined by the Hayward Fault and Highway 13. Some of these sites, particularly the North Oakland Sports Center, have the potential for expansion. Higher up in the hills, opportunities are limited by the lack of level ground, poor visibility, and limited road access. Small neighborhood-serving facilities (tot lots, etc.) might be feasible within some of the existing public open spaces, including EBMUD water tank sites and surplus city properties along Skyline.

Specific recommendations for the North Hills parks are laid out below. OSCAR Technical Report Volume 2 (Chapter 4) should be consulted for a comprehensive assessment of each park and more specific recommendations:

<!-- page 295 -->
_Joaquin Miller Park._ This is one of the largest and best-known parks in Oakland, providing both active recreation and resource conservation areas. The park is in dire need of a master plan guiding its long-term development and management. New facilities like the relocated observatory (on Skyline) and the community center (on Sanborn) are being constructed without the benefit of an overall plan for the park.

The master plan should clearly define conservation areas and activity areas. The former should be managed for habitat conservation, stream protection, and fire hazard reduction. Trails within these areas should be regularly maintained and clearly marked.

The activity areas require substantial improvement and maintenance, particularly in the Sanborn Drive vicinity. Priorities include restoration of the Woodminster Cascades, which is being coordinated by FOPR and partially funded by Measure K, and general clean-up and refurbishing of the picnic areas, restrooms, and vista points. The Sanborn area would benefit from better signage and orientation markers, "you are here" kiosks, graffiti removal and security lighting, landscaping, and higher prominence of the historic landmarks (Joaquin Miller's Abbey and various monuments). As a region-serving park, the area would also benefit from additional children's play apparatus, particularly in the area adjoining Robin Perry Field.

Better access to the flatlands would also be helpful. The park is already connected by trail to Dimond Park, but the trek is steep, long, and moderately difficult. Better transit service, particularly on weekends, should be pursued. Joaquin Miller Park provides a great opportunity for kids to learn about the natural environment right in their own backyards. New programs for Oakland youth might be added at the equestrian center, the new community center, the ranger station, the archery range, and other facilities within the park.

_Temescal Regional Recreation Area._ A Land Use and Development Plan for the park was adopted by the Regional Park Board in 1993. The Plan reinforces the park's current function and recommends renovation of the bath house, improvement of the north entrance and parking area, protection of historic structural and landscape features, habitat restoration, interpretive facilities relating to the 1991 firestorm and park geology, new fishing piers and trail links, provisions for disabled access, and possible land transfers which could increase the area of the park by as much as 10 acres. The new plan is consistent with the principles embodied in the OSCAR Element and is supported by the City of Oakland.

_Redwood/ Roberts._ Only 8 acres of this 2,577-acre regional park actually lie within the Oakland city limits. Redwood Park should continue to be maintained as a natural and scenic area, with no major new facilities added within the City limits. Improved access to the existing facilities at the Canyon Staging Area and Roberts Recreation Area are a primary goal. Better publicity, informational programs, and easier trails would increase access to the park by a broader spectrum of Oakland's population.

Measures to enhance wildlife, restore native habitat, control invasive plants, and protect water quality were all recommended in the park's 1977 Master Plan and continue to be appropriate today. On-going EBRPD efforts to improve the ballfields, children's play area, restrooms, and pool at Roberts Recreation Area are supported by the City of Oakland.

_Montclair Park._ This very heavily used community park has benefitted from active fundraising, a highly visible and attractive location, and pride of ownership by the surrounding hill neighborhoods. Friends of Oakland Parks and Recreation have managed a number of projects in the park during recent years, including some funded by Measure K and others covered by local fundraising. As with other community parks in Oakland, improvements have been made without the benefit of an overall park master plan. A long-range plan for the site is needed.

The following improvements to the park are recommended and should be considered in a master plan:

* Better drainage, erosion control, and bank stabilization are needed on the slopes above the pond to avoid future sedimentation;

* The recreation center (built in the late 1930s) requires seismic upgrading, disabled access

<!-- page 296 -->
improvements, and general renovation -- additional space is needed for programmed activities;

* A small parking lot would be helpful, possibly on the vacated fire station site nextdoor;

* Traffic control measures are needed for pedestrians crossing Moraga Avenue -- this might involve a crosswalk, a light, or stronger enforcement of posted speed limits;

* Security lighting around the recreation center should be improved;

* The park restrooms require renovation (and possibly relocation to higher ground);

* The opportunity to expand the park northward, to include the fire station, should be pursued. Since the fire station has seismic stability problems, its use for public assembly is limited. However, it might be used for storage or office space. Depending on costs, the building might be relocated, and the area might be used for another recreational use;

* Extension of the Shepherd Canyon bike trail into the park should be pursued. This could entail a bridge across Mountain Boulevard or ramps down to street level and a striped crosswalk. The trail could potentially follow the old railroad trestle to the corner of Thornhill and Moraga, and;

* Conversion of the basketball courts on Mountain Boulevard to commercial parking should be avoided unless a replacement site for the courts is provided elsewhere in the park (possibly on the fire station site).

*Shepherd Canyon Park.* This park, located in the former right-of-way of a proposed freeway to Moraga, includes a number of different functional areas. The neighborhood-serving facilities, including the junior soccer field, restrooms, and play area, are attractive and fairly well-maintained. Additional off-street parking is needed and the children's play area has some potential for expansion. However, major upgrading of the soccer field (lighting, bleachers, etc.) is not recommended at this time due to the quiet, natural character of the park. Additional use for programmed activities (like volleyball) would be appropriate.

The Shepherd Canyon bicycle trail provides a link between this park and Montclair Village. An extension up to Skyline Drive (and into the regional parks) should be pursued, possibly using surplus State lands or the PG&E right-of-way.

About two-thirds of the park consists of a steeply sloping conservation area. The area is a prime candidate for vegetation management and habitat enhancement. Marked hiking trails through this area to nearby streets in Piedmont Pines would be a good addition and provide better local access to the play area.

*Chabot Recreation Area.* This neighborhood park serves the Rockridge and Claremont districts of Oakland. It provides a good model for the successful integration of school and park properties, with shared facilities benefitting both students at Chabot School and residents of the surrounding area.

Although the park is popular and well used, it falls short of its full potential. Re-orientation of some of the activities would make the park more functional, visible, and inviting. The remote location of the children's play area, in the "back" of the park and alongside the 24 Freeway, makes it less attractive than it would be if it were closer to Chabot Road. The playground also needs to be updated, with features like the concrete slide replaced with modern play apparatus.

The asphalt areas on both sides of the school could be visually improved and more clearly joined to the park. This could be accomplished by terracing the area between the schoolyard on Patton Street and the existing play area, possibly adding a school vegetable or native plant garden on the terraced area.

The Park would also benefit from the renovation or replacement of the old recreation building, which presently is in poor condition. Finally, signage improvements are needed to identify the site as a park and not just as a school playfield.

<!-- page 297 -->
*Rockridge Boulevard Park.* No major changes are required at this landscaped triangle, other than the addition of a small sign indicating that the site is a city park. Continued landscaping and plant care by the surrounding neighborhood should be encouraged.

*Ostrander Park.* This unimproved park provides an attractive landscaping screen for homes on the north side of Broadway Terrace. While no major changes are recommended, vegetation management is needed to reduce fire hazards. Replacement of invasive plants with California natives should be encouraged. The park also requires an identification sign, as it is currently unmarked. The possibility of a bike lane along Broadway Terrace or additional landscaping on the flatter portions of the park might be explored at some future date.

*Montclair Golf Club.* The golf club has the potential to be a real amenity for Oakland but is presently operating below its full potential. If the City chooses to retain this facility, consideration should be given to redesigning the golf course. The driving range should be renovated, with junked vehicles and other debris removed from the far end. The 1950s vintage miniature golf course could be updated to today's standards. The concessions building also could use improvement. If the facility is closed, consideration should be given to reusing the site for active recreation, or restoring the riparian canyon that was filled 40 years ago to create the driving range.

*Claremont Canyon Regional Park.* An EBRPD Master Plan prepared in 1985 guides land use and conservation activities in this 227-acre regional open space. The park has been designated an ecological study area, with ecosystem restoration and on-going vegetation management recommended. The 1985 Plan proposed development of a youth hostel in the park, as well as educational or interpretive exhibits. The hostel is not an active proposal at this time and may be dropped from future master plans due to fire safety and access concerns. Proposals for new trails within the park should continue to be pursued, possibly including a trail along Claremont Creek. The park should provide improved connections between the Claremont Hotel/Clark Kerr Campus area and the regional parks on the east side of the ridge.

*Grizzly Peak Open Space.* This 58-acre hillside site was acquired in 1992 with Measure K funds for open space preservation. On-going vegetation management is needed to reduce fire hazards. Replacement of invasive (and burned) vegetation with native species is recommended. The park should be linked by trail to nearby Claremont Canyon on the north and the Skyline Regional Trail on the east. This will require acquisition of a trail easement on the property to the south of the park. The feasibility of a trail connection to the North Oakland Sports Center should also be explored.

*Robert Sibley Volcanic Regional Preserve.* Some 57 acres (about 10 percent) of this Regional Park lie within the city limits of Oakland. Due to the area's rugged terrain, high fire hazard, and habitat value, future recreational use of this area should be limited to trails and scenic lookouts or picnic areas along Skyline and Grizzly Peak. Opportunities for trail connections to the Pinehaven and Thorndale neighborhoods, as well as the North Oakland Sports Center, should be pursued. Ongoing fuel reduction and vegetation management programs are essential.

*Dimond Canyon Park.* The park consists of the 40-acre canyon along Park Boulevard between Highway 13 and Dimond Park. Trails already exist but need to be better maintained and marked. The Dimond Canyon hiking trail is Oakland's only major trail link between the flatlands and the hills and could be more widely publicized and utilized.

As a relatively wild area surrounded by urban uses, Dimond Canyon needs to be monitored for problems such as illegal camping, burning, and dumping. The canyon requires regular brush removal and vegetation management to reduce fire danger. Clean-up of Sausal Creek and the addition of an interpretive nature trail along the creek would be beneficial. The site's very steep topography limits more intense recreational uses.

*Tilden Regional Park.* Only 18 acres of this 2,164-acre park are located within the City of Oakland. Continued use of the parcels for resource conservation, vegetation management, and scenic enjoyment is recommended.

<!-- page 298 -->
*Garber Park.* This steeply sloping property adjacent to Claremont Avenue would benefit from a park sign, a trail above Claremont Avenue (to Claremont Canyon Regional Park), and a trail connection to the hill neighborhood above the park. The site is too steep to support active recreational facilities.

*Beaconsfield Canyon Park.* The 5-acre site was specifically acquired to protect a riparian area and natural open space in the Piedmont Pines neighborhood. A small trail will be constructed using a grant from an anonymous donor. The balance of the site should remain passive open space. Vegetation management, trail development, and creek restoration are recommended.

*Sulphur Springs Park.* This park, best known for its "painted rock" and waterfall at the corner of Ascot and Chelton, is unmarked and improved. Dense vegetation and steep slopes constrain further development. A trail connection (or pedestrian stairsteps) from Ascot to Keswick Court could potentially be developed, with eventual connections uphill to Beaconsfield Canyon and downhill (on city-owned land) to Montera Junior High School.

*Huckleberry Botanic Regional Preserve.* The park is located outside the City limits but has its only point of road access from Skyline Boulevard in the City of Oakland. Future activities are guided by a 1985 Master Plan prepared by EBRPD. No major changes are proposed at this time.

*North Oakland Sports Center.* This athletic field complex occupies about 6 acres of a 51-acre parcel owned by the City. The park is one of the few in Oakland with the potential for major new active recreational facilities. A children's play area on the level terrace east of Caldecott Creek would be an appropriate addition, along with new picnic areas. There may also be an opportunity for a trail link up the canyon to Sibley Park and Grizzly Peak Open Space. Additional trail links should be pursued downhill to Lake Temescal and the Rockridge BART area. In programming specific improvements for the park, care should be taken not to duplicate facilities that are already available nearby (at Montclair Park, Lake Temescal, etc.). Care should also be taken not to change the natural character of the park.

To the extent feasible, new facilities in this park should be designed to serve all of North Oakland and the North/ Lower Hills and not just the immediately surrounding neighborhood. This places an imperative on improving visibility and access to the site, as well as public information on the site's availability. Better signage is also needed. The ballfields are good candidates for night lighting given their considerable distance from nearby residences and good transportation access. Any lighting plan would need to mitigate potential impacts on wildlife and residences in the viewshed. More intense use of the site also would require additional off-street parking.

The canyon itself presents an opportunity for habitat restoration, interpretive nature facilities, and educational gardening projects which demonstrate fire-resistant or drought-tolerant landscaping. Because most of the site was burned during the 1991 firestorm, it provides a suitable location for such a project.

<!-- page 299 -->
<<FIGURE>>

City of Oakland
Open Space, Conservation, & Recreation Element

### Figure 28: North Hills Major Recommendations

<!-- page 300 -->
# SOUTH HILLS

The South Hills Planning Area encompasses 5,381 acres and has a population of about 15,100. The area contains 12 parks, most of which contain special uses (like the zoo or golf course) or large resource conservation areas. Three of the parks are operated by the regional park district. The area also contains one athletic field and four schoolyards at public schools.

Total parkland area in the East Hills is 1,207 acres. Despite this impressive total, only 9 acres (3 parks) are in conventional neighborhood-serving parks. The area lacks a community-serving park altogether. The South Hills parks are supplemented by 13 acres of athletic fields and schoolyards on OUSD properties, for a total "local-serving" acreage of 22 acres. This equates to 1.49 acres of local-serving park acres per 1,000 residents, compared to the adopted city standard of 4 acres per 1,000.

Figure 29 summarizes open space and park recommendations.

### Open Space Recommendations

The South Hills are characterized by moderately steep hills and canyons, with a mix of suburban development, grassland, brushland, and woodland vegetation. Most of the area's development consists of large-scale hillside subdivisions abutted by open space, estate housing, and parks. About half of the Planning Area consists of undeveloped land.

The sensitive natural resources, environmental hazards, and high visual quality of the South Hills suggest that a large amount of the area's open space will be retained in the future. At this time, only about 40 percent of the area's open space has been set aside as parkland. The rest consists of private properties, institutional uses, golf courses, watershed lands, and functional uses. Some of these areas contain creeks and riparian corridors, oak woodlands and native grasslands, and the habitat of endangered and threatened species. Other areas contain steep slopes and areas of high fire danger. Policies throughout the OSCAR Element address the on-going management of open space to address these concerns.

One important objective in the South Hills is to make the area's open space more accessible to residents of nearby flatland neighborhoods. For the most part, the flatlands lack the spectacular scenery, access to nature, and breathing room of the hill neighborhoods. Although the two areas are relatively close to one another, freeways and topography create major barriers. Trails, transit, and other improvements should provide stronger links and help offset the imbalance.

The South Hills contain a number of specific areas which present important open space opportunities. Policies and actions addressing these areas are contained in the Open Space Land Uses Chapter of OSCAR.

To the extent permitted by law, specific recommendations for open space are outlined below:

✓ Work with the East Bay Regional Park District and other agencies to create a Dunsmuir Ridge Resource Conservation Area.

✓ Improve trail connections between the area's parks, using the creeks as a trail framework where feasible. Linkages should include a San Leandro Creek connection from Sheffield Village to Lake Chabot, a Rifle Range Creek connection from Leona Open Space to Knowland Park (via the redeveloped Oak Knoll Hospital), and an Arroyo Viejo connection from Upper Knowland Park to the area below I-580.

✓ Pursue an open space link between Knowland Park and Dunsmuir Ridge, preferably through a conservation easement across the Lands of Drinnen.

✓ Work with the landowner and other parties to maximize open space opportunities in the Redwood Creek area. Create Resource Conservation Areas where legally permissible.

✓ Designate the headwaters of Peralta Creek (north of Holy Names College) as a Resource Conservation Area, possibly using a conservation easement to protect the creek and riparian canyon.

<!-- page 301 -->
### Planning Area Strategies

$\checkmark$ In accordance with the original plan for Ridgemont, work with the Regional Park District and private landowner to add the west slope of the subdivision to Leona Regional Open Space.

$\checkmark$ Retain open space on the portions of the Oak Knoll Naval Hospital which are greater than 30 percent slope, contain native oak woodlands, or are within the riparian zone along Rifle Range Creek. Consider using the Officer's Club at the Naval Hospital as a recreation center serving the South Hills.

$\checkmark$ Incorporate surplus city-owned property along Golf Links Road into Knowland Park, and update park boundary information on all city maps.

$\checkmark$ Recognize the potential value of the Merritt College parking "plateau" as a community resource and consider ways to enhance its appearance and function.

$\checkmark$ Following the adoption of OSCAR, rezone parks and residential estate properties where appropriate to establish consistency with OSCAR policies and actions.

### Park Recommendations

About 75 percent of the parkland in the South Hills consists of undeveloped wildlands with hiking and equestrian trails. The remaining acreage includes the Dunsmuir House and Gardens, Chabot Golf Course, and the Knowland Park Zoo, all special use parks with regional market areas. Neighborhood parks are limited to Pinto Playing Fields, Hellman Park, and Sheffield Village. The area also contains the Chabot Observatory and a City of San Leandro Park which can only be accessed via a bridge on Estudillo Avenue in San Leandro.

As mentioned earlier, the abundance of open space does little to meet the need for active recreational facilities like ballfields and basketball courts. Some of this deficiency is offset by private backyards, as well as the high mobility of the residents compared to residents elsewhere in Oakland. However, some of the area's parks do have the potential for improvement and can go a long way towards reducing local shortages.

Specific recommendations for the South Hills parks are laid out below. OSCAR Technical Report Volume 2 (Chapter 4) should be consulted for a comprehensive assessment of each park and more specific recommendations.

*Hellman.* This neighborhood park is spacious, attractive and well-maintained, but has poor visibility and access. Better signage and a clearer point of entry are on Malcolm Avenue are needed. Better integration with Marshall Elementary School also should be pursued, with the unused asphalt area behind the school eventually developed with active recreational facilities. Ultimately, trail connections should be established between this park, Dunsmuir Ridge on the south, Dunsmuir House and Gardens on the west, and Knowland Park on the north.

*Pinto/ Owen Jones.* The park and playfield are both very visible and well-used, but would benefit from several physical improvements. These include relocation of the children's play area from the current hidden location to a more visible site, along with updating of the play equipment. The existing play area might be better used as a small, well-marked picnic area. Provision of some off-street parking would be helpful, as would better traffic control on Redwood Road (speeding traffic on Redwood Road presently creates a safety hazard for pedestrians using the park). Pinto would also benefit from new signage, as many local residents do not know the park's name.

The park is unique in that is located in one of the few residential growth areas of Oakland. A park impact fee would create a funding source for Pinto's expansion and improvement. The most cost-effective use of the funds might be to improve the connections between the park and Carl Munck School, providing a direct link between the park and the school's basketball courts and hardcourt play areas. Pinto should also be connected to nearby Leona Heights Park via a trail around Munck School and across Campus Drive.

*Sheffield Village.* The park has benefitted from pride of ownership by the close-knit Sheffield Village neighborhood. Still, a number of physical improvements are needed. These include:

$\bullet$ renovation and enlargement of the recreation center;

<!-- page 302 -->
* replacement of the children's play apparatus with new, more interesting apparatus;

* lighting and resurfacing of the basketball courts;

* traffic safety improvements, including signs and speed humps on Marlow Drive and a fence and gate around the play area and day care center;

* a neighborhood kiosk and bulletin board;

* security lighting around the recreation center;

* trail access to San Leandro Creek and Lake Chabot; and

* A new shaded picnic and BBQ area.

*Knowland.* At 482 acres, Knowland is Oakland's largest park. It includes expansive conservation areas as well as the Oakland Zoo and arboretum. A Master Plan containing general principles for the park's development, as well as plans for specific capital improvements, was prepared in 1990.

The Knowland Master Plan divides the park into three physical units: (1) the historic park landscape and arboretum; (2) the zoological gardens; and (3) Wild California. Wild California includes a variety of western landscapes, including grassland, chaparral, oak woodland, and riparian canyons. Wildlife native to these habitat will be housed in this area.

The Plan calls for many improvements, including additional parking, major traffic circulation changes, improved park entry and picnic areas, a new west gate, an education building, an off-exhibit breeding center, a wild habitat preserve, a variety of "California 1820" exhibits and upgrades to existing exhibits. The total cost for these improvements is estimated at $17 million. A significant share of the funding is being provided through Measure K.

The master plan does not address the substantial portion of Knowland Park above the zoo and picnic grounds. This area is to remain in its natural state and be managed for resource conservation and fire hazard reduction. The area's unimproved hiking trails should be upgraded, marked, and used to link residential neighborhoods around the park, nearby open spaces such as Dunsmuir Ridge, and the regional parks on the east side of Skyline.

The relationship between Knowland Park and the South Hills community should be improved through better after-hours security at the park, introduction of neighborhood-oriented recreation programs, and clarification of park boundaries. City-owned land adjacent to the park along Golf Links Road should be merged with the park itself.

*Dunsmuir House and Gardens.* A master plan for this historic property was prepared in 1993. The Plan should guide the long-range use of the property and management of facilities. The basic character and integrity of the park will be maintained, with some of the historic buildings renovated and several new visitor-serving facilities added.

*(Old) Chabot Observatory.* The 6-acre site will become available for re-use after the existing observatory is relocated to Joaquin Miller Park. A master planning process is recommended to evaluate re-use options for the buildings and to redesign the park site. Continued use of the property for a recreational or educational use is recommended. Reuse of the site as an environmental education center or neighborhood park should be given serious consideration.

*City Stables.* Plans for the renovation and future operation of this 7.3-acre facility, recently acquired using Measure K funds, are now being developed. The site will remain an equestrian center, with a variety of new programs serving Oakland residents.

*Skyline Ranch.* This 5.5-acre horse stable site, located just outside the Oakland city limits, was acquired by the Regional Park District in 1993. Plans for its renovation and future operation are now being prepared. Like City Stables, it will remain an equestrian center.

*Chabot Municipal Golf Course.* Chabot has been Oakland's premier municipal golf course since 1923. Measure AA funds are presently being used to renovate the clubhouse. The golf course is likely to experience an increase in use now that Galbraith is closed, possibly increasing maintenance requirements. Although the course works fairly well at this time, consideration might be given to re-routing the access road at some point in the

<!-- page 303 -->
future (to reduce hazards to motorists crossing the fairways).

*Leona Open Space.* Although this 300-acre open space preserve is one of Oakland's largest parks, it is very difficult to find and has very few recreational improvements. The EBRPD should be encouraged to prepare a land use and development plan for this park, addressing the following issues, among others:

* vegetation management;

* creek restoration, erosion control, and access;

* park expansion to include the west slope of Ridgemont subdivision (lands on either side of the Leona Quarry);

* trail improvements;

* signage, access, and parking improvement, and;

* provisions for picnicking.

Future use of Leona Open Space should reflect the scenic, natural character of the canyon and should focus on passive recreational activities like picnicking and hiking.

*Leona Heights.* This 50-acre conservation area would benefit from improved signage and public information, as well as better trail marking and maintenance. The site has a 100-year history as a family picnic spot and should continue to function in this capacity. Renovation of the lodge, upgrading of the picnic area, improvement of the parking area, and vegetation management within park boundaries would all be beneficial.

Before the Warren Freeway was built, Leona Heights included McCrea Park (the casting ponds) on the other side of the freeway. Ultimately, the two parks should be joined again (through an underpass or surface street connection) and the vacant area between Mountain Boulevard and the freeway should be improved. The area is flat, with good visibility and the potential for active recreation or special recreational uses.

Connections between the lodge area and other hill parks could also be improved. Steep, overgrown trails already exist, connecting the site to Merritt College, and then to Chabot Park via the York Trail and Leona Open Space. Trail maintenance, erosion control, trail markings are all needed, highlighting such historic features as Oakland's oldest (and largest) redwood tree and some of the city's early sulfur mines.

*Chabot Regional Park.* Small portions of this 5,000 acre regional park lie within Oakland's city limits. Trail maintenance, vegetation management (including maintenance of a ridgeline fire break), and habitat conservation are the major prescriptions for the Oakland portion of the park.

*Skyline High Field.* The athletic field provides the only spectator football field in the South Hills. Continued high levels of maintenance are recommended.

<!-- page 304 -->
Potential Resource Conservation Area

Improve visibility and access to trailheads

Potential Resource Conservation Area

Improve trail links from Knowland to Anthony Chabot Park

Conserve Peralta Creek Headwaters

Improve appearance of Merritt parking; possible site for active recreation

Improve trail connections

Add Ridgemont west slope to Leona Regional open space

Re-use vacated Chabot Observatory for educational purpose-maintain site as parkland

Implement Zoo Master Plan

Improve Knowland to Elmhurst connections

Clarify park borders to include surplus city land

Retain steep hillsides within Oak Knoll as open space. Retain creek corridor and pursue 10 acre community park in vicinity of Officer's Club and ballfields

Pursue park connection or easement between Dunsmuir Ridge and Knowland Park

### SAN LEANDRO

Potential Resource Conservation Area

Improve Sheffield Village to Lake Chabot connection

<<FIGURE>>

### Legend

| | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 1 | Hellman | 8 | Skyline Ranch |
| 2 | Pinto/Owens | 9 | Chabot Golf Course |
| 3 | Sheffield Village | 10 | Leona Open Space |
| 4 | Knowland | 11 | Leona Heights |
| 5 | Dunsmuir House | 12 | Anthony Chabot |
| 6 | Old Chabot Observatory | 13 | Skyline High |
| 7 | City Stables | | |

City of Oakland
Open Space, Conservation, & Recreation Element
## Figure 29: South Hills Major Recommendations
Source: Oakland Office of Planning and Building, 1995

<!-- page 305 -->
## AIRPORT

The Airport Planning Area encompasses 2,620 acres and has no permanent population. The area includes a large region-serving park, a municipal golf course, several resource conservation areas, and three athletic field parks. These areas encompass 263 acres of recreational lands and 52 acres of conservation lands.

The Planning Area is completely flat and consists primarily of landfill and wetlands. About three-quarters of the area consists of open space, mostly due to the large amount of open land around the airport.

Figure 30 summarizes open space and park recommendations.

### Open Space Recommendations

Access to most of the open space in the Airport Planning Area is restricted due to FAA regulations and operational requirements at Oakland Airport. However, the area does contain Martin Luther King Junior Regional Shoreline and Galbraith Golf Course, as well as a number of athletic fields. The area also contains most of Oakland's wetlands, including Arrowhead, Damon, and Fan Marshes, and large wetland areas within the airport boundaries.

The area is relatively close to Elmhurst and Central East Oakland, two areas with significant park deficiencies and limited access to the natural environment. As mentioned throughout the OSCAR Element, one of the challenges of the next two decades will be to improve access between these neighborhoods and the open spaces in the Airport Planning Area. To the extent permitted by law, specific recommendations are outlined below:

✓ Improve access to Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline, particularly the Curt Flood Field area near the end of 66th Avenue. Improvements could include a bike trail connection to the Coliseum neighborhoods in Central East Oakland, better signage and road improvements at Curt Flood Field, and transit access from the shoreline to nearby residential areas.

✓ Construct the Bay Trail along its adopted alignment through the Airport Planning Area. Construction should include an extension of the San Leandro Channel trail upstream to 98th Avenue (and possibly beyond), and a connection across Galbraith Golf Course to Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline. Trails along Elmhurst Slough in the Edgewater business park should be created as adjacent land develops.

✓ Protect Fan Marsh, possibly adding it to Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline.

✓ Encourage the Port to conserve the airport wetlands, but recognize that FAA concerns over bird strikes may restrict conservation activities.

✓ Explore new opportunities for passive recreation as the Airport Access Road is developed and the area around North Field is redeveloped. These might include landing/take-off viewing areas and dog walking/play areas. In addition, the existing North Field Aviation Museum should be encouraged to expand and be marketed to visitors.

✓ Create educational and ecological study opportunities in wetland areas, especially in locations like Fan Marsh which front on major thoroughfares (Doolittle Drive).

### Park Recommendations

The special characteristics of this Planning Area have resulted in unique parks unlike those found in most other parts of the city. Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline, by far the largest shoreline park in Oakland, is a regional recreation area drawing patrons from throughout the East Bay. The park includes a shoreline trail, picnic areas, fishing areas, and a number of undisturbed marshes. Other parks in the area make the most of sites which are otherwise constrained by their proximity to Oakland Airport.

Specific recommendations for Airport area parks are laid out below. OSCAR Technical Report Volume 2

<!-- page 306 -->
(Chapter 4) should be consulted for a comprehensive assessment of each park and more specific recommendations.

*Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline.* A new Land Use and Development Plan is needed for this region-serving park on San Leandro Bay. The EBRPD Plan has not been comprehensively updated since the park opened in 1979. The new Plan should look specifically at ways to make the park more useable to residents of Central East Oakland and Elmhurst. This could include additional recreational facilities on upland sites, interpretive nature facilities at the marshes, and access improvements (trails and bridges) within the park and between the park and nearby neighborhoods. Better visibility and access on the High Street side of the park could also improve its ability to serve San Antonio and Fruitvale.

A number of locations in the park are suitable for more intense use. These include the newly acquired area between East Creek Slough and the Tidewater Business Park as well as the Curt Flood Field area. The OSCAR Element provides guidance in the types of uses that would be appropriate on San Leandro Bay itself, and the ongoing management of the wetlands.

*Galbraith Golf Course.* The Golf Course will be closed for the next seven years to receive dredge spoils from the Oakland Estuary. The City and Port should work together in developing the design for a new 18-hole golf course on the site, taking advantage of the dredge materials to create a more challenging and attractive golf course.

*Fan Marsh.* This 7-acre wetland is currently within the Airport boundary. The site should be designated as a Resource Conservation Area and ultimately added to Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline.

*Galbraith Field.* This soccer field on Doolittle Drive has the potential for more intensive use. Its location in an non-residential area makes it a candidate site for night use, although lighting, bleacher, and parking improvements are needed first. Redesign of the golf course should include provisions to retain and upgrade the ballfield.

*Curt Flood Field.* Curt Flood requires access, signage, and parking improvements. While the facility is very close to underserved neighborhoods, it is very difficult to find and is underutilized.

*Airport Dike Path.* This small park within the boundaries of Oakland International Airport provides excellent views of departing aircraft and access to fishing and birdwatching areas.

<!-- page 307 -->
Extend King Shoreline Improvements to High St.

Improve pedestrian/bicycle connections/linkages to Coliseum & Central East Oakland

Continue slough trails

Improve pedestrian/bicycle connections to Elmhurst

<<FIGURE>>

Extend shoreline trail from Hegenberger to 98th

Monitor Galbraith dredge disposal and begin planning for golfcourse redesign

Connect Galbraith to Oyster Bay & San Leandro shoreline trail

Upgrade Curt Flood Field complex/improve signage & access

Conserve wetlands & water resources in San Leandro Bay

Protect Fan Marsh/incorporate in regional shoreline

Complete shoreline trail

Encourage Port to conserve Central wetlands

Legend

1 MLK Jr. Regional Shoreline
2 Galbraith Golf Course
3 Fan Marsh
4 Galbraith Field
5 Curt Flood Field
6 Airport Dike Path

City of Oakland
Open Space, Conservation, & Recreation Element
### Figure 30: Airport Major Recommendations

<!-- page 308 -->
# HARBOR

The Harbor Planning Area encompasses 2,345 acres and has no permanent civilian population. The area includes transient military population at the Oakland Army Base and Fleet Industrial Supply Center, but they are served by their own park and recreational facilities. Non-military recreational areas in the Harbor are limited to three small parks with a total area of about 6 acres.

Virtually the entire Harbor area was formerly marshland or open water. Over the years, the area was filled for transportation and military uses, usually with no provisions made for recreation or waterfront access. As the Port has redeveloped its marine terminals, a handful of new access points have been created.

Figure 31 summarizes open space and park recommendations.

### Open Space Recommendations

For the most part, the Harbor is a flat, sparsely vegetated area with very few natural features other than the Emeryville Crescent wetlands. The landscape is dominated by marine and trucking terminals, storage yards, military warehouses, and railyards. With more than 5 miles of shoreline and spectacular vistas of San Francisco and Oakland, the area offers some exciting park and open space opportunities. However, these opportunities must be balanced against the Harbor's key role in supporting local economic growth.

The Harbor will undergo major transitions during the next few decades. The new Cypress Freeway will be built along the eastern edge of the area. The Fleet Industrial Supply Center will be partially redeveloped, probably with port-related uses. The Army Base faces an uncertain future, but may also be a candidate for redevelopment. The railyards will be impacted by the Port's expansion plans. And ultimately, the older marine terminals may be replaced with new ones.

As this transition occurs, provisions should be made for new parks and public open spaces wherever feasible. Such uses can be designed to be compatible with, and even to enhance, the Port's economic development program in this area. Shoreline parks can reduce some of the parkland deficiency in nearby West and North Oakland and can create an amenity for all Oakland residents to enjoy. Specific opportunity sites are outlined in greater detail in the Shoreline and Creeks Section of OSCAR.

To the extent permitted by law, additional recommendations are outlined below:

√ Designate and maintain the Emeryville Crescent wetlands as a Resource Conservation Area.

√ Construct the Bay Trail and the spur trails along the adopted alignments through the Harbor area.

√ Improve the eastbound Bay Bridge "gateway" to Oakland, possibly with a landscaped vista point just beyond the Oakland anchorage.

√ Work with the Port of Oakland, the federal government, and the various Base Closure agencies to explore possibilities for shoreline access within the Fleet Industrial Supply Center. Possible use of the finger piers and boat basin for recreation should be explored.

√ Should the Army Base become available for re-use, work with the Port of Oakland in exploring opportunities for access.

√ Following redevelopment of the Fleet Industrial Supply Center, pursue development of a small historic shoreline park at the Union Point Mole (mouth of the Estuary).

√ Create stronger links between the waterfront and West Oakland, beginning with the Bay Trail.

√ Work with the Port of Oakland to establish visitor observation areas and promote public awareness of the economic importance of the Oakland shoreline.

<!-- page 309 -->
### Park Recommendations

The Harbor area's three parks provide sites for waterfront access, fishing, and picnicking. They lack active recreational facilities and are remote from residential areas. Specific recommendations for Harbor area parks are laid out below. OSCAR Technical Report Volume 2 (Chapter 4) should be consulted for a comprehensive assessment of each park and more specific recommendations.

*Portview (7th Street) Park.* This park was relocated and rebuilt following its closure after the 1989 Earthquake. The new park includes a 2,200-foot promenade as well as fishing and picnicking facilities and a maritime museum. Due to its remote location, it will require excellent directional signs, extensive public information, and regular security to ensure that it is used to its full potential.

*Radio Beach.* This beach on the north side of the Bay Bridge toll plaza would benefit from an identification sign. Increased activity at the site would be difficult to accommodate due to traffic and access constraints.

*Middle Harbor.* Maintenance, signage, graffiti abatement, and access improvements are needed. Located at the end of a dead-end street in a shipping and industrial area, the park is difficult to find. It would benefit from either a new location or clearer directional signs.

<!-- page 310 -->
<<FIGURE>>

City of Oakland
Open Space, Conservation, & Recreation Element
### Figure 31: Harbor Major Recommendations
Source: Oakland Office of Planning & Building, 1995

<!-- page 311 -->
# Appendix A

## Proposed Park Classification

<!-- page 312 -->
Park Classification

| REGION-SERVING PARKS | Area | Acreage | Current Zoning | Proposed Zoning | Comments |
| :--- | :--- | ---: | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Lakeside | Central | 75.00 | Unzoned | UP | |
| Joaquin Miller (part) | North Hills | 140.00 | Unz/ R-30 | UP | Balance of acreage is Resource Conservation |
| MLK, Jr. Regional Shoreline (part) | Airport | 81.00 | M-40 | -- | Balance of Acreage is Resource Conservation |
| Lake Temescal (part) | North Hills | 28.00 | R-30 | UP | Balance of Acreage is Resource Conservation |
| Redwood-Roberts | North Hills | 8.00 | R-30 | UP | Land in unincorporated area is excluded |
| | | | | | |
| TOTAL | | 332.00 | | | |

| COMMUNITY PARKS | Area | Acreage | Current Zoning | Proposed Zoning | Comments |
| :--- | :--- | ---: | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Mosswood | North Oakland | 11.00 | Unzoned | UP | |
| Bushrod | North Oakland | 10.12 | R-40 | UP | |
| DeFremery | West Oakland | 9.40 | R-60 | UP | |
| San Antonio | San Antonio | 11.62 | Unzoned | UP | |
| Brookdale | Fruitvale | 4.66 | Unzoned | UP | |
| Brookfield | Elmhurst | 14.00 | R-50 | UP | |
| Arroyo Viejo | Elmhurst | 18.75 | R-30 | UP | |
| Montclair | North Hills | 7.30 | R-30 | UP | |
| Dimond | Lower Hills | 14.31 | Unzoned | UP | |
| | | | | | |
| TOTAL | | 101.16 | | | |

<!-- page 313 -->
| NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS | Area | Acreage | Current Zoning | Proposed Zoning | Comments |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Golden Gate | North Oakland | 3.70 | R-40/C-30 | UP | |
| Grove Shafter III | North Oakland | 2.80 | C-40 | UP | |
| Hardy | North Oakland | 1.68 | R-60 | UP | |
| Lowell | West Oakland | 8.37 | R-60/R-70 | UP | |
| Poplar | West Oakland | 2.50 | R-36 | UP | |
| Grove Shafter I | West Oakland | 1.33 | C-40 | UP | |
| Wade Johnson | West Oakland | 2.64 | R-60 | UP | |
| Marston Campbell | West Oakland | 2.90 | R-70 | UP | |
| Willow Street | West Oakland | 0.90 | R-36 | UP | |
| Lincoln | Central | 1.38 | C-55/R-80 | UP | |
| Grove-Shafter II | Central | 1.33 | R-70 | UP | |
| Jefferson | Central | 1.51 | C-40 | UP | |
| Snow | Central | 4.14 | R-90 | UP | |
| Eastshore | Central | 6.70 | Unzoned | UP | |
| Clinton | San Antonio | 2.26 | R-80 | UP | |
| FM Smith | San Antonio | 1.66 | R-60 | UP | |
| Manzanita (Robinson) | San Antonio | 1.00 | R-50 | UP | |
| Central Reservoir | San Antonio | 3.59 | R-30 | UP | |
| Franklin | San Antonio | 2.05 | R-40 | UP | |
| William Wood | San Antonio | 5.15 | R-30 | UP | |
| Garfield | San Antonio | 2.56 | R-36 | UP | |
| Bella Vista | San Antonio | 1.03 | R-50 | UP | |
| Athol Plaza | San Antonio | 1.40 | Unzoned | UP | |
| Sanborn | Fruitvale | 1.91 | R-60 | UP | |
| Allendale | Fruitvale | 3.24 | R-50 | UP | |
| Foothill Meadows | Fruitvale | 1.60 | C-30/R-50 | UP | |
| Concordia | Central East | 3.06 | R-50 | UP | |
| Maxwell | Central East | 1.28 | R-30 | UP | |

<!-- page 314 -->
### Park Classification

| NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS (continued) | Area | Acreage | Current Zoning | Proposed Zoning | Comments |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Coliseum Gardens | Central East | 5.40 | M-30 | UP | |
| Rainbow | Central East | 2.44 | R-70/C-40 | UP | |
| Tassafaronga | Elmhurst | 2.50 | M-30 | UP | |
| Verdese Carter | Elmhurst | 3.36 | R-50 | UP | |
| Burkhalter | Elmhurst | 3.67 | R-30 | UP | |
| Elmhurst Plaza | Elmhurst | 2.75 | Unzoned | UP | |
| Columbian Gardens | Elmhurst | 1.60 | M-30 | UP | |
| Stonehurst | Elmhurst | 3.90 | R-30 | UP | |
| Sobrante | Elmhurst | 6.20 | R-30 | UP | |
| Redwood Heights | Lower Hills | 2.93 | R-30 | UP | |
| Avenue Terrace | Lower Hills | 0.93 | R-30 | UP | |
| Chabot | North Hills | 3.39 | R-30 | UP | |
| Shepherd Canyon (part) | North Hills | 4.00 | R-20/S-10 | UP | Balance of area in Linear Park and R/C areas |
| Pinto/ Owen Jones | South Hills | 3.38 | R-20 | UP | |
| Sheffield Village | South Hills | 1.34 | R-30 | UP | |
| Hellman | South Hills | 4.49 | R-30 | UP | |
| TOTAL | | 125.95 | | | |

<!-- page 315 -->
| ACTIVE MINI-PARKS | Area | Acreage | Current Zoning | Proposed Zoning | Comments |
| :--- | :--- | ---: | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Linden | North Oakland | 0.70 | M-20 | UP | |
| Bertha Port | West Oakland | 0.25 | R-36 | UP | |
| Chester Street | West Oakland | 0.13 | R-36 | UP | |
| Durant | West Oakland | 0.30 | R-36 | UP | |
| McClymonds | West Oakland | 0.21 | R-50 | UP | |
| 25th Street | West Oakland | 0.25 | C-30 | UP | |
| Oak Park | Central | 0.50 | R-50 | UP | |
| Morgan Plaza | San Antonio | 0.40 | R-50 | UP | |
| Kennedy Tract | Fruitvale | 0.49 | M-20 | UP | |
| Lazear | Fruitvale | 0.37 | M-20 | UP | |
| Foothill Meadows Annex | Fruitvale | 0.36 | R-50 | UP | |
| Nicol | Fruitvale | 0.23 | R-50 | UP | |
| Tyrone Carney | Elmhurst | 0.60 | M-20 | UP | |
| Eula M. Brinson | Elmhurst | 0.37 | R-40 | UP | |
| Holly | Elmhurst | 0.30 | R-30 | UP | |
| 88th Avenue | Elmhurst | 0.30 | R-30 | UP | |
| **TOTAL** | | 5.76 | | | |

| PASSIVE MINI-PARKS | Area | Acreage | Current Zoning | Proposed Zoning | Comments |
| :--- | :--- | ---: | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Colby | North Oakland | 0.36 | Unzoned | UP | |
| Park Blvd Plaza | San Antonio | 0.76 | R-60 | UP | |
| Vantage Point | San Antonio | 0.40 | R-50 | UP | |
| Mandana Plaza | Lower Hills | 0.43 | R-50 | UP | |
| Rockridge Blvd | North Hills | 0.24 | Unzoned | UP | |
| **TOTAL** | | 2.19 | | | |

<!-- page 316 -->
| RESOURCE CONSERVATION AREAS | Area | Acreage | Current Zoning | Proposed Zoning | Comments |
| :--- | :--- | ---: | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Glenn Daniel/ King Estate | Elmhurst | 75.00 | Unz/ R-30 | RCA | |
| Dimond Canyon | North Hills | 41.00 | R-30 | RCA | |
| Garber | North Hills | 13.00 | Unzoned | RCA | |
| Beaconsfield | North Hills | 5.00 | R-30 | RCA | |
| Claremont Canyon | North Hills | 227.00 | R-30/R-10 | RCA | |
| Huckleberry | North Hills | -- | -- | RCA | No acreage within City |
| Sibley | North Hills | 57.20 | R-10 | RCA | Portion within City only |
| Tilden | North Hills | 18.00 | R-10 | RCA | Portion within City only |
| Grizzly Peak | North Hills | 57.60 | R-10 | RCA | |
| Sulfur Springs | North Hills | 2.00 | R-30 | RCA | |
| Joaquin Miller (part) | North Hills | 280.00 | Unz/ R-30 | RCA | Balance counted as Region-Serving Park |
| Shepherd Canyon (part) | North Hills | 25.00 | R-20/S-10 | RCA | Balance counted as Linear Park/ Neighborhood Park |
| Lake Temescal (part) | North Hills | 20.00 | R-30 | RCA | Balance counted as Region-Serving Park |
| Leona Heights | South Hills | 50.00 | Unz/ R-30 | RCA | |
| Anthony Chabot | South Hills | 116.00 | R-30 | RCA | Portion within City only |
| Leona Open Space | South Hills | 293.00 | R-30 | RCA | |
| Knowland (part) | South Hills | 291.00 | R-30 | RCA | Balance counted as Special Use Park |
| MLK Jr Shoreline | Airport | 45.00 | M-40 | -- | Balance counted as Region-Serving Park |
| Fan Marsh | Airport | 7.00 | M-40 | -- | |
| TOTAL | | 1,622.80 | | | |

<!-- page 317 -->
| LINEAR PARKS | Area | Acreage | Current Zoning | Proposed Zoning | Comments |
| :--- | :--- | ---: | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Temescal Creek | North Oakland | 1.16 | R-40 | UP | |
| Glen Echo | North Oakland | 0.68 | R-70 | UP | |
| Channel | Central | 4.70 | S-2/S-4 | UP | |
| Oak Glen | Central | 3.00 | R-50 | UP | |
| Peralta | Central | 3.80 | S-2/S-4 | UP | |
| Jack London Waterfront | Central | -- | C-45 | -- | Trail only; acreage not available |
| Embarcadero Cove | San Antonio | 0.10 | M-40 | -- | |
| Fruitvale Bridge | Fruitvale | 0.10 | M-40 | -- | |
| Courtland Creek | Central East | -- | R-50 | UP | Under construction |
| Shepherd Canyon Bikeway | North Hills | 13.00 | R-20/S-10 | UP | |
| Ostrander | North Hills | 2.00 | Unzoned | UP | |
| Airport Dike Path | Airport | -- | M-40 | -- | |
| Portview | Harbor | 4.50 | M-40 | -- | |
| **TOTAL** | | **33.04** | | | |

| GOLF COURSES | Area | Acreage | Current Zoning | Proposed Zoning | Comments |
| :--- | :--- | ---: | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Montclair | North Hills | 10.00 | R-30 | UP | |
| Chabot | South Hills | 182.00 | Unzoned | UP | |
| Galbraith | Airport | 166.00 | M-40 | -- | |
| **TOTAL** | | **358.00** | | | |

<!-- page 318 -->
Park Classification

| ATHLETIC FIELDS | Area | Acreage | Current Zoning | Proposed Zoning | Comments |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Oakland Tech High | North Oakland | 4.00 | R-35 | R-35 | OUSD land |
| Raimondi | West Oakland | 10.02 | M-20 | UP |  |
| McClymonds High | West Oakland | 3.80 | R-50 | R-50 | OUSD land |
| Oakland High | San Antonio | 3.10 | R-50/R-70 | R-50/R-70 | OUSD land |
| Fruitvale School | Fruitvale | 3.00 | R-50 | R-50 | OUSD land |
| Greenman Field | Central East | 6.80 | R-50 | UP |  |
| Lions Field | Elmhurst | 2.80 | R-30 | R-30 | OUSD land |
| Castlemont High | Elmhurst | 4.80 | R-50 | R-50 | OUSD land |
| King Estate JHS | Elmhurst | 1.82 | R-30 | R-30 | OUSD land |
| North Oakland Sports | North Hills | 6.20 | R-10 | UP |  |
| Skyline High | South Hills | 5.30 | R-10 | R-10 | OUSD land |
| Curt Flood | Airport | 8.00 | M-40 | -- |  |
| Galbraith | Airport | 4.00 | M-40 | -- |  |
| TOTAL |  | 64.64 |  |  |  |

| SWIMMING POOLS | Area | Acreage | Current Zoning | Proposed Zoning | Comments |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Temescal | North Oakland | -- | R-35 | R-35 | Acreage counted under NORC |
| McClymonds | West Oakland | 0.50 | R-50 | R-50 | Estimate of acreage |
| DeFremery | West Oakland | -- | R-60 | UP | Acreage included in DeFremery Park |
| Live Oak | San Antonio | 0.52 | R-50 | R-50 | OUSD land |
| Fremont | Central East | 0.66 | C-30 | C-30 | OUSD land |
| Dimond | Lower Hills | -- | Unzoned | UP | Acreage included in Dimond Park |
| TOTAL |  | 1.68 |  |  |  |

<!-- page 319 -->
| SPECIAL USE PARKS | Area | Acreage | Current Zoning | Proposed Zoning | Comments |
| :--- | :--- | ---: | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| NORC (Studio 1/Pool) | North Oakland | 1.95 | R-35 | UP | |
| Estuary | Central | 6.60 | S-2/S-4 | UP | |
| Lafayette | Central | 1.36 | R-80/S-7 | UP/S-7 | |
| Madison | Central | 1.38 | R-80 | UP | |
| Harrison (Chinese Garden) | Central | 1.38 | C-40 | UP | |
| Adams | Central | 2.96 | Unzoned | UP | |
| Cleveland Cascade | San Antonio | 0.40 | R-80 | UP | |
| Pine Knoll | San Antonio | 1.15 | Unzoned/S-4 | UP | |
| Peralta Hacienda | Fruitvale | 2.24 | R-50 | UP | |
| McCrea | Lower Hills | 4.80 | Unzoned | UP | |
| Morcom Rose Garden | Lower Hills | 7.56 | R-35 | UP | |
| Davie Stadium | Lower Hills | 5.00 | R-30 | UP | |
| Chabot Observatory | South Hills | 6.00 | Unzoned | UP | |
| Knowland (part) | South Hills | 192.00 | R-30 | UP | Balance counted as R-C |
| Dunsmuir House | South Hills | 47.50 | S-3 | UP | |
| City Stables | South Hills | 7.33 | R-10 | UP | |
| Skyline Ranch | South Hills | -- | -- | -- | Outside city limits |
| Middle Harbor | Harbor | 1.00 | M-40 | -- | |
| Radio Beach | Harbor | 0.80 | M-40 | -- | |
| **TOTAL** | | **291.41** | | | |

<!-- page 320 -->
# Appendix B

## Implementation Matrix

<!-- page 321 -->
# APPENDIX B:
# IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX

The implementation matrix organizes the actions contained in the OSCAR Element in a manner which identifies the timing, level of funding, and responsible departments or agencies for each. The matrix should form the foundation for departmental or agency work assignments related to the OSCAR Element during the coming years.

There are 92 open space actions, 102 conservation actions, and 62 recreation actions contained in the Element. Implementing all 256 actions will be ambitious and will take many years to complete. The matrix identifies 43 of the actions as “first priority,” indicating they should receive highest priority as City departments prepare their work programs for the next few years.

The “Timing” column indicates whether an action should be implemented immediately, during the “short-term” (1-5 years), “mid-term” (5-10 years), or “long-term (5-15 years). Depending on the availability of funds, some mid-term or long-term actions could be accelerated. On the other hand, funding shortages and budget cuts could result in short-term tasks being postponed.

Implementation of many of the actions scheduled for different time periods will probably overlap. There are 30 actions identified as “immediate,” 56 actions identified as “short-term,” 58 actions identified as “mid-term,” and 30 actions identified as “long-term.” Other actions are listed as “on-going,” meaning they are already underway and should be continued throughout the Element’s implementation.

The “Responsible Departments and Agencies” column identifies City departments or other organizations with primary and secondary responsibilities for completing each action. Primary agencies are indicated with boldface print. Most of the actions will be implemented by the Office of Planning and Building and the Office of Parks and Recreation. The Comprehensive Planning Division of the Office of Planning and Building will have overall responsibility for coordinating the Action Program’s completion and for monitoring the progress of other organizations responsible for implementing specific actions.

The “Implementing Mechanism” column indicates the specific tool called for by the action. Typical mechanisms include ordinance revisions, formation of working groups, preparation of studies or reports, new programs, preparation of master plans, collection of additional data, and increased coordination between departments and/ or agencies.

The “Funding Level” column provides an order of magnitude estimate of the funding required to achieve the action. The column includes City of Oakland costs only, and does not include funds to be contributed by state or federal agencies, private grants, or other private sources. Most of the “Very High” funding items would require City outlays for capital improvements or ongoing programs (such as maintenance, storm drainage, fire prevention, and recreation).

The final column, “Impact on Achieving OSCAR goals,” indicates how critical the action is to the seven goals of the OSCAR Element. Pursuit of actions noted as “Very High” would move the City significantly closer to achieving an OSCAR goal.

The City Planning Commission (CPC) and Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC) should assist in implementation of the OSCAR Element and should be regularly apprised of the progress made. Periodic staff reports to each commission would indicate the status of various actions, along with any proposals to change priority rankings, timing, and responsible agency assignments. Such changes could be initiated by Staff, but would be subject to review and comment by the CPC or PRAC. Changes to the matrix would not require formal amendment of the OSCAR Element or any other Plan Elements.

<!-- page 322 -->
# IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX

| ACTION | TITLE | TIMING | RESPONSIBLE DEPTS./ AGENCIES | IMPLEMENTING MECHANISM | FUNDING LEVEL | IMPACT ON ACHIEVING OSCAR GOALS |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| OS-1.1.1 | Resource Conservation Designations (*) | Immed. | OPB | Gen. Plan Amend./ Ordinance Revision | Mod | Very High |
| OS-1.1.2 | Wildland Park Master Plans | On-going (LT) | OPR | Master Plan | High | Very High |
| OS-1.1.3 | Regional Park Land Use and Development Plans | On-going (LT) | Other (EBRPD), CC | Master Plan | Low | High |
| OS-1.1.4 | Creation of Open Space Advisory Committee | ST | OPR, OPB | Form Committee | Low | Low |
| OS-1.2.1 | Dunsmuir Ridge (*) | ST | OPR, Other | Budgeting | Very High | Very High |
| OS-1.2.2 | Other Potential Open Space Sites | ST | OPR, Outside | Budgeting | Very High | Very High |
| OS-1.2.3 | Expansion of Leona Open Space | MT/LT | OPR | Budgeting | High | Mod |
| OS-1.2.4 | Additional Resource Conservation Area Designations | MT/LT | OPB, OPR | Budgeting, General Plan Amend. | Very High | Very High |
| OS-1.2.5 | Conservation of Emeryville Crescent (*) | ST | OPR, Other (Port, State) | Coordination | Low | Very High |
| OS-1.2.6 | Management of Airport Wetlands | On-going | OPR, OPB, Other (Port) | Coordination | Low | Mod |
| OS-1.2.7 | Evaluation of City-Owned Real Estate | MT | OPW, OPB | Data Analysis | Low | Mod |
| OS-1.3.1 | Land Use Element Update | Immed. | OPB | Gen. Plan Update | N/A | Very High |
| OS-1.3.2 | Transfer of Development Rights | ST | OPB, Atty | Ordinance Revision | Low | Mod |
| OS-1.3.3 | Conservation Easements | ST | OPB, Atty | S.O.P. | Low | High |
| OS-1.3.4 | Hillside Design Guidelines | ST | OPB, OPW | Design Guidelines | Mod | High |
| OS-1.3.5 | Conservation of Unstable Parcels | On-going | OPB, OPW, OCIS | Data Collection/ Analysis | High | High |
| OS-1.3.6 | Panoramic Hill Specific Plan | LT | OPB | Specific Plan | High | Mod |
| OS-2.1.1 | Urban Park Designations (*) | Immed. | OPB, OPR | Gen Plan Amend./ Ordinance Revision | Mod | Very High |
| OS-2.2.1 | Schoolyard Enhancement Pilot Program | MT | OPR, Other (OUSD) | Budgeting, Joint CIP | High | High |
| OS-2.3.1 | Community Gardening Program (*) | On-going | OPR | Budgeting, Program | Mod | High |

LEGEND:   <u>TIMING:</u> Immed. = Within one yr.; ST = Short-Term (1-5 yrs); MT = Mid-Term (5-10 yrs); LT = Long-Term (5-15 years)
<u>RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES:</u> The primary responsible agency/ department is identified in boldface print. OPB (Office of Planning and Building); OPR (Office of Parks and Recreation); OPW (Office of Public Works); Atty (Office of the City Attorney); CMO (City Manager's Office); CC (City Council); OA (Office on Aging); OCIS (Office of Communication and Information Services); CEDE (Office of Economic Development and Employment); OHND (Office of Housing and Neighborhood Development); OPD (Oakland Police Department); OFD (Oakland Fire Department); MYR (Mayor's Office); FIN (Finance Office); OHA (Oakland Housing Authority); Other (EBRPD = East Bay Regional Park District; OUSD = Oakland Unified School District); PC (Peralta College District); EBMUD = East Bay Municipal Utility District; AC = Alameda County; LPAB = Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board; ACFC = Alameda County Flood Control; BCDC = Bay Conservation and Development Commission; ABAG = Association of Bay Area Governments).
<u>IMPLEMENTING MECHANISM:</u> = S.O.P. = Standard Operating Procedure (to be followed); A.I. = Administrative instruction (to be issued); COORDINATION = Maintain or establish on-going communication between departments or agencies; BUDGETING = Action requires budgeting of funds for capital improvement, acquisition, or program; WORKING GROUP = Establish interdepartmental working group or task force addressing a particular topic.
<u>FUNDING LEVEL:</u> In orders of magnitude, ranging from Low to Very High. Includes only direct cost of pursuing the action, not subsequent or indirect costs. N/A = Not applicable.
(*) An asterisk denotes a "First Priority" Action

<!-- page 323 -->
# Implementation Matrix

| ACTION | TITLE | TIMING | RESPONSIBLE DEPTS./ AGENCIES | IMPLEMENTING MECHANISM | FUNDING LEVEL | IMPACT ON ACHIEVING OSCAR GOALS |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| OS-2.3.2 | Development of School Gardens | ST | OPR, Other (OUSD) | Budegting, Program | Mod | Mod |
| OS-2.4.1 | Coalition of Oakland Land Trusts | MT | **OPR** | Form Committee | Low | Low |
| OS-2.5.1 | Use of City-Owned Sites | ST | **OPW**, OPR, OPB | Data Analysis | Low | Low |
| OS-2.5.2 | Use of Sales Proceeds for Park Development | ST | **OPW**, CMO, FIN | A.I. | Low | Mod |
| OS-2.5.3 | Use of Abandoned Gas Station Sites | LT | **OPB** | Data Analysis | Low | Low |
| OS-2.5.4 | Land Banking | MT | **OPB**, OPR, CMO, FIN | S.O.P. | Low | Mod |
| OS-3.1.1 | Conservation of UC Hill Property | MT | **OPB** | Coordination, Ordinance Revision | Low | Mod |
| OS-3.1.2 | Conservation of Peralta College Open Space | ST | **OPR**, CMO, CC, PC | Coordination | Low | High |
| OS-3.2.1 | Designation of Naval Hospital Open Space (*) | Immed. | **MYR**, OPB, Other | Coordination, Ordinance Revision | Low | High |
| OS-3.2.2 | Shoreline Access Provisions at Fleet Industrial Supply Center and Oakland Army Base | MT/LT | **OPB**, Other (Port, BCDC) | Coordination | Low | Very High |
| OS-3.3.1 | Private Open Space Designations | Immed. | **OPB** | Ordinance Revision | Mod | Low |
| OS-3.4.1 | Resource Conservation Zoning of Watersheds (*) | ST | **OPB**, Other (EBMUD) | Ordinance Revision | Low | Low |
| OS-3.4.2 | Joint Use of Tank Sites | MT | **OPR**, OPB, Other (EBMUD) | Coordination, Budgeting | Mod | Mod |
| OS-3.5.1 | Parking Lot Landscape Standards | MT | **OPB** | Design Standards | Mod | Low |
| OS-3.5.2 | Re-Use of Open Storage Areas | Immed. | **OPB** | Gen Plan Update | Low | Mod |
| OS-3.6.1 | Landscape Screening Along Freeways | On-going | **OPB** | S.O.P. | Low | Mod |
| OS-3.6.2 | Caldecott Canyon Open Space | ST/MT | **OPB**, OPR, Other (Caltrans) | Ordinance Revision | High | High |
| OS-3.6.3 | Freeway Buffers | MT | **OPB** | Program | Low | Mod |
| OS-4.1.1 | Changes to Useable Open Space Requirements | MT | **OPB** | Ordinance Revision | Mod | Mod |
| OS-4.1.2 | Design of Private Open Space | LT | **OPB** | Design Guidelines | Mod | Mod |

LEGEND:  <u>TIMING:</u> Immed. = Within one yr.; ST = Short-Term (1-5 yrs); MT = Mid-Term (5-10 yrs); LT = Long-Term (5-15 years)
<u>RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES:</u> The primary responsible agency/department is identified in boldface print. OPB (Office of Planning and Building); OPR (Office of Parks and Recreation); OPW (Office of Public Works); Atty (Office of the City Attorney); CMO (City Manager's Office); CC (City Council); OA (Office on Aging), OCIS (Office of Communication and Information Services); OEDE (Office of Economic Development and Employment); OHND (Office of Housing and Neighborhood Development); OPD (Oakland Police Department); OFD (Oakland Fire Department); MYR (Mayor's Office); FIN (Finance Office); OHA (Oakland Housing Authority); Other (EBRPD = East Bay Regional Park District; OUSD = Oakland Unified School District); PC (Peralta College District); EBMUD = East May Municipal Utility District; AC = Alameda County, LPAB = Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board; ACFC = Alameda County Flood Control; BCDC = Bay Conservation and Development Commission; ABAG = Association of Bay Area Governments).
<u>IMPLEMENTING MECHANISM:</u> S.O.P. = Standard Operating Procedure (to be followed); A.I. = Administrative Instruction (to be issued); COORDINATION = Maintain or establish on-going communication between departments or agencies; BUDGETING = Action requires budgeting of funds for capital improvement, acquisition, or program; WORKING GROUP = Establish interdepartmental working group or task force addressing a particular topic.
<u>FUNDING LEVEL:</u> In orders of magnitude, ranging from Low to Very High. Includes only direct cost of pursuing the action, not subsequent or indirect costs. N/A = Not applicable.
(*) An asterisk denotes a "First Priority" Action

<!-- page 324 -->
| ACTION | TITLE | TIMING | RESPONSIBLE DEPTS./ AGENCIES | IMPLEMENTING MECHANISM | FUNDING LEVEL | IMPACT ON ACHIEVING OSCAR GOALS |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| OS-4.2.1 | Lot Coverage Limits | MT | OPB | Ordinance Revision | Mod | Very High |
| OS-4.3.1 | Measures to Preserve Rural Character (*) | Immed. | OPB | Gen Plan Update | Mod | High |
| OS-4.4.1 | Changes to Blight Ordinance | LT | OHND, OPB | Ordinance Revision | Low | Mod |
| OS-5.1.1 | Trail Funding | MT | OPR, OPB, OPW, CMO | Committee | Low | Very High |
| OS-5.1.2 | Designation of Creek Trails | On-going | OPB, Atty | S.O.P | Low | High |
| OS-5.1.3 | Designation of Urban Trails | MT | OPB, OPW, OPR | Plan | Low | Mod |
| OS-5.1.4 | Trail Dedication in New Development | On-going | OPB, Atty | Practice | Mod | High |
| OS-5.1.5 | Park Trail Improvements | On-going | OPR, Other (EBPRD) | Coordination, Budgeting | Mod | Mod |
| OS-5.2.1 | Bancroft Parkway Improvements | MT | OPR, OPW, OPB | Budgeting | Mod | High |
| OS-5.2.2 | Mandela Parkway Improvements (*) | Immed. | OPR, OPB, OPW | Plan, Budgeting | High | Very High |
| OS-5.2.3 | PG&E Right-of-Way Joint Use | LT | OPR, OPB, Other (PG&E) | Coordination, Budgeting | Low | Mod |
| OS-5.2.4 | Traffic Islands and Median Enhancement | LT | OPR, OPW, OPB | Data Analysis, Plan | Mod | Mod |
| OS-5.3.1 | Preparation of Urban Trails Plan | LT | OPR, OPB | Master Plan | High | High |
| OS-5.3.2 | Preparation of Bicycle Trail Plan | Immed. | OPB, OPW | Gen Plan Update | N/A | High |
| OS-5.4.1 | Mid-Block Path Inventory | ST | OPW, OPB, OPR | Data Analysis, Plan | Mod | Mod |
| OS-6.1.1 | Communication with East Bay Regional Park District | On-going | OPR, OPB, Other (EBPRD) | Coordination | Low | High |
| OS-6.1.2 | Park District Acquisitions and Improvements in Oakland | On-going | OPR, CMO, CC | Coordination, Budgeting | Low | Very High |
| OS-6.1.3 | City/ Port Liaison | Immed. | OPB, Other (Port) | Coordination | Low | Mod |
| OS-7.1.1 | Coordinated Waterfront Planning (*) | Immed. | OPB, OEDE, Other (Port) | Continue Committee | Low | Very High |

LEGEND: <u>TIMING:</u> Immed. = Within one yr.; ST = Short-Term (1-5 yrs); MT = Mid-Term (5-10 yrs); LT = Long-Term (5-15 years)
<u>RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES:</u> The primary responsible agency/ department is identified in boldface print. OPB (Office of Planning and Building); OPR (Office of Parks and Recreation); OPW (Office of Public Works); Atty (Office of the City Attorney); CMO (City Manager's Office); CC (City Council); OA (Office on Aging); OCIS (Office of Communication and Information Services); OEDE (Office of Economic Development and Employment); OHND (Office of Housing and Neighborhood Development); OPD (Oakland Police Department); OFD (Oakland Fire Department); MYR (Mayor's Office); FIN (Finance Office); OHA (Oakland Housing Authority); Other (EBRPD = East Bay Regional Park District; OUSD = Oakland Unified School District); PC (Peralta College District); EBMUD = East May Municipal Utility District; AC = Alameda County; LPAB = Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board; ACFC = Alameda County Flood Control; BCDC = Bay Conservation and Development Commission; ABAG = Association of Bay Area Governments).
<u>IMPLEMENTING MECHANISM:</u> S.O.P. = Standard Operating Procedure (to be followed); A.I. = Administrative Instruction (to be issued); COORDINATION = Maintain or establish on-going communication between departments or agencies; BUDGETING = Action requires budgeting of funds for capital improvement, acquisition, or program; WORKING GROUP = Establish interdepartmental working group or task force addressing a particular topic.
<u>FUNDING LEVEL:</u> In orders of magnitude, ranging from Low to Very High. Includes only direct cost of pursuing the action, not subsequent or indirect costs. N/A = Not applicable.
(*) An asterisk denotes a "First Priority" Action

<!-- page 325 -->
# Implementation Matrix
## Oakland General Plan
### OSCAR Element

| ACTION | TITLE | TIMING | RESPONSIBLE DEPTS./ AGENCIES | IMPLEMENTING MECHANISM | FUNDING LEVEL | IMPACT ON ACHIEVING OSCAR GOALS |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| OS-7.2.1 | BCDC Access Requirements | On-going | OPB, OPR, Other (Port, BCDC) | S.O.P. | Low | High |
| OS-7.2.2 | Mitigation Banking Requirements (*) | ST | OPB, OPR, Atty | Form Committee | Low | High |
| OS-7.3.1 | Improvements to Bay Bridge Approach | LT | OPB, CMO, Other (Port) | Plan, Budgeting | Very High | High |
| OS-7.3.2 | Oakland Shoreline Curricula | On-going | OPR, Museum, Other (OUSD) | Program | Mod | High |
| OS-7.3.3 | Use of Plaques and Event Markers | On-going | OPR, Other (Port, LPAB) | Budgeting | Mod | Low |
| OS-7.3.4 | Promotion of Maritime Museum | Immed. | OPR, CMO, Other (Port) | Program | Low | Low |
| OS-7.4.1 | Potential New Park Areas | On-going | OPR, OPB, Other (Port, EBRPD) | Master Plan, Budgeting | Very High | Very High |
| OS-7.5.1 | Bay Trail Construction (*) | Immed./ On-going | OPR, OPW, OPB, Other (Port, EBRPD, ABAG) | Working Group, Budgeting | High | Very High |
| OS-7.5.2 | Improvements to Broadway Underpass | MT | OEDE, OPW, OPB, MYR | Working group, Budgeting | Low | Mod |
| OS-7.5.3 | Improvements to Lake Merritt Trail | MT | OPR | Master Plan, Budgeting | High | Mod |
| OS-7.5.4 | Improvements to 16th and 66th Avenue Overcrossings (*) | ST | OPR, OPW, Other (Caltrans) | Working Group, Budgeting | High | High |
| OS-8.1.1 | Flood Control Easement Joint Use | MT | OPR, OPW, OPB, Other (ACFC) | Working Group, Budgeting | Low | High |
| OS-8.1.2 | Mitigation of Access Conflicts | MT | OPB, OPW, Other (ACFC) | Master Plan | Low | Low |
| OS-8.2.1 | Pilot Creek Daylighting Projects | ST | OPR, OPB, OPW, Other (ACFC) | Working Group, Budgeting | Mod | High |
| OS-8.2.2 | Interdepartmental/ Interagency Coordination | On-going | OPW, OPR, OHND, Other (ACFC) | Coordination | Low | Mod |

LEGEND:  <u>TIMING:</u> Immed. = Within one yr.; ST = Short-Term (1-5 yrs); MT = Mid-Term (5-10 yrs); LT = Long-Term (5-15 years)
<u>RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES:</u> The primary responsible agency/department is identified in boldface print. OPB (Office of Planning and Building); OPR (Office of Parks and Recreation); OPW (Office of Public Works); Atty (Office of the City Attorney); CMO (City Manager's Office); CC (City Council); OA (Office on Aging); OCIS (Office of Communication and Information Services); OEDE (Office of Economic Development and Employment); OHND (Office of Housing and Neighborhood Development); OPD (Oakland Police Department); OFD (Oakland Fire Department); MYR (Mayor's Office); FIN (Finance Office); OHA (Oakland Housing Authority); Other (EBRPD = East Bay Regional Park District; OUSD = Oakland Unified School District); PC (Peralta College District); EBMUD = East Bay Municipal Utility District; AC = Alameda County; LPAB = Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board; ACFC = Alameda County Flood Control; BCDC = Bay Conservation and Development Commission; ABAG = Association of Bay Area Governments).
<u>IMPLEMENTING MECHANISM:</u> = S.O.P. = Standard Operating Procedure (to be followed); A.I. = Administrative Instruction (to be issued); COORDINATION = Maintain or establish on-going communication between departments or agencies; BUDGETING = Action requires budgeting of funds for capital improvement, acquisition, or program; WORKING GROUP = Establish interdepartmental working group or task force addressing a particular topic.
<u>FUNDING LEVEL:</u> In orders of magnitude, ranging from Low to Very High. Includes only direct cost of pursuing the action, not subsequent or indirect costs. N/A = Not applicable.
(*) An asterisk denotes a "First Priority" Action

<!-- page 326 -->
| ACTION | TITLE | TIMING | RESPONSIBLE DEPTS./ AGENCIES | IMPLEMENTING MECHANISM | FUNDING LEVEL | IMPACT ON ACHIEVING OSCAR GOALS |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| OS-9.1.1 | Update of Land Use and Transportation Elements(*) | ST | **OPB** | Gen Plan Update | N/A | Very High |
| OS-9.3.1 | Improvement of Airport Gateway | MT | **OEDE**, OPB, OPR, Other (Port) | Working Group Budgeting | High | Mod |
| OS-10.2.1 | Visual Analysis for New Development | On-going | **OPB** | S.O.P. | Low | Mod |
| OS-10.2.2 | Preparation of Urban Appearance Element | LT | **OPB** | Gen Plan Update | Mod | High |
| OS-11.1.1 | Preparation of Downtown Open Space Plan | LT | **OPB**, OEDE, OPR | Master Plan | High | High |
| OS-11.1.2 | Downtown Open Space Requirements and Bonuses | LT | **OPB**, OEDE | Ordinance Revision | Low | Mod |
| OS-11.2.1 | Development of Fruitvale BART Plaza | MT | **OEDE**, OPB, Other (BART) | Budgeting | High | Low |
| OS-11.2.2 | Urban Plaza Design Guidelines | MT | **OPB**, OEDE | Design Guidelines | Mod | Low |
| OS-11.3.1 | Expanded Private Role in Providing Public Art | MT | **CMO**(Cult. Arts Div.), OPB | Ordinance Revision | Low | Low |
| OS-11.4.1 | Siting Guidelines for Public Art | LT | **OPB**, CMO (Cult. Arts Div.) | Design Guidelines | Low | Low |
| OS-12.1.1 | Adoption of Street Tree Plan (*) | ST | **OPR**, OPB, OPW | Master Plan | Mod | Very High |
| OS-12.1.2 | Priorities for Tree Planting | ST, MT | **OPR**, OPB, OPW | Master Plan, Budgeting | High | Mod |
| OS-12.1.3 | Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Membership Change | Immed. | **CMO**, MYR, OPR | Ordinance | Low | High |
| OS-12.1.4 | New Funding Sources for Maintenance | ST | **CMO**, OPR, FIN | Study | Low | High |
| OS-12.1.5 | Review of Approved Street Tree Lists | On-going | **OPR**, OPB | Master Plan | Low | High |
| OS-12.2.1 | Adoption of Maintenance Specifications | ST | **OPR** | Specifications | Low | High |
| OS-12.2.2 | Five-Year Maintenance Cycle | On-going | **OPR** | S.O.P., Budgeting | Very High | Mod |
| OS-12.3.1 | Specifications for Sidewalk, Curb, and Gutter Repair | MT | **OPW**, OPR, OPB | Specifications | Low | High |

LEGEND: TIMING: Immed. = Within one yr.; ST = Short-Term (1-5 yrs); MT = Mid-Term (5-10 yrs); LT = Long-Term (5-15 years)
RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES: The primary responsible agency/department is identified in boldface print. OPB (Office of Planning and Building); OPR (Office of Parks and Recreation); OPW (Office of Public Works); Atty (Office of the City Attorney); CMO (City Manager's Office); CC (City Council); OA (Office on Aging); OCIS (Office of Communication and Information Services); OEDE (Office of Economic Development and Employment); OHND (Office of Housing and Neighborhood Development); OPD (Oakland Police Department); OFD (Oakland Fire Department); MYR (Mayor's Office); FIN (Finance Office); OHA (Oakland Housing Authority); Other (EBRPD = East Bay Regional Park District; OUSD = Oakland Unified School District); PC (Peralta College District); EBMUD = East Bay Municipal Utility District; AC = Alameda County; LPAB = Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board; ACFC = Alameda County Flood Control; BCDC = Bay Conservation and Development Commission; ABAG = Association of Bay Area Governments).
IMPLEMENTING MECHANISM: S.O.P. = Standard Operating Procedure (to be followed); A.I. = Administrative Instruction (to be issued); COORDINATION = Maintain or establish on-going communication between departments or agencies; BUDGETING = Action requires budgeting of funds for capital improvement, acquisition, or program; WORKING GROUP = Establish interdepartmental working group or task force addressing a particular topic.
FUNDING LEVEL: In orders of magnitude, ranging from Low to Very High. Includes only direct cost of pursuing the action, not subsequent or indirect costs. N/A = Not applicable.
(*) An asterisk denotes a "First Priority" Action

<!-- page 327 -->
# Implementation Matrix

| ACTION | TITLE | TIMING | RESPONSIBLE DEPTS./ AGENCIES | IMPLEMENTING MECHANISM | FUNDING LEVEL | IMPACT ON ACHIEVING OSCAR GOALS |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| CO-1.1.1 | Soil-related Development Controls | On-going | OPW, OPB | S.O.P. | Low | Low |
| CO-1.1.2 | Public Education on Soil Conservation | On-going | OPW, Other (AC) | Coordination | Low | Low |
| CO-1.1.3 | Consideration of Soil Constraints in Development | On-going | OPB, OPW | S.O.P. | Low | Low |
| CO-1.2.1 | Further Study of Soil Contamination | MT | OPB, Other (AC) | Data Analysis | High | Low |
| CO-1.2.2 | Monitoring of Dredge Spoils Disposal | Immed. | OPW, OFD, Other (Port) | S.O.P. | Mod | Mod |
| CO-2.1.1 | Ordinance Evaluation and Public Information | MT | OPW, OPB | Ordinance Revision | Mod | Mod |
| CO-2.1.2 | Graded Slope and Retaining Wall Maintenance | On-going | OPB | S.O.P. | Low | Mod |
| CO-2.2.1 | Geo-technical Study Requirements | On-going | OPB | S.O.P. | Low | Mod |
| CO-2.2.2 | Land Stability Data Base | ST/ On-going | OCIS, OPW, OPW, OFD | Data Analysis | High | High |
| CO-2.4.1 | Update of Grading Ordinance | MT | OPW, OPB | Ordinance Revision | Low | Low |
| CO-2.4.2 | Preparation of Grading Guidelines | LT | OPB | Guidelines | Low | Mod |
| CO-3.2.1 | Mitigation of Quarry Impacts | On-going | OPB | S.O.P. | Low | Mod |
| CO-3.2.2 | Update of Land Use and Transportation Elements | Immed. | OPB | Gen Plan Update | N/A | Low |
| CO-3.2.3 | Sulfur Mine Clean-Up | MT | OPW, Other (EBRPD) (EBRPD) | Working Group, Budgeting | High | High |
| CO-4.1.1 | Implementation of Urban Water Management Plan (*) | Immed./ On-going | CMO, OPW | A.I.'s | Mod | High |
| CO-4.1.2 | Public Education on Water Conservation | On-going | OPW, OPR, MYR, Museum | Coordination | Low | Mod |
| CO-4.2.1 | Adoption of Water-Efficient Landscape Ordinance (*) | Immed. | OPB | Ordinance | Low | High |
| CO-4.3.1 | Support for East Bay Municipal Utility District Reclamation Programs | MT/ On-going | OPW | Coordination | Low | High |
| CO-4.3.2 | Reclaimed Wastewater Requirements | LT | OPW, Atty, OPR, OPB | Working Group Ordinance Revision | Very High | Mod |

LEGEND: TIMING: Immed. = Within one yr.; ST = Short-Term (1-5 yrs); MT = Mid-Term (5-10 yrs); LT = Long-Term (5-15 years)
RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES: The primary responsible agency/department is identified in boldface print. OPB (Office of Planning and Building); OPR (Office of Parks and Recreation); OPW (Office of Public Works); Atty (Office of the City Attorney); CMO (City Manager's Office); CC (City Council); OA (Office on Aging), OCIS (Office of Communication and Information Services); OEDE (Office of Economic Development and Employment); OHND (Office of Housing and Neighborhood Development); OPD (Oakland Police Department); OFD (Oakland Fire Department); MYR (Mayor's Office); FIN (Finance Office); OHA (Oakland Housing Authority); Other (EBRPD = East Bay Regional Park District; OUSD = Oakland Unified School District); PC (Peralta College District); EBMUD = East Bay Municipal Utility District; AC = Alameda County; LPAB = Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board; ACFC = Alameda County Flood Control; BCDC = Bay Conservation and Development Commission; ABAG = Association of Bay Area Governments).
IMPLEMENTING MECHANISM: S.O.P. = Standard Operating Procedure (to be followed); A.I. = Administrative instruction (to be issued); COORDINATION = Maintain or establish on-going communication between departments or agencies; BUDGETING = Action requires budgeting of funds for capital improvement, acquisition, or program; WORKING GROUP = Establish interdepartmental working group or task force addressing a particular topic.
FUNDING LEVEL: In orders of magnitude, ranging from Low to Very High. Includes only direct cost of pursuing the action, not subsequent or indirect costs. N/A = Not applicable.
(*) An asterisk denotes a "First Priority" Action

<!-- page 328 -->
| ACTION | TITLE | TIMING | RESPONSIBLE DEPTS./ AGENCIES | IMPLEMENTING MECHANISM | FUNDING LEVEL | IMPACT ON ACHIEVING OSCAR GOALS |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| CO-4.4.1 | Review of Large Development Proposals | ST/ On-going | OPB, CC | S.O.P. | Low | High |
| CO-5.1.1 | Consideration of Impervious Surface Limits | LT | OPB | Ordinance Revision | Mod | Mod |
| CO-5.1.2 | Stormwater Dispersion Methods | LT | OPW, OPB, Other (AC) | S.O.P., Guidelines | Low | Mod |
| CO-5.3.1 | Pre-Treatment of Runoff | LT | OPW | Plan, Budgeting | Very High | High |
| CO-5.3.2 | Storm Drain Maintenance | MT/ On-going | OPW | Program, Budgeting | High | Mod |
| CO-5.3.3 | Litter and Debris Removal | On-going | OPW, Other (AC) | Program, Budgeting | Mod | Low |
| CO-5.3.4 | Street Sweeping Improvements | MT | OPW | Plan, Budgeting | Low | Low |
| CO-5.3.5 | Mitigation of Road Construction and Dredging Impacts | ST/ On-going | OPB | S.O.P. | Low | Low |
| CO-5.3.6 | Hazardous Spills Prevention | MT/ On-going | OFD, OPW | Plan Update | Low | Mod |
| CO-5.3.7 | Clean-up of Estuary Hot Spots | LT/ On-going | OFD, OPW, Other (Port) | Working Group, Budgeting | Very High | High |
| CO-5.3.8 | Litter Law Enforcement | ST/ On-going | OPD, Atty | S.O.P. | Mod | Low |
| CO-5.3.9 | Public Education on Urban Runoff Hazards (*) | ST/ On-going | OPW, Other (AC) | Coordination | Low | Mod |
| CO-5.3.10 | Lake Merritt Catch Basins and Trash Receptacles | LT | OPR, OPW | Budgeting | High | Mod |
| CO-5.3.11 | Improved Sewage Collection and Treatment | On-going | OPW, Other (EBMUD) | Budgeting | Very High | High |
| CO-5.3.12 | Intergovernmental Coordination | On-going | OPW, CMO, Other (AC) | Coordination | Low | High |
| CO-5.4.1 | Runoff from Horse Boarding Facilities | MT | OPW | Program | Low | Low |
| CO-5.4.2 | Urban Runoff in Reservoir Watersheds | MT | OPB, Atty | Ordinance Revision | Mod | Mod |
| CO-6.1.1 | Preparation of Creeks Master Plan (*) | MT | OPB, OPR, OPW, Other (ACFC) | Master Plan | High | Very High |

LEGEND:
<u>TIMING</u>: Immed. = Within one yr.; ST = Short-Term (1-5 yrs); MT = Mid-Term (5-10 yrs); LT = Long-Term (5-15 years)
<u>RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES</u>: The primary responsible agency/department is identified in boldface print. OPB (Office of Planning and Building); OPR (Office of Parks and Recreation); OPW (Office of Public Works); Atty (Office of the City Attorney); CMO (City Manager's Office); CC (City Council); OA (Office on Aging); OCIS (Office of Communication and Information Services); OEDE (Office of Economic Development and Employment); OHND (Office of Housing and Neighborhood Development); OPD (Oakland Police Department); OFD (Oakland Fire Department); MYR (Mayor's Office); FIN (Finance Office); OHA (Oakland Housing Authority); Other (EBRPD = East Bay Regional Park District; OUSD = Oakland Unified School District); PC (Peralta College District); EBMUD = East May Municipal Utility District; AC = Alameda County; LPAB = Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board; ACFC = Alameda County Flood Control; BCDC = Bay Conservation and Development Commission; ABAG = Association of Bay Area Governments).
<u>IMPLEMENTING MECHANISM</u>: = S.O.P. = Standard Operating Procedure (to be followed); A.I. = Administrative Instruction (to be issued); COORDINATION = Maintain or establish on-going communication between departments or agencies; BUDGETING = Action requires budgeting of funds for capital improvement, acquisition, or program; WORKING GROUP = Establish interdepartmental working group or task force addressing a particular topic.
<u>FUNDING LEVEL</u>: In orders of magnitude, ranging from Low to Very High. Includes only direct cost of pursuing the action, not subsequent or indirect costs. N/A = Not applicable.
(*) An asterisk denotes a "First Priority" Action

<!-- page 329 -->
### Implementation Matrix

| ACTION | TITLE | TIMING | RESPONSIBLE DEPTS./ AGENCIES | IMPLEMENTING MECHANISM | FUNDING LEVEL | IMPACT ON ACHIEVING OSCAR GOALS |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| CO-6.1.2 | Improvements to Watercourse Protection Ordinance (*) | Immed. | OPW, OPB, Other (ACFC) | Ordinance Revision | Low | High |
| CO-6.1.3 | Flood Control Design Guidelines | LT | OPW, OPB, Other (ACFC) | Working Group, Design Guidelines | Low | Mod |
| CO-6.1.4 | Changes to Environmental Review | Immed. | OPB | Program | Low | Mod |
| CO-6.2.1 | Community Creek Clean-ups | On-going | MYR, OPW | Program | Low | Mod |
| CO-6.2.2 | Increased Penalties for Dumping | ST | OPW, OPD, Atty | Ordinance Revision | Low | Low |
| CO-6.2.3 | New Funding Sources for Maintenance (*) | On-going | CMO, OPW | Budgeting | High | Mod |
| CO-6.3.1 | Participation in Kids in Creeks Program | On-going | OPW, OPB, Other (OUSD) | Program | Low | Mod |
| CO-6.3.2 | Flyer for Creekfront Landowners | LT | OPB, OPW, Other (ACFC) | Flyer | Low | Mod |
| CO-6.4.1 | Lake Merritt Parks Master Plan (*) | ST | OPR, OPB | Master Plan | Mod | High |
| CO-6.4.2 | Lake Temescal Dredging | On-going | OPW, OPB | S.O.P. | Low | Mod |
| CO-6.5.1 | Assistance on Long-Term Dredging Strategy | On-going | OPW, Other (Port) | Coordination | Low | Mod |
| CO-6.5.2 | Zoning of San Leandro Bay | MT | OPB | Ordinance Revision | Low | Low |
| CO-6.5.3 | Update of MLK Jr. Shoreline Master Plan | ST | OPR, Other (EBRPD) | Master Plan | Mod | Mod |
| CO-6.5.4 | Alternatives to 66th Avenue Bridge | On-going | OPW, CC, OPB, Other (CMA, Caltrans) | Working Group | Low | High |
| CO-6.6.1 | Land Use Diagram Change | Immed. | OPB | Gen Plan Update | N/A | Low |
| CO-6.6.2 | MacArthur Maze Modifications | On-going | OPB, OPW, Other (Caltrans) | Coordination | Low | High |
| CO-7.1.1 | Native Plant Mapping | MT | OPR, OPB, Other | Data Collection | Mod | High |
| CO-7.1.2 | Development of Standardized Mitigation Measures | MT | OPB | S.O.P. | Mod | High |
| CO-7.1.3 | Use of Conservation Easements | On-going | OPB | S.O.P. | Low | Mod |
| CO-7.1.4 | Riparian Setbacks | MT | OPB | Ordinance Revision | Low | Mod |

LEGEND:   <u>TIMING:</u> Immed. = Within one yr.; ST = Short-Term (1-5 yrs); MT = Mid-Term (5-10 yrs); LT = Long-Term (5-15 years)
<u>RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES:</u> The primary responsible agency/department is identified in boldface print. OPB (Office of Planning and Building); OPR (Office of Parks and Recreation); OPW (Office of Public Works); Atty (Office of the City Attorney); CMO (City Manager's Office); CC (City Council); OA (Office on Aging), OCIS (Office of Communication and Information Services); OEDE (Office of Economic Development and Employment); OHND (Office of Housing and Neighborhood Development); OPD (Oakland Police Department); OFD (Oakland Fire Department); MYR (Mayor's Office); FIN (Finance Office); OHA (Oakland Housing Authority); Other (EBRPD = East Bay Regional Park District; OUSD = Oakland Unified School District); PC (Peralta College District); EBMUD = East May Municipal Utility District; AC = Alameda County; LPAB = Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board; ACFC = Alameda County Flood Control; BCDC = Bay Conservation and Development Commission; ABAG = Association of Bay Area Governments).
<u>IMPLEMENTING MECHANISM:</u> S.O.P. = Standard Operating Procedure (to be followed); A.I. = Administrative Instruction (to be issued); COORDINATION = Maintain or establish on-going communication between departments or agencies; BUDGETING = Action requires budgeting of funds for capital improvement, acquisition, or program; WORKING GROUP = Establish interdepartmental working group or task force addressing a particular topic.
<u>FUNDING LEVEL:</u> In orders of magnitude, ranging from Low to Very High. Includes only direct cost of pursuing the action, not subsequent or indirect costs. N/A = Not applicable.
(*) An asterisk denotes a "First Priority" Action

<!-- page 330 -->
| ACTION | TITLE | TIMING | RESPONSIBLE DEPTS./ AGENCIES | IMPLEMENTING MECHANISM | FUNDING LEVEL | IMPACT ON ACHIEVING OSCAR GOALS |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| CO-7.2.1 | Consideration of Landscape Guidelines | ST | OPB, OPR, OFD | Design Guidelines | Low | Mod |
| CO-7.2.2 | Control of Invasive Species | On-going | OPR, OFD | S.O.P. | Mod | Mod |
| CO-7.3.1 | Preparation of Residential Design Guidelines | MT | OPB | Design Guidelines | Mod | High |
| CO-7.3.2 | Maintenance Agreements | On-going | OPB | S.O.P. | Low | Low |
| CO-7.6.1 | Long-Term Tree Replacement Plan and Firestorm Revegetation | MT | OPR, OPB | Plan | Low | High |
| CO-7.6.2 | Support for Conservation Corps | On-going | OPR | S.O.P. | Low | Mod |
| CO-8.1.1 | Mitigation Planning and Monitoring | On-going | OPB, Other (Port) | S.O.P. | Mod | High |
| CO-8.1.2 | Maintenance of Wetland Buffers | MT | OPB, Other (Port) | S.O.P. | Low | Mod |
| CO-8.2.1 | Wetland Access Limitations | On-going | OPR, Other (EBRPD) | S.O.P. | Low | Mod |
| CO-9.1.1 | Development of Standardized Mitigation Measures | MT | OPB | S.O.P. | Mod | Mod |
| CO-9.1.2 | Preparation of Pre-Development Surveys | On-going | OPB | S.O.P. | Mod | Mod |
| CO-9.1.3 | Preparation of Habitat Conservation Plan | LT | OPR, OPB, Other (AC, EBRPD, UCB, EBMUD, cities) | Master Plan Working Group | High | High |
| CO-9.1.4 | Recreational Use Limitations | On-going | OPR, Other (EBRPD) | S.O.P. | Low | Mod |
| CO-10.1.1 | Implementation of Vegetation Management Plan (*) | Immed. | OFD, OPR | Program | High | Very High |
| CO-10.2.1 | Development of Fire-Resistant Landscape Guidelines | ST | OPB, OFD | Design Guidelines | Low | Mod |
| CO-10.2.2 | Public Education on Fire Suppression | On-going | OFD | Program | Mod | High |
| CO-11.1.1 | Wildlife Survey Requirements | On-going | OPR, OFD | S.O.P. | Mod | Low |
| CO-11.1.2 | Leash Law Enforcement | On-going | OPD, Other (EBRPD) | S.O.P. | Low | Low |

LEGEND:
<u>TIMING</u>: Immed. = Within one yr.; ST = Short-Term (1-5 yrs); MT = Mid-Term (5-10 yrs); LT = Long-Term (5-15 years)
<u>RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES</u>: The primary responsible agency/ department is identified in boldface print. OPB (Office of Planning and Building); OPR (Office of Parks and Recreation); OPW (Office of Public Works); Atty (Office of the City Attorney); CMO (City Manager's Office); CC (City Council); OA (Office on Aging), OCIS (Office of Communication and Information Services); OEDE (Office of Economic Development and Employment); OHND (Office of Housing and Neighborhood Development); OPD (Oakland Police Department); OFD (Oakland Fire Department); MYR (Mayor's Office); FIN (Finance Office); OHA (Oakland Housing Authority); Other (EBRPD = East Bay Regional Park District; OUSD = Oakland Unified School District); PC (Peralta College District); EBMUD = East May Municipal Utility District; AC = Alameda County; LPAB = Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board; ACFC = Alameda County Flood Control; BCDC = Bay Conservation and Development Commission; ABAG = Association of Bay Area Governments).
<u>IMPLEMENTING MECHANISM</u>: S.O.P. = Standard Operating Procedure (to be followed); A.I. = Administrative Instruction (to be issued); COORDINATION = Maintain or establish on-going communication between departments or agencies; BUDGETING = Action requires budgeting of funds for capital improvement, acquisition, or program; WORKING GROUP = Establish interdepartmental working group or task force addressing a particular topic.
<u>FUNDING LEVEL</u>: In orders of magnitude, ranging from Low to Very High. Includes only direct cost of pursuing the action, not subsequent or indirect costs. N/A = Not applicable.
(*) An asterisk denotes a "First Priority" Action

<!-- page 331 -->
# Implementation Matrix

| ACTION | TITLE | TIMING | RESPONSIBLE DEPTS./ AGENCIES | IMPLEMENTING MECHANISM | FUNDING LEVEL | IMPACT ON ACHIEVING OSCAR GOALS |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| CO-11.2.1 | Wildlife Corridor Designations | LT | OPB | S.O.P. | High | High |
| CO-11.2.2 | Guidelines for Habitat Protection | LT | OPB, OPR | Design Guidelines | Low | Mod |
| CO-12.1.1 | Land Use Element Update | Immed. | OPB | Gen. Plan Update | N/A | Very High |
| CO-12.2.1 | Transportation Element Update | Immed. | OPB | Gen. Plan Update | N/A | Very High |
| CO-12.2.2 | Use of Non-Gasoline Powered Vehicles | On-going | CMO | Budgeting | Mod | Low |
| CO-12.2.3 | Improved Bicycle and Pedestrian Systems | On-going | OPB, OPW | Budgeting | High | High |
| CO-12.3.1 | Trip Reduction Measures | Immed. | OPW, OPB | Program | Mod | High |
| CO-12.4.1 | Design Guidelines Promoting Air Quality Improvements | LT | OPB | Design Guidelines | Mod | Low |
| CO-12.6.1 | Grading Ordinance Review | On-going | OPB, OPW | Ordinance Revision | Low | Low |
| CO-12.7.1 | Public Education on Air Quality | ST/ On-going | OPW, Other (BAAQMD) | Program | Mod | High |
| CO-12.7.2 | Monitoring of NOx, SO2, and PM10 | ST | CC, OPB, OPW, Other (BAAQMD) | Data Request | Low | Low |
| CO-12.7.3 | Spot Monitoring of Air Quality Impacts | ST/ On-going | OPB, OPW, CC | Data Request | Mod | Mod |
| CO-12.7.4 | Staff Liaison to Bay Area Air Quality Management District | ST | OPB | Periodic Reports | Mod | Low |
| CO-12.7.5 | Air Quality Element | LT | OPB | Gen. Plan Update | Mod | Mod |
| CO-13.1.1 | Staff Liaisons to PG&E | ST | OEDE, OPW | Coordination | Low | Low |
| CO-13.2.1 | Funding for Conservation and Efficiency Programs | On-going | OHND, OPB, OPW | A.I. | Low | Mod |
| CO-13.3.1 | Codes, Regulations, and Procedures Supporting Energy Conservation | On-going | OPB | S.O.P. | Low | High |
| CO-13.3.2 | Distribution of "Retrofit Right" | On-going | OPB | Budgeting | Low | Low |
| CO-13.3.3 | Additional Measures | LT | OPB | Guidelines | Mod | Mod |
| CO-13.4.1 | Elimination of Regulatory Obstacles | MT | OPB | Study/ Ordinance Revisions | Low | Mod |

LEGEND: **TIMING**: Immed. = Within one yr.; ST = Short-Term (1-5 yrs); MT = Mid-Term (5-10 yrs); LT = Long-Term (5-15 years)
**RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES**: The primary responsible agency/ department is identified in boldface print. OPB (Office of Planning and Building); OPR (Office of Parks and Recreation); OPW (Office of Public Works); Atty (Office of the City Attorney); CMO (City Manager's Office); CC (City Council); OA (Office on Aging), OCIS (Office of Communication and Information Services); OEDE (Office of Economic Development and Employment); OHND (Office of Housing and Neighborhood Development); OPD (Oakland Police Department); OFD (Oakland Fire Department); MYR (Mayor's Office); FIN (Finance Office); OHA (Oakland Housing Authority); Other (EBRPD = East Bay Regional Park District; OUSD = Oakland Unified School District); PC (Peralta College District); EBMUD = East Bay Municipal Utility District; AC = Alameda County; LPAB = Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board; ACFC = Alameda County Flood Control; BCDC = Bay Conservation and Development Commission; ABAG = Association of Bay Area Governments).
**IMPLEMENTING MECHANISM**: S.O.P. = Standard Operating Procedure (to be followed); A.I. = Administrative Instruction (to be issued); COORDINATION = Maintain or establish on-going communication between departments or agencies; BUDGETING = Action requires budgeting of funds for capital improvement, acquisition, or program; WORKING GROUP = Establish interdepartmental working group or task force addressing a particular topic.
**FUNDING LEVEL**: In orders of magnitude, ranging from Low to Very High. Includes only direct cost of pursuing the action, not subsequent or indirect costs. N/A = Not applicable.
(*) An asterisk denotes a "First Priority" Action

<!-- page 332 -->
| ACTION | TITLE | TIMING | RESPONSIBLE DEPTS./ AGENCIES | IMPLEMENTING MECHANISM | FUNDING LEVEL | IMPACT ON ACHIEVING OSCAR GOALS |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| CO-13.4.2 | Promotion of Waste to Energy Facilities | On-going | OEDE | S.O.P. | Mod | Mod |
| REC-1.1.1 | Creation of Park Zoning Districts (*) | Immed. | OPB, OPR | Ordinance Revision | Mod | Very High |
| REC-1.2.1 | Open Space Balance Sheet | Immed. | OPB, OPR | S.O.P. | Low | High |
| REC-1.3.1 | Impervious Surface Coverage Limits | ST | OPB, OPR | Ordinance Revision | Mod | Very High |
| REC-1.4.1 | Permanent Land Use Controls (*) | Immed. | OPB, OPR | Ordinance Revision | Low | Very High |
| REC-1.5.1 | Adoption of Citywide Park Plan (*) | MT | OPR, OPB | Master Plan | Very High | Very High |
| REC-1.5.2 | Preparation of Park Master Plans (*) | ST/ On-going | OPR, OPB | Master Plan | Very High | Very High |
| REC-1.5.3 | Open Space Component of Other Plans | On-going | OPB, OEDE, CMO | S.O.P. | Low | High |
| REC-1.5.4 | OSCAR Element Updates | LT | OPB, OPR | Gen. Plan Update | High | Very High |
| REC-2.3.1 | Park Design Guidelines | LT | OPR, OPB | Design Guidelines | Mod | High |
| REC-2.4.1 | Land Use Compatibility Guidelines | LT | OPB, OPR | Design Guidelines | Low | High |
| REC-2.6.1 | Landmark Designation of Historic Parks | ST | OPR, OPB, LPAB | Ordinance Revision | Mod | Mod |
| REC-2.6.2 | Historic Resource Inventories | On-going | OPB | Data Collection | Mod | Mod |
| REC-3.2.1 | Annual List of Projects (Capital Improvements) (*) | Immed./ On-going | OPR, OPB | A.I., S.O.P. | Mod | Very High |
| REC-3.2.2 | Regular Needs Assessments | ST/ On-going | OPR | Data Analysis | Mod | Mod |
| REC-3.3.1 | Projections of Operating and Maintenance Costs | ST/ On-going | OPR, OPW | S.O.P. | Low | Mod |
| REC-4.1.1 | Priority on Maintenance | ST/ On-going | OPR, CMO | S.O.P. | Low | Mod |
| REC-4.1.2 | Improvements which Reduce Maintenance Costs (*) | ST/ On-going | OPR, OPW, CMO | S.O.P. | Very High | Very High |
| REC-4.1.3 | School District Coordination | On-going | OPR, CMO, CC, Other (OUSD) | Joint Use Agreement | Low | High |

LEGEND:   TIMING: Immed. = Within one yr.; ST = Short-Term (1-5 yrs); MT = Mid-Term (5-10 yrs); LT = Long-Term (5-15 years)
RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES: The primary responsible agency/ department is identified in boldface print. OPB (Office of Planning and Building); OPR (Office of Parks and Recreation); OPW (Office of Public Works); Atty (Office of the City Attorney); CMO (City Manager's Office); CC (City Council); OA (Office on Aging), OCIS (Office of Communication and Information Services); OEDE (Office of Economic Development and Employment); OHND (Office of Housing and Neighborhood Development); OPD (Oakland Police Department); OFD (Oakland Fire Department); MYR (Mayor's Office); FIN (Finance Office); OHA (Oakland Housing Authority); Other (EBRPD = East Bay Regional Park District; OUSD = Oakland Unified School District); PC (Peralta College District); EBMUD = East Bay Municipal Utility District; AC = Alameda County; LPAB = Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board; ACFC = Alameda County Flood Control; BCDC = Bay Conservation and Development Commission; ABAG = Association of Bay Area Governments).
IMPLEMENTING MECHANISM: S.O.P. = Standard Operating Procedure (to be followed); A.I. = Administrative Instruction (to be issued); COORDINATION = Maintain or establish on-going communication between departments or agencies; BUDGETING = Action requires budgeting of funds for capital improvement, acquisition, or program; WORKING GROUP = Establish interdepartmental working group or task force addressing a particular topic.
FUNDING LEVEL: In orders of magnitude, ranging from Low to Very High. Includes only direct cost of pursuing the action, not subsequent or indirect costs. N/A = Not applicable.
(*) An asterisk denotes a "First Priority" Action

<!-- page 333 -->
### Implementation Matrix

| ACTION | TITLE | TIMING | RESPONSIBLE DEPTS./ AGENCIES | IMPLEMENTING MECHANISM | FUNDING LEVEL | IMPACT ON ACHIEVING OSCAR GOALS |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| REC-4.2.1 | Integrated Pest Management Program | ST | OPR, OPW | Program | Mod | Mod |
| REC-4.3.1 | Annual List of Priority Projects (Rehabilitation) (*) | Immed./ Ongoing | OPR, OPB | A.I., S.O.P. | Mod | High |
| REC-5.1.1 | Designation of Community Garden Areas | ST/ Ongoing | OPR | Master Plans, Budgeting | Mod | High |
| REC-5.1.2 | Non-recreational Use of Recreation Centers (*) | ST/ Ongoing | OPR | S.O.P. | Low | High |
| REC-5.1.3 | Opportunities for Youth (*) | On-going | OPR | Program | Very High | Very High |
| REC-5.2.1 | Designation of Drug-Free/ Weapon-Free Zones | MT | OPD, Atty, OPR | Ordinance Revision | Low | Mod |
| REC-5.2.2 | Design Review by OFD and Ranger Unit | On-going | OPD, OFD, OPR | S.O.P. | Low | Mod |
| REC-5.4.1 | Take Back the Park Efforts | On-going | OPD, OPR | S.O.P. | Low | High |
| REC-5.4.2 | Graffiti and Litter Abatement (*) | On-going | OPD, OPR, OPW | Program | Low | High |
| REC-5.5.1 | Assessment of Play Equipment Hazards | MT | OPR, OPW | Study | Mod | High |
| REC-5.5.2 | Assessment of Soil Toxicity | MT | OPR, OPW | Study, Budgeting | High | High |
| REC-6.1.1 | City/ Schools Joint Use Agreement (*) | Immed./ Ongoing | OPR, CC, Other (OUSD) | Committee, Jt. Use Agreement | Low | High |
| REC-6.1.2 | Peralta College Joint Use Agreement (*) | ST | OPR, CC, Other (PC) | Committee, Jt. Use Agreement | Low | High |
| REC-6.2.1 | East Oakland Swim and Diving Center | ST | OPR, OHND, CMO, Other | Working Group, Budgeting | Very High | Very High |
| REC-7.1.1 | Responding to Unmet Needs | On-going | OPR, CMO | S.O.P. | Very High | Very High |
| REC-7.1.2 | Staff Provisions (*) | On-going | OPR, CMO | Budgeting | Very High | Very High |
| REC-7.2.1 | After-School Programs (*) | On-going | OPR, OUSD | Program, Coordination | High | Very High |
| REC-7.4.1 | Urban Naturalist Volunteer Program | ST | OPR, Other | Program | Low | Mod |
| REC-7.4.2 | Development of Nature Trails | MT | OPR, Other (EBRPD) | Budgeting | Mod | Mod |

LEGEND: **TIMING:** Immed. = Within one yr.; ST = Short-Term (1-5 yrs); MT = Mid-Term (5-10 yrs); LT = Long-Term (5-15 years)
**RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES:** The primary responsible agency/ department is identified in boldface print. OPB (Office of Planning and Building); OPR (Office of Parks and Recreation); OPW (Office of Public Works); Atty (Office of the City Attorney); CMO (City Manager's Office); CC (City Council); OA (Office on Aging); OCIS (Office of Communication and Information Services); OEDE (Office of Economic Development and Employment); OHND (Office of Housing and Neighborhood Development); OPD (Oakland Police Department); OFD (Oakland Fire Department); MYR (Mayor's Office); FIN (Finance Office); OHA (Oakland Housing Authority); Other (EBRPD = East Bay Regional Park District; OUSD = Oakland Unified School District); PC (Peralta College District); EBMUD = East Bay Municipal Utility District; AC = Alameda County; LPAB = Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board; ACFC = Alameda County Flood Control; BCDC = Bay Conservation and Development Commission; ABAG = Association of Bay Area Governments).
**IMPLEMENTING MECHANISM:** S.O.P. = Standard Operating Procedure (to be followed); A.I. = Administrative Instruction (to be issued); COORDINATION = Maintain or establish on-going communication between departments or agencies; BUDGETING = Action requires budgeting of funds for capital improvement, acquisition, or program; WORKING GROUP = Establish interdepartmental working group or task force addressing a particular topic.
**FUNDING LEVEL:** In orders of magnitude, ranging from Low to Very High. Includes only direct cost of pursuing the action, not subsequent or indirect costs. N/A = Not applicable.
(*) An asterisk denotes a "First Priority" Action

<!-- page 334 -->
| ACTION | TITLE | TIMING | RESPONSIBLE DEPTS./ AGENCIES | IMPLEMENTING MECHANISM | FUNDING LEVEL | IMPACT ON ACHIEVING OSCAR GOALS |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| REC-7.4.3 | Re-use of Chabot Observatory | MT | OPR, Museum, LPAB | Budgeting | High | Low |
| REC-7.5.1 | Advocacy Group Liaison | On-going | OPR | Coordination | Low | Mod |
| REC-7.5.2 | Fairs and Festivals | On-going | OPR, CMO (Cult. Arts Div.) | S.O.P. | Low | Low |
| REC-7.6.1 | Renaming of Oakland Parks or Park Features | On-going | OPR, CC | S.O.P. | Low | Low |
| REC-8.2.1 | Needs Assessment for Teens | MT | OPR | Survey | Low | Mod |
| REC-8.3.1 | Comprehensive Plan for Seniors | On-going | OA, OPR | Program | High | Mod |
| REC-8.4.1 | Retrofitting of Facilities | On-going | OPR, OPB | Budgeting | Very High | Mod |
| REC-8.7.1 | Information at BART Stations | LT | OPR, Other (BART) | Budgeting | Mod | Low |
| REC-8.7.2 | Improved Transit Service to Regional Parks | On-going | OPR, Other (AC Transit, EBRPD) | Coordination, Budgeting | Very High | High |
| REC-8.7.3 | Transit Brochure | LT | OPR | Brochure | Low | High |
| REC-9.1.1 | Recreation Advisory Council Coverage for Unrepresented Parks | MT | OPR | S.O.P. | Mod | Mod |
| REC-9.2.1 | Outreach by Recreation Center Staff | On-going | OPR | S.O.P. | Mod | High |
| REC-9.3.1 | Involvement of Local Artisans | On-going | OPR | S.O.P. | Low | Mod |
| REC-9.4.1 | Media Management Program (*) | ST, MT | OPR | Program | Low | High |
| REC-9.4.2 | Funding Sources for Publicity | ST/ On-going | OPR, Other | S.O.P. | Low | High |
| REC-9.4.3 | Leisure Referral Service | MT | OPR, OCIS | Data Entry, Budgeting | Mod | Mod |
| REC-9.4.4 | Park Visibility and Name Recognition | On-going | OPR | Budgeting | High | Mod |
| REC-10.1.1 | Accounting Improvements and Funding Strategies Report | ST | OPR, CMO, FIN | Report | Low | High |
| REC-10.2.1 | Adoption of Quimby Act Fee (*) | ST | OPR, OPB, Atty, FIN | Ordinance | Mod | Very High |
| REC-10.3.1 | Access and Facilities at MLK, Jr. Regional Shoreline | MT | OPR, Other (EBRPD) | Coordination, Master Plan | Low | Mod |

LEGEND: **TIMING:** Immed. = Within one yr.; ST = Short-Term (1-5 yrs); MT = Mid-Term (5-10 yrs); LT = Long-Term (5-15 years)
**RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES:** The primary responsible agency/ department is identified in boldface print. OPB (Office of Planning and Building); OPR (Office of Parks and Recreation); OPW (Office of Public Works); Atty (Office of the City Attorney); CMO (City Manager's Office); CC (City Council); OA (Office on Aging); OCIS (Office of Communication and Information Services); OEDE (Office of Economic Development and Employment); OHND (Office of Housing and Neighborhood Development); OPD (Oakland Police Department); OFD (Oakland Fire Department); MYR (Mayor's Office); FIN (Finance Office); OHA (Oakland Housing Authority); Other (EBRPD = East Bay Regional Park District; OUSD = Oakland Unified School District); PC (Peralta College District); EBMUD = East May Municipal Utility District; AC = Alameda County; LPAB = Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board; ACFC = Alameda County Flood Control; BCDC = Bay Conservation and Development Commission; ABAG = Association of Bay Area Governments).
**IMPLEMENTING MECHANISM:** S.O.P. = Standard Operating Procedure (to be followed); A.I. = Administrative Instruction (to be issued); COORDINATION = Maintain or establish on-going communication between departments or agencies; BUDGETING = Action requires budgeting of funds for capital improvement, acquisition, or program; WORKING GROUP = Establish interdepartmental working group or task force addressing a particular topic.
**FUNDING LEVEL:** In orders of magnitude, ranging from Low to Very High. Includes only direct cost of pursuing the action, not subsequent or indirect costs. N/A = Not applicable.
(*) An asterisk denotes a "First Priority" Action

<!-- page 335 -->
# Implementation Matrix

| ACTION | TITLE | TIMING | RESPONSIBLE DEPTS./ AGENCIES | IMPLEMENTING MECHANISM | FUNDING LEVEL | IMPACT ON ACHIEVING OSCAR GOALS |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| REC-10.3.2 | Dunsmuir Ridge (*) | ST | OPR, CMO, Other (EBRPD) | Working Group, Budgeting | Mod | Very High |
| REC-10.5.1 | Use of Tax Increment Funds | ST/ Ongoing | OEDE, OPR | S.O.P. | Low | Very High |
| REC-10.5.2 | Special Assessments and Assessment Districts | MT/ Ongoing | CMO, CC, OPR, FIN | S.O.P., Report | Mod | Very High |
| REC-10.5.3 | General Obligation and Revenue Bonds | MT/ Ongoing | CMO, CC, OPR, FIN | S.O.P. | Mod | High |
| REC-10.6.1 | Joint Venture with Oakland Housing Authority | MT | OPR, OHND, OHA | Working Group, Budgeting | Mod | High |

**LEGEND:** **TIMING:** Immed. = Within one yr.; ST = Short-Term (1-5 yrs); MT = Mid-Term (5-10 yrs); LT = Long-Term (5-15 years)
**RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES:** The primary responsible agency/ department is identified in boldface print. OPB (Office of Planning and Building); OPR (Office of Parks and Recreation); OPW (Office of Public Works); Atty (Office of the City Attorney); CMO (City Manager's Office); CC (City Council); OA (Office on Aging), OCIS (Office of Communication and Information Services); OEDE (Office of Economic Development and Employment); OHND (Office of Housing and Neighborhood Development); OPD (Oakland Police Department); OFD (Oakland Fire Department); MYR (Mayor's Office); FIN (Finance Office); OHA (Oakland Housing Authority); Other (EBRPD = East Bay Regional Park District; OUSD = Oakland Unified School District); PC (Peralta College District); EBMUD = East Bay Municipal Utility District; AC = Alameda County; LPAB = Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board; ACFC = Alameda County Flood Control; BCDC = Bay Conservation and Development Commission; ABAG = Association of Bay Area Governments).
**IMPLEMENTING MECHANISM:** S.O.P. = Standard Operating Procedure (to be followed); A.I. = Administrative Instruction (to be issued); COORDINATION = Maintain or establish on-going communication between departments or agencies; BUDGETING = Action requires budgeting of funds for capital improvement, acquisition, or program; WORKING GROUP = Establish interdepartmental working group or task force addressing a particular topic.
**FUNDING LEVEL:** In orders of magnitude, ranging from Low to Very High. Includes only direct cost of pursuing the action, not subsequent or indirect costs. N/A = Not applicable.
(*) An asterisk denotes a "First Priority" Action

<!-- page 336 -->
(blank page)