# 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 6 documents.**
OpenPublica has pinned these slots for this government: circulation, conservation, ej, estuary_policy_plan, general_plan_implementation, historic_preservation, historic_preservation_action_program, historic_preservation_city_activities, historic_preservation_identifying_properties, historic_preservation_incentives, historic_preservation_information_education, historic_preservation_introduction, historic_preservation_summary, historic_preservation_title_and_contents, housing, land_use, lute_planning_context, lute_policies_in_action, lute_preamble, lute_title_and_contents, noise, open_space, safety, scenic_routes. 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.

---

## Land Use — LUTE — Policy Framework (Updated 9/2023)

- Source: https://www.oaklandca.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/planning-amp-building/documents/sp/gp/lute/oakland-lute_chapter-2-amendments_2023update.pdf
- Pages: 93
- Covers: circulation, land_use

<!-- page 1 -->
# 2 POLICY FRAMEWORK

The Policy Framework was created through a three-year long General Plan Congress and public debate and discussion about Oakland's future. It serves as the basis for both public and private decision-making and provides direction for future regulations and investment. The Policy Framework contains two main parts: a description of the "Structure and Identity" of the city, and the Policy Framework itself. The "Structure and Identity" section provides a conceptual map -- the "big picture" -- of how the city functions by identifying the major physical features, such as transportation corridors, locations of industry and commerce, and established neighborhoods and activity centers. These features that make up "how the city works" are then addressed in the Policy Framework in five focus areas: Industry and Commerce, Transportation and Transit-Oriented Development, Downtown, Waterfront, and Neighborhoods.

Chapter Contents
### CITY STRUCTURE AND IDENTITY
#### OAKLAND SHOWCASES
#### TRANSIT-ORIENTED DISTRICTS
#### CORRIDORS
#### NEIGHBORHOOD ACTIVITY CENTERS
### POLICY FRAMEWORK
#### INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE (Includes the Coliseum Area Showcase)
#### TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (Includes the TOD's and Corridors)
#### DOWNTOWN (Includes the Downtown Showcase)
#### WATERFRONT (Includes the Seaport and Airport/Gateway Showcases, Mixed Use Waterfront)
#### NEIGHBORHOODS (Includes the Neighborhood Activity Centers)

<!-- page 2 -->
# CITY STRUCTURE AND IDENTITY: OAKLAND'S PLACES

<<FIGURE>>
**The Downtown Showcase**

<<FIGURE>>
**Grand Lake Activity Center**

<<FIGURE>>
**Transportation-Oriented Mixed Use Development**

<<FIGURE>>
**The Seaport Showcase**

People who live, work, shop, learn and visit in Oakland all have their unique image of the city, each based on familiar physical, social, and economic patterns. The city’s transportation system, neighborhoods, natural features, and business districts are the foundations of Oakland’s physical structure and the basis for the pattern of social activity in the City as well. The Land Use and Transportation Elements have diagrammed these activity areas and movement patterns to help explain the structure of the city.

<!-- page 3 -->
The General Plan Structure Diagram captures that pattern in order to:

*   Illustrate major ideas from the Policy Framework with a conceptual map
*   Provide a "big picture" of how the city works
*   Highlight opportunity areas for economic development to fuel growth
*   Recognize activity centers and districts that have strong positive identity at the time of Element adoption
*   Highlight those locations where area identity needs to be created or improved
*   Create a basis for targeting General Plan implementation strategies to key locations

Four types of features are shown on the City Structure Diagram on the following page, and discussed further in the Policy Framework. They are:

### Oakland Showcases

<<FIGURE>>

Oakland's economic engines form a crescent framing the Bay from the Seaport to the Airport, including Downtown, the Waterfront, the Coliseum, and the Hegenberger Road Gateway leading to the Metropolitan Oakland International Airport. The Policy Framework emphasizes the importance of these districts as dynamic areas that can respond to broad trends and market demands, and it supports their continued growth and their regional importance by designating them as Oakland Showcases. In keeping with the identified "target industries" of the Economic Development Strategy, a vision for the progress of each of the Showcases is included in sections of the Policy Framework, as follows:

**Industry and Commerce Policy Framework**
Coliseum Area Showcase

**Downtown Policy Framework**
Downtown Showcase

**Waterfront Policy Framework**
Seaport Showcase

Airport/Gateway Showcase

Mixed Use Waterfront Showcase

<!-- page 4 -->
<<FIGURE>>

City of Oakland
Land Use & Transportation Element

# CITY STRUCTURE DIAGRAM
March, 1998

<!-- page 5 -->
In general, the Element supports growth in industry and commerce, providing the flexibility needed to accommodate evolving trends in retailing, entertainment, manufacturing processes and distribution techniques while also resolving long-standing problems relating to conflicts among different land uses.

### Corridors

The Policy Framework envisions a transformation of the City’s commercial corridors. Historically, many of the corridors have had more important commercial and circulation functions than they do today. While some of the city’s corridors remain a vital mix of commercial, housing, and transportation, others are characterized by struggling stores, vacant and dilapidated buildings, safety and image problems, and an absence of pedestrian traffic. These corridors are the target of strategies to concentrate commercial areas into viable “nodes” of activity, rather than lengthy struggling commercial corridors.

The corridors highlighted on the Structure Diagram are those envisioned as mixed-use urban environments with concentrations of commercial and civic uses joined by segments of multifamily housing. This pattern offers several advantages: concentrating business activity to create lively districts where businesses can benefit from proximity to each other, and creating more desirable residential environments. Many of the neighborhood activity centers are located along corridors. The corridors will continue to have important circulation and access functions, and the designation of several of them as transit arterials emphasizes the importance of maintaining a choice of travel modes and locating new residential development in close proximity to transit.

Transformation of long-suffering corridors will likely require significant public support. Near-term investment in catalyst projects will help create desirable corridors, neighborhoods and activity centers. Successful publicly-supported projects will help build market support for renovation and production of housing and commercial buildings.

*See also Industry and Commerce Policy Framework, Neighborhoods Policy Framework, Implementation Program*

<!-- page 6 -->
### Transit-Oriented Districts

<<FIGURE>>

### Neighborhood Activity Centers

<<FIGURE>>

Transit-oriented districts (TODs) are designated to take advantage of the opportunities presented by Oakland's eight BART stations and Eastmont Town Center, which is served by multiple bus lines. Easy pedestrian and transit access to mixed use development characterize these areas. A strong identity is to be created through careful design and mix of activity. Because each location offers unique possibilities, the TODs are discussed individually in the Transportation and Transit-Oriented Development Section.

*See also Transportation and Transit-Oriented Development Policy Framework*

The richness and variety of the City's neighborhoods are depicted on the Structure Diagram in two ways: by identifying housing areas with neighborhood names and by mapping neighborhood activity centers. Activity centers are the focal point of the community and organizing principle of the plan. These areas have or will have diverse business, civic, and social activities supported and strengthened by surrounding housing, that help to form neighborhoods and reflect the distinct identities of Oakland's communities, and assist in efforts to support community governance.

Activity centers, most of which are located along the city's corridors, are particularly well suited for locating community facilities, small open spaces such as public plazas or tot lots, and housing for seniors and others who appreciate easy access to shops, services, and transportation. Pedestrian amenities and public transit service are important components of activity centers, and many are at bus transfer points where there is service on more than one AC Transit line. Together, the pattern of activity centers helps give structure to the whole city. Singly, each plays a major role in giving identity to its surrounding housing areas.

*See also Neighborhood Policy Framework, Land Use and Transportation Plan Diagram, Priority Implementation Program, and Area Views*

<!-- page 7 -->
# POLICY FRAMEWORK

The Policy Framework, created by the General Plan Congress through three years of public debate and discussion about Oakland’s future, serves as the cities fundamental basis for both public and private decision-making and provides direction for future regulations and investment. The policy Framework is the guidepost by which development will be analyzed and reviewed for consistency, and it forms the basis of the Zoning Ordinance. The broadest expression of the Policy Framework is the Congress Vision Statement, found in the preamble. Together with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies, which are the heart of the Land Use and Transportation Element, these provide the foundation for the Strategy Diagram, Transportation Diagram, Land Use Diagram, and Implementation Program.

Early conceptual understanding of the city provided the General Plan Congress with an overall framework for the Goals, Objectives, and Policies that follow. The organization of the section into five “policy areas” is intended to assist in “painting a visual picture” of the city and focusing policy attention on the areas of great opportunity or in the greatest need of attention. These five major areas are:

* Industry and Commerce
* Transportation and Transit-Oriented Development
* Downtown
* Waterfront
* Neighborhoods

Policies in these sections are intended to be applied citywide if relevant, unless their language refers to one or more areas specifically.

<!-- page 8 -->
## Industry and Commerce

<<FIGURE>>
DeLauer's News Stand in Downtown

<<FIGURE>>
Con Agra Industries in Fruitvale

<<FIGURE>>
"Pill Hill" Medical Center Area

<<FIGURE>>
Port of Oakland

"Envision yourself living in a city with a thriving economy and a broad mix of businesses to meet your daily needs.  The city's modern infrastructure and favorable business climate have attracted a number of new companies, bringing revenue and jobs.  The industrial areas, built around outstanding port facilities, continue to thrive--with renewed prosperity.  Each neighborhood has convenient commercial districts, so residents don't have to travel far to run errands.  Larger retail clusters along the freeway offer a wide selection of durable goods, attracting regional consumers to Oakland.  And with this added business revenue, the city has been able to expand its services and programs..."

<!-- page 9 -->
"We need an Economic Development Strategy to provide the basis for development of a coordinated and concentrated public investment strategy to support expansion of the economy."

- *Del Davis, General Plan Congress, 1996*

Oakland's future depends on an ability to foster and sustain continuous economic development success. Strategies and solutions in this part of the Policy Framework seek to promote the revitalization of the local economy in the near term, ensure economic health and expansion potential for the City on a long term basis, and foster the prominent role that Oakland plays within the economy of the Bay Area and as an international city. The city's potential for future economic expansion is furthered by:

*   The presence of an international seaport and airport
*   Tremendous investment in transportation infrastructure including public transit and regional freeway corridors
*   A strong established industrial presence and room to grow
*   Multiple nodes of commercial activity
*   A large consumer market base to support retail development
*   The downtown high-rise office employment hub
*   Sports, entertainment and cultural facilities in the Coliseum Area, Downtown and Mixed Use Waterfront Showcase districts

The city's success in promoting and marketing these assets to residents, businesses and economic investment interests over the next twenty years will determine Oakland's future economic health. The General Plan can play a key role in spotlighting and focussing investment opportunities. The vision for industry and commerce in the city is expressed in the desire to promote or "showcase" key areas of economic success and potential for revitalization, while providing stability to the quilt of neighborhoods which form the fabric of Oakland.

Additionally, Oakland is key to the region's growth. Therefore, the Element calls for greater regional cooperation and economic development efforts in recognition of the the interdependence of cities and suburbs as part of the regional economy. Elimination of the divisive "zero-sum game" of economic development patterns is critical in addressing urban disinvestment.

The City's five Showcase districts, presented in the Policy Framework, represent key geographic target areas for economic expansion and are identified by policies in this and other parts of the Policy Framework. The Waterfront section includes discussions of the Seaport, Airport/Gateway and Mixed Use Showcase districts. The Coliseum Area Showcase district discussed in detail in this section reflects commitments to promote expanded job generation and retail opportunities along

<!-- page 10 -->
the I-880 corridor, enhance regional entertainment and recreation activities already established in the area, and provide expanded visitor services in this important gateway area while promoting revitalization of key industrial/manufacturing land and facilities.

### Industry and Commerce Goals
The goals for industry and commerce reflect the desire to respond to Oakland residents for expanded retail and employment training opportunities, and to investment interests in terms of promoting industrial and commercial land as a vehicle of prosperity. The goals are to:

* Recognize and support industrial and commercial land use as a primary vehicle for the generation of the economic support required for the attainment of the physical, social and community service goals of the Oakland General Plan
* Strengthen and expand Oakland's diverse economic base through land use and transportation decisions
* Maximize Oakland's regional role as a transportation, distribution and communications hub
* Provide increased employment, training, and educational opportunities through land use and transportation decisions
* Ensure that the Oakland community has access to a wide variety of goods and services, meeting daily and long term needs
* Create and maintain a favorable business climate in Oakland

The objectives and policies that follow clarify and guide implementation of the goals. These policies include direction to expand the job base and strengthen Oakland's economy through the citywide economic strategy and marketing plan that targets both industries and places in the city. The Policy Framework has influenced several and is integrated with several concurrent efforts, such as the city's Economic Development Strategy and activities of the Community and Economic Development Agency (CEDA) Area Teams. The Area Teams' identification of Target Areas will help focus city and private sector markets on targeted locations. (See Area Views in Chapter 4.)

Other objectives and policies in this section call for capitalizing on the city's strength as a regional government and employment center through strategic investment in infrastructure and "catalyst projects". Policies also seek to maximize the utility of underutilized industrial buildings and land

<!-- page 11 -->
through reparcelization, environmental clean up efforts, and exploring reuse for non-traditional activities. Business attraction and retention through the creation of a friendly business atmosphere is called for, as is expansion of the existing commercial base to provide patrons with wider opportunities to purchase goods and services in Oakland. Recognition of the important role that historic preservation, safe neighborhoods, and viable neighborhood commercial centers play in the overall health of the local economy is reflected in policies which call for strengthening neighborhood commercial areas, and minimizing land use compatibility conflicts at the interface between neighborhood and industrial areas.

### Industry and Commerce Objectives and Policies
*A series of measures for improving Oakland's economic strength is outlined in the Mayor's 1997 Economic Development Strategy for Oakland and is also reflected in this policy framework. Capturing emerging industries such as biotechnology, telecommunications, and computer and multi-media industries is important to Oakland, as are continued efforts to retain jobs for Oakland residents working in employment sectors such as service, retail trade, and manufacturing. In general, the city is striving to attract more jobs in a diverse range of businesses that can capitalize on Oakland's prime location, superior communications infrastructure, multi-modal transportation system and distinctive and attractive neighborhoods.*

#### Objective I/C1
**Expand and retain Oakland's job base and economic strength**

**Policy I/C1.1 Attracting New Business.**
The City will strive to attract new businesses to Oakland which have potential economic benefits in terms of jobs and/or revenue generation. This effort will be coordinated through a citywide economic development strategy/marketing plan which identifies the City's existing economic base, the assets and constraints for future growth, target industries or activities for future attraction, and geographic areas appropriate for future use and development.

**Policy I/C1.2 Retaining Existing Business.**
Existing businesses and jobs within Oakland which are consistent with the long-range objectives of this Plan should, whenever possible, be retained.

**Policy I/C1.3 Supporting Economic Development Expansion Through Public Investment.**
The public investment strategy of the City should support economic development expansion efforts through such means as identifying target "catalyst projects" for investment which will support the employment or revenue base of the city and providing infrastructure improvements to serve key development locations or projects which are consistent with the goals and objectives of this Plan.

<!-- page 12 -->
**Policy I/C1.4 Investing in Economically Distressed Areas of Oakland.**
Economic investment, consistent with the City's overall economic strategy, should be encouraged, and, where feasible, should promote viable investment in economically distressed areas of the City.

**Policy I/C1.5 Using City-Owned Property to Stimulate Economic Development.**
City-owned properties should, where feasible, be utilized to stimulate economic development activities or serve as catalysts to such efforts.

**Policy I/C1.6 Promoting Downtown as a Regional "Hub".**
Downtown Oakland should be promoted as a regional "hub" for government, services, high technology, and institutional uses.

**Policy I/C1.7 Developing Administrative Policies.**
City departments should develop and maintain administrative policies and procedures which encourage and facilitate the establishment of new economic development consistent with General Plan goals, objectives, and policies.

**Policy I/C1.8 Providing Support Amenities Near Employment Centers.**
Adequate cultural, social, and support amenities designed to serve the needs of workers in Oakland should be provided within close proximity of employment centers.

**Policy I/C1.9 Locating Industrial and Commercial Area Infrastructure.**
Adequate public infrastructure should be ensured within existing and proposed industrial and commercial areas to retain viable existing uses, improve the marketability of existing vacant or underutilized sites, and encourage future use and development of these areas with activities consistent with the goals of this Plan.

**Policy I/C1.10 Coordinating City and Port Economic Development Plans.**
The City and Port should mutually develop and implement a coordinated plan-of-action to support all airport and port related activities which expand the local or regional employment or revenue base.

**Policy I/C1.11 Expanding Job Training Opportunities.**
The City should expand and coordinate job training opportunities for Oakland residents by supporting programs sponsored by the Oakland Unified School District, local community colleges, the Port of Oakland, and other educational institutions or vocational training establishments.

<!-- page 13 -->
### Objective I/C2

**Maximize the usefulness of existing abandoned or underutilized industrial buildings and land**

*Some older industrial buildings or sites no longer serve businesses efficiently. Efforts by both the City and the private sector are required to rehabilitate and/or modernize these locations so they can contribute to their immediate surroundings and to the community as a whole.*

#### Policy I/C2.1 Pursuing Environmental Clean-Up.
The environmental cleanup of contaminated industrial properties should be actively pursued to attract new users in targeted industrial and commercial areas.

#### Policy I/C2.2 Reusing Abandoned Buildings.
The reuse of abandoned industrial buildings by non-traditional activities should be encouraged where the uses are consistent with, and will assist in the attainment of, the goals and objectives of all elements of the Plan.

#### Policy I/C2.3 Providing Vacant or Buildable Sites.
Development in older industrial areas should be encouraged through the provision of an adequate number of vacant or buildable sites designated for future development.

### Objective I/C3

**Ensure that Oakland is adequately served by a wide variety of commercial uses, appropriately sited to provide for competitive retail merchandising and diversified office uses, as well as personal and professional services**

*Oakland has a rich and diverse range of neighborhood commercial centers, which serve the local needs of residents, business, and visitors. Some commercial centers are in need of assistance, and some neighborhoods have no viable commercial activity at all. Community- and region-serving retail businesses have been under-represented in Oakland. The Element envisions an increase in shopping opportunities so that Oakland can capture an appropriate share of spending dollars and provide convenient, quality shopping for residents and workers. (See also Neighborhood Policies)*

#### Policy I/C3.1 Locating Commercial Business.
Commercial uses, which serve long term retail needs of regional consumers and which primarily offer durable goods, should be located in areas adjacent to the I-880 freeway or at locations visible or amenable to high volumes of vehicular traffic, and accessible by multiple modes of transportation.

#### Policy I/C3.2 Enhancing Business Districts.
Retain and enhance clusters of similar types of commercial enterprises as the nucleus of distinctive business districts, such as the existing new and used automobile sales and related uses through urban design and business retention efforts.

<!-- page 14 -->
### Objective I/C4

**Minimize land use compatibility conflicts in commercial and industrial areas through achieving a balance between economic development values and community values**

**Policy I/C3.3 Clustering Activity in "Nodes".**
Retail uses should be focused in "nodes" of activity, characterized by geographic clusters of concentrated commercial activity, along corridors that can be accessed through many modes of transportation.

**Policy I/C3.4 Strengthening Vitality.**
The vitality of existing neighborhood mixed use and community commercial areas should be strengthened and preserved.

**Policy I/C3.5 Promoting Culture, Recreation, and Entertainment.**
Cultural, recreational and entertainment uses should be promoted within the Downtown, particularly in the vicinity of the Fox and Paramount Theaters, and within the Jack London Square area.

**Policy I/C3.6 Expanding Private Business and Government in Oakland.**
The City should encourage the expansion of private business services and government sectors within Oakland.

*Some areas of the City have established land uses that have difficulty co-existing as good neighbors (for example, a manufacturing business located next door to a residence). One of this Element's innovations is the establishment of Housing and Business mix areas that recognize that some businesses can co-exist with adjoining housing, while others cannot. The land use classifications in Chapter 3 provide additional detail.*

**Policy I/C4.1 Protecting Existing Activities.**
Existing industrial, residential, and commercial activities and areas which are consistent with long term land use plans for the City should be protected from the intrusion of potentially incompatible land uses.

**Policy I/C4.2 Minimizing Nuisances.**
The potential for new or existing industrial or commercial uses, including seaport and airport activities, to create nuisance impacts on surrounding residential land uses should be minimized through appropriate siting and efficient implementation and enforcement of environmental and development controls.

<!-- page 15 -->
### Objective I/C5
**The economic utility, employment generation, and citywide benefit of military facilities closed by the Federal Government should be maximized**

**Policy I/C4.3 Reducing Billboards.**
Billboards should be reduced or eliminated in commercial and residential areas in Oakland neighborhoods through mechanisms that minimize or do not require the expenditure of city funds.

*The Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) has been closed and future use of this area has been established. However, the Oakland Army Base and Oak Knoll Naval Hospital will all be closed and available for reuse under the auspices of the Federal Government and the Oakland Base Reuse Authority. Future use of each of these areas is undergoing separate planning processes. However, the General Plan sets out a broad framework intended to maximize the benefits of these reuse areas for the entire city of Oakland. As a result of the outcome of these individual planning processes, the general plan may need to be amended to reflect these more specific planning studies.*

**Policy I/C5.1 Planning for Military Base Reuse.**
Plans for the reuse of military bases should encourage activities which provide economic development expansion opportunities for the City.

**Policy I/C5.2 Planning for the Fleet Industrial Supply Center.**
The reuse of the waterfront portions of the Fleet Industrial Supply Center should emphasize maritime-, rail-, and open space-related activities.

**Policy I/C5.3 Planning for the Army Base.**
Land reuse plans for the Oakland Army Base site shall encourage activities that will result in expanded employment opportunities and revenues for the city and the West Oakland community.

**Policy I/C5.4 Planning for Oak Knoll.**
The formulation of a reuse plan which incorporates a mixture of land uses or density patterns should be encouraged for the Oak Knoll Naval Hospital site.

<!-- page 16 -->
# COLISEUM AREA SHOWCASE

Visitors from throughout Northern California come to Oakland to watch the Athletics, the Raiders and the Warriors at the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Complex. The freeway system, BART, local streets and AC transit together provide capacity for tens of thousands of people to attend Coliseum Complex events. In addition to professional sporting events, the arena hosts events as varied as the Ice Capades and the Grand National Roadster Show. Increasing the Coliseum area’s attractiveness to visitors by providing shopping, dining, and recreation is an objective of the General Plan.

### Facts and Figures
Owned and operated by the Oakland-Alameda County Stadium Joint Powers Authority, the Coliseum Complex hosts over 250 events in a typical year, with total attendance exceeding 2,500,000 persons. A pedestrian connection to BART’s Fremont line as well as immediate access to I-880 and a parking lot with approximately 9,500 spaces handle the job of getting people to and from the Coliseum complex.

A renovation of the Coliseum is under way (1996-1997) to increase seating and amenities, as well as to add space for eating-and-drinking places, clubhouses, and retail shops. The new Oakland Arena will provide seating for 19,200 fans.

Regional commercial uses relying on freeway visibility and easy auto access are already in place west of the Coliseum. Large parcels on both sides of the I-880 Coliseum exit are available for development in 1997. East of the Coliseum, the BART station is located along the industrial belt paralleling the San Leandro Street corridor. All of these areas are part of the Coliseum Redevelopment Area, established in 1984 to advance the objective of alleviating blight and accomplishing other City goals .

### Vision for the Future
The number of visitors that come to the Coliseum, its excellent transportation access and the availability of land nearby combine to offer a superb prospect for the area’s future as a regional center of entertainment and commercial recreation. The General Plan envisions the Coliseum

<!-- page 17 -->
Complex at the center of a regional shopping, entertainment and recreation district. Shops and restaurants will be mixed with movies and places for fun and recreation, encouraging Coliseum patrons to stay in the district for more than just The Event, and adding life to the area when the complex is not in use.

Connections between the Coliseum Area Showcase and the Airport Gateway Showcase benefit both areas for business and tourism, and linkages to the waterfront will enable residents to access the shoreline. Linkages between the Coliseum and Airport and the Coliseum and Waterfront are critical to the future economic potential of this area, and a special plan is needed to guide development of the Coliseum Showcase to maximize its potential. The BART connection from the Coliseum to the Oakland Airport is a future transportation project that could provide an efficient link between these two regional centers. (For more information, see the discussion of Regional access in the Transportation Improvements section of Chapter 3.) The Hegenberger Road corridor is one of just a few locations in the City where the Element supports addition of visitor-serving businesses. Restaurants and hotels along Hegenberger as well as in proximity to the airport will increase destination choices for visitors to the Coliseum Area, and to the Waterfront.

However, success in achieving the Element’s vision for the Coliseum Area Showcase will bring with it the potential for impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. Creating a successful regional entertainment district will require that the City work with area businesses and residents to manage impacts relating to parking, local street traffic, noise, and night lighting. Improvements of facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians can help to alleviate some congestion and provide alternative access routes.

### Achieving the Vision
The Coliseum Area Showcase is at the center of the City’s largest concentration of Regional Commercial uses. Redevelopment powers and other public investment will help to spur the transition of the area from its current mix of relatively low-intensity uses to a consistently higher-intensity environment designed to attract residents and visitors.

As reflected by the Regional Commercial Land Use classification, development in the Coliseum Area Showcase is intended to be large-scale. While the types of uses envisioned are most often associated with auto access, the Coliseum BART station provides a great opportunity to provide rail access (perhaps linked with a district shuttle) to Regional Commercial uses.

<!-- page 18 -->
# Transportation and Transit-Oriented Development

<<FIGURE>>
**Railroad Service through the Jack London District**

<<FIGURE>>
**Bicycle Facilities Downtown**

<<FIGURE>>
**The Mac Arthur Freeway "Maze"**

<<FIGURE>>
**Water Taxi at Jack London Square**

*Envision yourself going easily to almost any place in the Bay Area. Careful coordination of the region’s many transportation systems-- rapid transit, passenger rail, ferry, bus, and freeway--has made it easier for commuters and travelers. Getting around Oakland is an even simpler task--residents can now hop on bus, light rail, trolley, or shuttle to reach their desired destinations. Streets and land development patterns have been redesigned with pedestrians and bicyclists in mind, making Oakland a safer place to live. The seaport and airport are thriving, high volume carriers of goods and passengers to and from national and international destinations. Meanwhile, higher-density housing and commercial uses have been concentrated around public transportation centers, forming the nucleus of neighborhoods of the future.*

<!-- page 19 -->
"Oakland needs a Transportation Plan."

*- Marguerite Fuller, General Plan Congress, 1997*

Oakland is at the convergence of local, regional, and worldwide routes. The majority of these system are owned, maintained, operated by other agencies: Freeways (Caltrans); Bus and BART lines (AC Transit and BART); Seaport and Airport (Port of Oakland); and rail lines (Railroads). Oakland only directly controls local road and infrastructure improvement. The role of the Element is to guide and influence the actions of these many agencies to ensure that transportation concerns are addressed to improve Oakland's economy, accessibility, and future prospects.

The Policy Framework for transportation and transit-oriented development reflects the many roles the transportation system has in contributing to the City's economy, its form, and the mobility of its residents and workers. Policy goals include:

* **Capitalize on our location:** Take full advantage of Oakland's position as a major West Coast transportation hub
* **Integrate land use and transportation planning:** Integrate transportation and land use planning at the neighborhood, city and regional levels by developing transit orientated development, where appropriate, at transit and commercial nodes
* **Reduce congestion:** Reduce congestion and improve traffic flow by developing and interted road system and traffic demand management system that provides an appropriate mix of mobility and accessibility through out the city
* **Promote alternative transportation options:** Reduce dependency on the automobile by providing facilities that support use of transportation modes
* **Find funding:** Program and provide adequate funding for needed transportation facilities and services, and related investments
* **Safety:** Provide safe streets
* **Improve the environment:** Improve air quality and reduce exposure to traffic noise

These goals are briefly discussed in the context of the policy themes for transportation, below.

### Regional and Worldwide Transportation Hub

As a regional transportation hub, Oakland can capitalize on its well-located Port facilities and transportation networks. The City will continue to work with the Port of Oakland and transportation carriers to maintain and upgrade cargo and freight-handling facilities and systems to meet future market demands. The policy framework calls for supporting the Port of Oakland's

<!-- page 20 -->
efforts to compete as a primary port of call in the West Coast shipping industry and to expand the carrying capacity of the airport, with an emphasis on reducing truck traffic and parking in nearby residential areas.

### Integrated Transportation Network
While Oakland is a largely built-out city, there are opportunities for development of a better-integrated road system and increased mobility for residents, business, and visitors. Chapter 3 of the Element identifies the projects the City proposes to undertake in the coming decades to improve the transportation network. The Policy Framework suggests a hierarchical network of roads and public transit corridors that will accommodate the desired level of growth and development in Oakland. The City will promote and participate in both local and regional strategies to manage traffic supply and demand where unacceptable levels of service exist or are forecast to exist. In a few areas of the City, such as downtown and near neighborhood activity centers, it is suggested that pedestrian traffic flow would take precedence over the traffic flow of automobiles.

### Encouraging Alternative Means of Travel
A key challenge for Oakland is to encourage commuters to carpool or use alternative modes of transportation, including bicycling or walking. The Policy Framework proposes that congestion be lessened by promoting alternative means of transportation, such as transit, biking, and walking providing facilities that support alternative modes, and implementing street improvements. The City will continue to work closely with local and regional transit providers to increase accessibility to transit and improve intermodal transportation connections and facilities. Additionally, policies support the introduction of light rail or trolley buses along appropriate arterials in heavily traveled corridors, and expanded use of ferries in the bay and estuary.

### Finding Funding for Improvements
Oakland needs funding for transportation facilities and services. As a regional transportation center, regional support is needed to enable continuous upgrades and maintenance of the transportation system. While some transportation improvements can be realized as part of development agreements with large scale builders, in many instances the transportation network improvements needed in Oakland have a much greater scope than one project is able to, or should,

<!-- page 21 -->
support. For this reason, Oakland needs to leverage local funds and aggressively compete for grants, matching funds, and other types of support for infrastructure improvement and maintenance.

### Working to Increase Safety
As a city of neighborhoods, Oakland must provide safe access to commercial uses, recreational facilities, and local services. Many residents express concern about speeding traffic in their neighborhoods. In response, the City has spent the last two years researching and instituting a number of traffic calming methods. The Policy Framework suggests that the City continue its efforts to slow traffic. Oakland will also strive to make all of its streets bicycle and pedestrian friendly, while balancing the need to transport goods through town and allow for the passage of emergency vehicles. The primary aim of the section is toward maximizing use of the existing transportation infrastructure while achieving greater safety.

### Improving the Environment
Air quality and the noise impacts of vehicles are issues for every city in the Bay region. For over three decades, federal, state and regional agencies have been working to improve our air quality and reduce noise levels. Air quality is addressed in policies in the Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element, and the city's Noise Element considers noise issues and policies. The Element's integrated approach to a sustainable land use and transportation pattern supports environmental protection goals.

<!-- page 22 -->
### COMMERCIAL VEHICLE, RAIL, SHIP, AND AIR TRANSPORTATION

#### Objective T1
**Provide adequate infrastructure and land for the needs of rail, shipping, commercial and manufacturing uses, balancing this need with those of surrounding residential neighborhoods.**

*Oakland is the transportation hub of the East Bay. Local, regional, national, and international routes converge in Oakland, offering a wide range of destinations and transportation options. These features reaffirm the City's role as a regional center and boost its efforts to attract new businesses. By addressing future development in relation to the transportation network, Oakland will be more able to meet the transportation needs of business, the community, and visitors. As the operator of the seaport and airport, the Port of Oakland plays a significant and unique role in the planning, development, and implementation of many projects within Port jurisdiction.*

*I-880 serves as the primary regional facility for goods movement, particularly since trucks are prohibited on I-580 through Oakland. Proximity to the seaport, airport and the City's industrial areas combine to give the I-880 corridor the highest percentage of trucks on Oakland freeways despite high levels of congestion in the corridor, since trucks lack alternative routes. See Seaport and Airport/Gateway Showcases in the Waterfront section of this chapter and the description of Transportation Plan projects in Chapter 3 for further discussion.*

**Policy T1.1 Supporting the Port.**
Support the Port of Oakland's efforts to compete as a primary Port of Call for the West Coast shipping industry.

**Policy T1.2 Improving Transportation Links.**
Improve all types of transportation links including the Air BART shuttle service,between the Airport and business and neighborhood activity centers and the City.

**Policy T1.3 Expanding Airport Capacity.**
Expand the passenger and cargo handling capacity of the Oakland International Airport.

**Policy T1.4 Marketing Oakland.**
Encourage, promote, and support region-serving business, tourism industries, and businesses related to the transportation industry, to locate or relocate to Oakland.

<!-- page 23 -->
### REDUCE TRUCK IMPACTS

#### Objective T1.5
**Reduce truck traffic impacts on residential neighborhoods**

### INTEGRATING TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE PLANNING

#### Objective T2
**Provide mixed use, transit-oriented development that encourages public transit use and increases pedestrian and bicycle trips at major transportation nodes.**

*Many industrial activities that need trucking services are located adjacent to residential areas. Impacts such as noise, odor, and parking congestion due to trucks directly affect residents' quality of life.*

**Policy T1.5 Locating Truck Services.**
Truck services should be concentrated in areas adjacent to freeways and near the seaport and airport, while ensuring the attractiveness of the environment for visitors, local business, and nearby neighborhoods.

**Policy T1.6 Designating Truck Routes.**
An adequate system of roads connecting port terminals, warehouses, freeways and regional arterials, and other important truck destinations should be designated. This system should rely upon arterial streets away from residential neighborhoods. (See the Truck Route Diagram in Volume II of the Land Use and Transportation Element.)

**Policy T1.7 Routing Freeway Construction**
New or expanded freeway construction should be routed through areas containing land uses which can tolerate any anticipated future noise impact, and/or incorporate special design features or traffic controls which will offset the impact.

**Policy T1.8 Re-routing and Enforcing Truck Routes.**
The City should make efforts to re-route truck traffic away from neighborhoods, wherever possible, and enforce truck route controls.

*Transportation and land use patterns are integrally linked. In general, high density development tends to encourage the use of public transit while lower densities encourage auto use, including carpools. Where people can live close to their jobs and other destinations, bicycling and walking become viable travel modes. The physical layout of commercial districts can promote or discourage pedestrian-oriented shopping. Concentrating high density residential and mixed use development along transit corridors and at BART stations can help to promote the use of public transit, which in turn can make such developments viable. Industrial and shipping activities work best when they have good access to regional freeway and rail.*

**Policy T2.1 Encouraging Transit-Oriented Development.**
Transit-oriented development should be encouraged at existing or proposed transit nodes, defined by the convergence of two or more modes of public transit such as BART, bus, shuttle service, light rail or electric trolley, ferry, and inter-city or commuter rail. (The vision for each of Oakland's BART Stations is discussed on the next several pages.)

<!-- page 24 -->
## TRANSIT-ORIENTED DISTRICTS

After seeing the region expand through suburbanization of jobs and housing in the post-war period, many people are rethinking how communities are designed, with respect to where we live, where we work, and how we get around. One planning concept, transit-oriented development (TOD), takes advantage of fixed transportation systems and provides the means to integrate transit and land use planning. The General Plan envisions a future city pattern in which each of the BART stations is at the center of a mixed-use transit-oriented district that relates the station site to surrounding activities.

This section discusses the opportunities provided at each BART Station location, as well as at the Eastmont Town Center, a site with tremendous opportunities for reuse and intensification that has a high level of service provided by AC Transit. The draft policies propose that transit districts consist of mixed-use developments in a pedestrian-oriented setting. These communities would house a variety of commercial and residential uses, have structured parking, encourage both day and night activities, provide additional public space, and strengthen surrounding neighborhoods.

### Downtown TODs: 12th and 19th Street Stations
The 12th and 19th Street BART stations help define the Broadway spine, the highest-intensity business district in Oakland. The transportation capacity provided by BART is critical to making possible the density and variety of development envisioned by the General Plan (see also Downtown Showcase in the Downtown section in this chapter). Increased variety and intensity of activity in the City Center and Kaiser Center areas, and the Uptown Retail/Entertainment district will all take advantage of BART access. Mixed use commercial, office, and residential development will all be welcome in the Downtown TODs, provided that uses and development standards reinforce the area's urban quality and pedestrian-friendly nature.

The 12th and 19th Street TODs each have a distinct flavor, which will be enhanced with completion of buildings now under construction, reuse of now-vacant space, and future projects. At 12th Street, the City Center district is the seat of government, and home to many service and professional businesses. As a transportation hub, 12th Street is a major transfer point for regional and intercity travelers as well as those with local destinations. At 19th Street the emphasis is on

<!-- page 25 -->
corporate headquarters, occupying a mix of historic buildings and more contemporary architecture and an overall environment that benefits from proximity to Lake Merritt.

### Lake Merritt BART Station
The Lake Merritt BART station serves a concentration of government offices cultural, and institutional users — Laney College, the Oakland Museum, Henry J. Kaiser Convention Center, BART and MetroCenter offices, as well as nearby Chinatown destinations. In 1997 there are few development sites near the station, but intensification of activities would be welcome and consistent with the objectives of the General Plan. The Laney College parking lot offers a potential development site that might help to create a Transit Oriented District at Channel Park, as described in the Policy Framework for Downtown.

### Fruitvale BART Station
Located at the heart of Oakland’s most ethnically diverse district, the Fruitvale BART Station is envisioned as a “Transit Village”: a catalyst for community revitalization that provides a variety of retail opportunities, housing, and community services. This vision is the product of a long-time collaborative effort led by the Spanish Speaking Unity Council that includes residents, community groups, BART, and City of Oakland staff, who have worked together to assemble the plan and financing for the new development. A fine grain of moderate-density residential uses adjoin the site of the Transit Village to the east and support the businesses along International Boulevard (E. 14th Street), which is designated as a Regional Transit Street to support the provision of light rail or electric trolley buses. New development at the Transit Village will improve the connection of existing transit service and the commercial core of the neighborhood and provide a focal place for cultural events, shopping and business opportunities, as well as a variety of new moderate density housing types.

### Coliseum/Airport BART Station
The Coliseum/Airport BART station is at the edge of two districts: neighborhoods of largely single-family homes, and the Coliseum Area Showcase. The station’s varied transportation users—East Oakland residents and workers, Coliseum patrons, and Oakland International Airport users and Airport employees— reflect the diversity of its surroundings. The station itself is constrained by a difficult site, with railroad tracks and elevation changes limiting easy improvements. However, in the future, the railroad right-of-way may become available and could provide additional access options for this Transit-Oriented District. The Transit-Oriented district should aid the transition between neighborhoods and the regional attractions at the

<!-- page 26 -->
Coliseum/Airport and vicinity. Any new land uses that capitalize on the station's location and ridership must be designed to be compatible with adjoining housing.

### MacArthur BART Station
MacArthur BART is uniquely situated as the central hub and transfer point of the BART system, with trains arriving and departing to destinations around the Bay Area. Four major arterials that support local traffic and commerce are adjacent to the station -- Telegraph Avenue, MacArthur Boulevard, 40th Street, and Martin Luther King, Jr. Way. As the central hub, MacArthur BART has been proposed as a Maximum Access Station, a designation that must complement the type and density of uses in the surrounding development area, now characterized by mixed housing types and neighborhood-serving retail uses. Proposals to "open up" the Station entrance on the Martin Luther King Jr. Way side of the site are also being explored by BART and citizens concerned about providing safe and convenient access for Martin Luther King Jr. Way businesses and residents. New development around the station should capitalize on its maximum access potential to create business and residential revitalization, enhance the safety of the neighborhood, provide secure parking, improve station access, and encourage pedestrian activity and the use of public transportation.

### Rockridge BART Station
The Rockridge neighborhood is an outstanding example of a Transit-Oriented District, with College Avenue as its spine. The mixed-housing type neighborhood benefits from BART and north/south bus service connecting to Downtown Oakland, San Francisco, UC Berkeley and commercial and housing destinations. Small-scale shops, services, and restaurants all contribute to a lively and very walkable environment. This area should continue to develop as a mixed use area supporting increased housing and commercial opportunities. Significant change to the BART station, area densities or land uses are not expected over the life of the General Plan.

### West Oakland BART Station
West Oakland BART is uniquely situated as the first station linking San Francisco and Oakland, and the only station serving four BART routes. The station also has a possible future connection to the Capitol Corridor train, if funding becomes available. While the station area has primarily served commuter travel and parking needs, an increased intensity of use is expected upon completion of the new Cypress Freeway and removal of the former freeway. The West Oakland community is in discussion about how best to use the area vacated by the

<!-- page 27 -->
former Cypress and to capitalize on the anticipated beautification of the nearby Mandela Parkway corridor. Development of a Mandela Parkway "Transit Village" with retail stores and vital community services has been promoted as a possible option, combining provision of much needed services with the revitalization of the 7th Street corridor near the station. The South Prescott neighborhood would be strengthened by the addition of compatible housing nearby.

### Eastmont Town Center
The Eastmont Town Center area offers an exciting opportunity for the creation of a mixed-use living and working environment, since it is well located on a Regional Transit Street to become a transit-oriented district. Several major transit lines and corridors of the transportation network meet at Eastmont Town Center, and revitalization plans are assessing how best to include and encourage use of multi-modal access to the site. The 73rd Avenue arterial offers a direct route to the Coliseum area, I-880, and the Airport, while cross-town routes such as MacArthur Boulevard, Foothill Boulevard, and Bancroft Avenue also serve the site from Elmhurst and Fruitvale neighborhoods. The addition of well-designed, generously landscaped and compatible housing and neighborhood services to the mall area would strengthen this neighborhood and provide a revitalized activity center for the wider East Oakland area.

<!-- page 28 -->
"The time factor to get from Point A to Point B is critical...we need to see some clear picture of how we can improve transportation."

- Sylvester Grisby, General Plan Congress, 1997

### **TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS**

#### **Objective T3**
**Provide a hierarchical network of roads that reflects desired land use patterns and strives for acceptable levels of service at intersections.**

##### **Policy T2.2 Guiding Transit-Oriented Development.**
Transit-oriented developments should be pedestrian oriented, encourage night and day time use, provide the neighborhood with needed goods and services, contain a mix of land uses, and be designed to be compatible with the character of surrounding neighborhoods.

##### **Policy T2.3 Promoting Neighborhood Services.**
Promote neighborhood-serving commercial development within one-quarter to one-half mile of established transit routes and nodes.

##### **Policy T2.4 Linking Transportation and Economic Development.**
Encourage transportation improvements that facilitate economic development.

##### **Policy T2.5 Linking Transportation and Activities.**
Link transportation facilities and infrastructure improvements to recreational uses, job centers, commercial nodes, and social services (i.e., hospitals, parks, or community centers).

In general, local traffic in Oakland flows relatively smoothly, although some locations experience back-ups at certain times of day and freeways are often congested at peak hours. To promote alternative forms of transit, measures will be needed to ensure that buses, carpools, and bicycles can travel to their destinations with a minimum of delay. However, care must be taken to ensure that measures to reduce congestion do not inadvertently encourage the use of single occupant vehicles. In addition, a certain level of traffic congestion may be desirable in some locations to slow traffic and promote a more bicycle and pedestrian-oriented environment. Projects to meet the objectives of this section are identified in Chapter 3.

##### **Policy T3.1 Defining Transportation Hierarchies.**
The City should define a hierarchical network of public transit corridors.

##### **Policy T3.2 Promoting Strategies to Address Congestion.**
The City should promote and participate in both local and regional strategies to manage traffic supply and demand where unacceptable levels of service exist or are forecast to exist.

##### **Policy T3.3 Allowing Congestion Downtown.**
For intersections within Downtown and for those that provide direct access to Downtown locations, the city should accept a lower level of service and a higher level of traffic congestion than is accepted in other parts of Oakland. The desired pedestrian-oriented nature of Downtown activity and the positive effect of traffic congestion in promoting the use of transit or other methods of travel should be recognized.

<!-- page 29 -->
**Policy T3.4 Emerging New Technologies.**
The City should encourage the use of new technologies in traffic control devices to maximize efficiency of car, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic.

**Policy T3.5 Including Bikeways and Pedestrian Walks.**
The City should include bikeways and pedestrian walks in the planning of new, reconstructed, or realized streets, wherever possible.

**Policy T3.6 Encouraging Transit.**
The City should encourage and promote use of public transit in Oakland by expediting the movement of and access to transit vehicles on designated "transit streets" as shown on the Transportation Plan. (Policies T3.6 and T3.7 are based on the City Council's passage of "Transit First" policy in October 1996.)

**Policy T3.7 Resolving Transportation Conflicts.**
The City, in constructing and maintaining its transportation infrastructure, should resolve any conflicts between public transit and single occupant vehicles in favor of the transportation mode that has the potential to provide the greatest mobility and access for people, rather than vehicles, giving due consideration to the environmental, public safety, economic development, health, and social equity impacts.

**Policy T3.8 Screening Downtown Parking.**
Cars parked in downtown lots should be screened from public view through the use of ground floor store fronts, parks and landscaping, or other pedestrian-friendly, safe, and attractive means.

**Policy T3.9 Providing Parking for Transportation.**
The City should strive to provide parking for multiple modes of transportation throughout the city where it is needed and does not unduly disrupt traffic flow.

**Policy T3.10 Balancing Parking Demands and Economic Development Activity.**
The City should balance the parking demands and parking charges in City-owned facilities with the need to promote economic activity in certain areas (such as Downtown and neighborhood commercial areas).

**Policy T3.11 Prioritizing Parking.**
Parking in residential areas should give priority to adjacent residents.

<!-- page 30 -->
### ALTERNATIVE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION

### Objective T4

**Increase use of alternative modes of transportation.**

*More than half of Oakland’s employed residents drove alone to work in 1990. Although this figure is below the County and regional average of two-thirds drive-alone commuters, it still represents the majority of Oakland workers and a slight increase over 1980 levels. Meanwhile, the percentage of residents who commute by public transit has declined, while those using carpools and other modes have stayed about the same. Almost one-quarter of the city’s households have no car available. These residents must rely on other forms of transportation, such as public transit, bicycling, or walking. If Oakland is to reduce dependence on the single occupant vehicle and ensure that all residents can easily get to their jobs, shopping, school, recreational facilities, and other destinations in a timely manner, viable alternatives to the automobile must be available.*

**Policy T4.1 Incorporating Design Features for Alternative Travel.**
The City will require new development, rebuilding, or retrofit to incorporate design features in their projects that encourage use of alternative modes of transportation such as transit, bicycling, and walking.

**Policy T4.2 Creating Transportation Incentives.**
Through cooperation with other agencies, the City should create incentives to encourage travelers to use alternative transportation options.

**Policy T4.3 Reducing Transit Wasting Times.**
The City should encourage transit operators to reduce waiting times for users by coordinating schedules and maintaining intervals of fifteen (15) minutes or less between buses during peak daytime periods. (See Chapter 3 for more detailed standards for Transit Streets.)

**Policy T4.4 Developing Light Rail or Electric Trolley.**
The City supports the development of light rail or trolley bus along Regional Transit streets in high travel demand on corridors. (See the Transportation Diagram and Chapter 3 for more detailed standards for Transit Streets.)

**Policy T4.5 Preparing a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master plan.**
The City should prepare, adopt, and implement a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan as a part of the Transportation Element of this General Plan.

**Policy T4.6 Making Transportation Accessible for Everyone.**
Alternative modes of transportation should be accessible for all of Oakland’s population. Including the elderly, disabled, and disadvantaged.

<!-- page 31 -->
**FUNDING**

### **Objective T5**

**Secure funding for transportation infrastructure improvements and maintenance.**

**Policy4.7 Reusing Abandoned Rail Lines.**
Where rail lines (including siding and spurs) are to be abandoned, first consideration should be given to acquiring the line for transportation and recreational uses, such as bikeways, footpaths, or public transit.

**Policy T4.8 Accommodating Multiple Types of Travel on the Bay Bridge.**
The City should encourage the design and engineering for the new Bay Bridge to accommodate multiple means of access and travel by automobiles, trucks, transit, bicycles, pedestrians, and future mass transit.

**Policy T4.9 “Gateway” Public Access Area**
The City, in concert with the East Bay Regional Park District, Port of Oakland, Oakland base Reuse Authority, and Bay Conservation and Development Commission, should support development of a significant new “gateway” public park area at the terminus of the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge east span that is accessible by auto, bicycle, or walking (See also the Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element).

**Policy T4.10 Converting underused Travel Lanes.**
Take advantage of existing transportation infrastructure and capacity that is underutilized. For example, where possible and desirable, convert underused travel lanes to bicycle or pedestrian paths or amenities.

*In recent years, the trend has been away from building major new transportation facilities and toward increasing the efficiency of existing systems through better management. However, the transportation improvements in Chapter 3 do include some new facilities for trucks, cars, bicycles, and pedestrians. Major improvements to existing facilities are also under construction or proposed, including the widening of 98th Avenue, a new pedestrian bridge over the I-880 freeway near 98th Avenue, and seismic upgrade and reconfiguration of several I-880 freeway interchanges. These are major capital projects, for which funding will need to be found not only for construction, but operation and maintenance.*

**Policy T5.1 Funding for Infrastructure.**
Funding for infrastructure projects should be long term and include operating and maintenance as well as capital development.

**Policy T5.2 Ranking Capital Improvement Projects.**
A system to rank capital improvement program projects should be developed. Ranking criteria should include public safety, equity to different neighborhoods in Oakland, potential to support

<!-- page 32 -->
economic development, consistency with "transit first" principles, system maintenance cost, travel convenience, travel cost savings, environmental impacts, attractiveness, and reduced public expenditures.

**Policy T5.3 Prioritize Infrastructure Improvements.**
Infrastructure improvements should be prioritized to prevent deterioration of existing infrastructure.

**Policy T5.4 Considering a Range of Funding Strategies.**
A range of strategies to provide funding for transportation improvements should be considered, including, but not limited to, special user fees, development impact fees, or assessment districts.

**SAFETY**

### Objective T6
**Make streets safe, pedestrian accessible, and attractive.**

*In the past few years, public hearings have been held throughout the city on reducing traffic in the neighborhoods by slowing it down or redirecting it to arterial streets. Measures that have been suggested include speed bumps, traffic diverters, traffic circles, stop signs, and retiming of signals. Some of these have been implemented, but funding is insufficient to meet all of the public's requests. In addition, the location and design of some freeway ramps tends to direct traffic onto local streets and through neighborhoods. Measures to reduce traffic impacts need to be prioritized and coordinated with overall circulation planning. Pedestrian-oriented streetscapes usually include facilities such as corner transit stops, median strips, wide sidewalks, benches or seating, lighting, and signs, as well as amenities such as street trees and landscaping.*

**Policy T6.1 Posting Maximum Speeds.**
Collector streets shall be posted at the lowest possible speed (usually a maximum speed of 25 miles per hour), except where a lower speed is dictated by safety and allowable by law.

**Policy T6.2 Improving Streetscapes.**
The city should make major efforts to improve the visual quality of streetscapes. Design of the streetscape, particularly in neighborhoods and commercial centers, should be pedestrian-oriented and include lighting, directional signs, trees, benches, and other support facilities.

**Policy T6.3 Making the Waterfront Accessible.**
The waterfront should be made accessible to pedestrians and bicyclists throughout Oakland.

**Policy T6.4 Rebuilding Freeways.**
In the event of a major disaster, necessitating reconstruction of the I-880 freeway, it should be rebuilt below ground in the downtown/Jack London Square area.

<!-- page 33 -->
**AIR QUALITY**

### Objective T7
**Reduce air pollutants caused by vehicles.**

**Policy T6.5 Protecting Scenic Routes.**
The City should protect and encourage enhancement of the distinctive character of scenic routes within the city, through prohibition of billboards, design review, and other means.

See Policy CO-12.1, from the Opan Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element.

<!-- page 34 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 35 -->
## Downtown

"A basic source of economic strength in a central district--and one of the reasons it is the most interesting and active place in the city--is the wide variety of functions that are performed there ... In many ways the central district is the city."

*- Judy Rowe, General Plan Congress, 1966*

<<FIGURE>>
Marriot with the Warriors' Practice Facility

<<FIGURE>>
Broadway Building

<<FIGURE>>
Cathedral Building

<<FIGURE>>
High-rise housing near Lake Merritt

<<FIGURE>>
Urban character along Broadway

*Envision yourself taking an early evening walk up Broadway through Oakland's revitalized downtown. On the right is Chinatown, where food markets remain busy as restaurants open for dinner. On the left are the Victorian buildings of Old Oakland, where shoppers meander through galleries and boutiques. Passing City Center, you see a stream of workers, some heading toward the BART station and bus stops, some walking home. Around 20th Street, joggers head east to Lake Merritt for a pre-sunset lap. A line of theatergoers begins to form outside the Paramount. Across the street, a couple, groceries in hand, walks back to their downtown apartment. Buses are everywhere, shuttling people to and from this dynamic mix of twenty-four hour activity.*

<!-- page 36 -->
# DOWNTOWN SHOWCASE

**The Element promotes the continued evolution of Downtown Oakland as a vibrant mixed use environment of distinctive subdistricts at the forefront of the regional economy. Downtown's designation as an Oakland Showcase highlights the district's local and regional importance.**

### Facts and Figures
Location, location, location. At the heart of the BART system, in close proximity to major region-serving freeways, beautiful Lake Merritt, the energized Jack London District Waterfront, the Channel Park Cultural and educational area, Chinatown historic office buildings, and architecturally significant urban density neighborhoods, the business center of Oakland has it all. Various development cycles through the years have affected the appearance and vitality of downtown. Downtown Oakland was a prosperous hub of commerce and employment through most of the century, with abundant shopping and work opportunities and a vibrant bustling atmosphere. But starting in the 1970's and through the early 1990's the atmosphere of downtown began to change as a result of many factors. These included an increasing reliance on automobile travel, availability of affordable housing and employment centers in outlying areas, and the advent of regional shopping malls. Downtown Oakland, like many older urban centers, began to decline in prominence as a residential and commercial hub.

Throughout these transformations, Downtown continued to dominate the East Bay office market. In 1981, Oakland had about 7.3 million square feet of office space. By 1993, Downtown had approximately 13 million square feet of office space and 80,000 workers. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the national economic recession and tightening of the financial lending market translated into a local decline in office construction and an increase in vacancy rates.

With the recent upturn in the national economy the future again looks very bright for downtown. In the period from 1995 to 2015, job and population growth in the Downtown are expected to be robust, each increasing approximately 30%. The great majority of new jobs are anticipated to be office jobs in the government, business services, finance, communications and high technology sectors. These key sectors are established as future targets in the Citywide Economic Development Strategy, and they comprise vital components of a vibrant downtown economy of the future.

In addition to being an employment center, Downtown is also a neighborhood--or a collection of neighborhoods. Chinatown, Old Oakland, the Gold Coast, and other Downtown residential areas combined had a total of 6,600 housing units in 1995, and a population exceeding 11,400. Residents as well as local workers and businesses help support Downtown retailing and restaurants.

<!-- page 37 -->
The Downtown Showcase includes unique assets for the city and region: Lake Merritt, the nation's first wildlife refuge, was established in 1870. Laney College and the Alameda County library are major educational resources. Cultural, performing and fine arts facilities include the historic Paramount and Fox Theaters and the Oakland Museum of California. As Downtown Oakland stretches toward the Bay it meets the waterfront at Jack London Square.

### Vision for the Future
The vision for Downtown established by the Element's Policy Framework promotes the role of Downtown as a mixture of vibrant districts, each with a unique identity, all contributing to around-the-clock activity and continued expansion of job opportunities. The goals for downtown seek to expand the role that the district plays in the lives of local residents and surrounding communities by attracting people into the area with exciting cultural and social opportunities, recognizing that Downtown can be a source of pride for all residents, workers, and visitors to Oakland.

Key components of the vision for Downtown are support for growth in office activity and increasing the population through new Downtown housing. Expanding the number of downtown residents will also support employment and will enhance Downtown as a seven-day-a-week, 24-hour-a-day destination.

### Downtown Goals
* **To promote downtown Oakland's position as a dynamic economic center for the region.**
* **To serve as a primary communications, office, government, high technology, retail, entertainment, and transportation hub for Northern California.**
* **To become a premier location in the region for urban residential living, by building upon existing neighborhoods, and by promoting and expanding a pedestrian-friendly, diverse and exciting range of housing, social, cultural, and arts opportunities.**
* **To further develop, support, revitalize, and promote the distinct, attractive urban character of each of the downtown districts, and to respect historic resources.**

<!-- page 38 -->
### Achieving the Vision

The Element provides maximum flexibility for both horizontal and vertical mixing of a wide variety of land uses in the Downtown. Broadway serves as the linkage from the neighborhoods to the waterfront, connecting housing areas to the Financial District, Uptown, City Center, Old Oakland, Chinatown, and the South of Nimitz area to the Jack London District. Subsequent planning and design studies may distinguish among Downtown subdistricts to heighten their identities and meet goals for Downtown. This may be achieved through differentiating uses, development standards, urban design elements or features of the transportation system. In particular, zoning and other implementing activities should explore establishing boundaries for major office development that maintain a large supply of sites and clearly identify Downtown’s housing areas and provide for their maintenance and enhancement.

Downtown job growth can be accommodated largely through construction of taller buildings and revitalization and reuse of underutilized properties. Revitalization is already under way with projects approved or planned that will add hundreds of new housing units to the Old Oakland and Gateway neighborhoods, new office jobs to the Broadway corridor, and, new entertainment/retail activity along portions of Telegraph Avenue and in Jack London Square.

Implementing the General Plan in other parts of the City will help achieve objectives for Downtown. High-rise office development will be allowed only in Downtown. Other office areas should be differentiated from the core downtown office district through distinct development standards and height and bulk controls. Any office development southwest of I-880 and in other areas of the City should offer a different type of office environment that competes with locations in other cities rather than with Downtown offices.

Although the office market is the strongest economic sector downtown, it is not so strong that it can be taken for granted and expected to prosper without continuing local support. Public policy should continue to encourage and include actions to support and attract office activities downtown and support the very substantial public investments in Downtown.

The Downtown Objectives and Policies address a wide range of issues and concerns, including design standards, transportation, housing opportunities for a range of incomes, and approaches to supporting both residential and commercial activity in the Downtown.

<!-- page 39 -->
### Objective D1
**Enhance the identity of Downtown Oakland and its distinctive districts.**

<<FIGURE>>

**Downtown Subdistricts**
*- Moore, Iacofano, Goltsman, 1996*

## Downtown Objectives and Policies
*Downtown Oakland is composed of a variety of distinct and active districts, containing business, cultural, and residential elements. Each of the unique characteristics, identities, and potentials of these areas should be explored and built upon by future development and conservation efforts.*

### Policy D1.1 Defining Characteristics of Downtown.
The characteristics that make downtown Oakland unique, including its strong core area; proximity to destinations such as the Jack London waterfront, Lake Merritt, historic areas, cultural, arts, and entertainment activities; and housing stock, should be enhanced and used to strengthen the downtown as a local and regional asset.

### Policy D1.2 Identify District Districts.
The downtown should be viewed as the compilation of a series of distinct districts, including but not limited to City Center, Chinatown, Old Oakland, the Broadway Corridor, Gateway, Kaiser Center, Gold Coast, the Channel Park area south of Lake Merritt, and the Jack London Waterfront. A distinct identity for these downtown districts should be supported and enhanced.

### Policy D1.3 Planning for Chinatown.
The unique character of Chinatown, as a center for Asian-American culture, a regional destination point, and a district with a mixed housing type residential component, should be supported and encouraged.

### Policy D1.4 Planning for Old Oakland.
Old Oakland should be respected and promoted as a significant historic resource and character-defining element, with Washington Street as its core. Residential development in Old Oakland should be of mixed housing type, with ground-floor retail where feasible.

### Policy D1.5 Planning for the Gateway District.
New development and rehabilitation in the Gateway district should contribute to greater neighborhood cohesion and identity, emphasizing mixed housing type and urban density residential development.

### Policy D1.6 Planning for Kaiser Center.
The Kaiser Center finance and office area should be strongly linked with the Broadway/19th St. office core, and sensitive to pedestrian-friendly open space amenities associated with Lake Merritt and Snow Park.

<!-- page 40 -->
**DESIGN**

### Objective D2
**Enhance the visual quality of downtown by preserving and improving existing housing stock and encouraging new, high quality, development.**

**Policy D1.7 Planning for the Gold Coast.**
The Gold Coast should be recognized and conserved as an established neighborhood providing urban density housing in a unique urban setting.

**Policy D1.8 Planning for the Channel Park Arts, Educational, and Cultural Center.**
The area south of Lake Merritt that includes Laney College, the Henry J. Kaiser Auditorium, the Oakland Museum, and Alameda County offices should be enhanced as a walkable, bicycle-friendly educational, cultural and institutional center in downtown Oakland. Efforts to strengthen this area's identity and create transportation linkages with the Jack London Waterfront, City Center, and the Financial District, and BART should be promoted.

**Policy D1.9 Planning for the Channel Park Residential Area.**
The area between the Channel Park Arts, Educational, and Cultural Center and the waterfront should be developed as a walkable urban residential district, incorporating commercial development and open space as appropriate to take advantage of the cultural and recreational amenities provided by the center and the channel to the estuary., and east transportation by BART.

**Policy D1.10 Planning for the Jack London District.**
Pedestrian-oriented entertainment, live-work enterprise, moderate-scale retail outlets and offices should be encouraged in the Jack London Waterfront area.

**Policy D1.11 Supporting the Jack London District.**
The continuing commercial growth and success of Jack London Square should be supported and linkages such as the Bay Trail, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian walks to downtown Oakland and the airport should be improved.

**Policy D1.12 Planning for the Produce Market Area.**
The Produce Market should be recognized as California’s last example of an early twentieth century produce market. Should the wholesale distribution of produce be relocated to another site the character and vitality of this unique district should be encouraged in its reuse if economically viable

*New housing developments in the downtown will provide urban dwellers with expanded options for living in a revitalized inner city, near major transportation lines, employment centers, state-of-the-art communication technology, and regionally known entertainment venues.*

<!-- page 41 -->
**FOR PEDESTRIANS**

### Objective D3
**Create a pedestrian-friendly downtown.**

**ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION**

### Objective D4
**Increase the economic vitality of downtown.**

**Policy D2.1 Enhancing the Downtown**
Downtown development should be visually interesting, harmonize with its surroundings, respect and enhance important views in and of the downtown, respect the character, history, and pedestrian-orientation of the downtown, and contribute to an attractive skyline.

*Pedestrian-Friendly areas will have amenities that provide for the comfort, safe passage, and convenience of people who are walking or using wheelchairs. Examples of this may include wide and unobstructed sidewalks, benches, landscaping, lighting, directional signs or kiosks, public art installations, and signal timing that allows for pedestrian flow over traffic flow.*

**Policy D3.1 Promoting Pedestrians.**
Pedestrian-friendly commercial areas should be promoted.

**Policy D3.2 Incorporating Parking Facilities.**
New parking facilities for cars and bicycles should be incorporated into the design of any project in a manner that encourages and promotes safe pedestrian activity.

*The Economic Development Strategy (City of Oakland, 1997) for Oakland identifies attracting potential users of high intensity office development as a step toward enhancing downtown Oakland as the East Bay's primary regional employment center. Downtown Oakland is well-connected by transportation and communication networks, and is the seat of many Federal, State, County, and local government operations. Efforts at attraction and promotion of Oakland's downtown include materials which describe the amenities available for business, as well as the strength of the urban infrastructure.*

**Policy D4.1 Supporting Development.**
Development activities should be supported through infrastructure improvements in the downtown.

**Policy D4.2 Fostering a Positive Business Climate.**
A positive business climate which encourages attraction of new businesses and retention and expansion of existing businesses in downtown Oakland should be fostered, promoting Oakland's locational (transportation) advantages and other amenities.

**Policy D4.3 Attracting Employment to the Downtown.**
Economic sectors that promote employment, are likely to grow, or will diversify the economic base should be attracted to the downtown.

<!-- page 42 -->
### Objective D5
**Enhance the safety and perception of safety downtown at all hours.**

### REHABILITATION AND RENEWAL
### Objective D6
**Eliminate blight caused by underutilized properties**

### OFFICE
### Objective D7
**Facilitate and promote downtown Oakland's position as the primary office center for the region.**

*Increased activity Downtown reduces opportunities for crime and the perception of crime. Providing exciting living opportunities in downtown districts also helps to increase security by assuring the presence of people and "eyes on the street" twenty-four hours a day.*

#### Policy D5.1 Encouraging Twenty-Four Hour Activity.
Activities and amenities that encourage pedestrian traffic during the work week, as well as evenings and weekends should be promoted.

*Rehabilitation of earthquake damaged buildings, restoration of important historic resources, abatement of blight, and reuse of underutilized parcels are physical development activities that help to recast people's negative perceptions about Oakland's Downtown. Revitalization efforts also help to increase business opportunities, spur residential development, and expand tourism. For more information on the historic preservation policies, see the Historic Preservation Element.*

#### Policy D6.1 Developing Vacant Lots.
Construction on vacant land or to replace surface parking lots should be encouraged throughout the downtown, where possible.

#### Policy D6.2 Reusing Vacant or Underutilized Buildings.
Existing vacant or underutilized buildings should be reused. Repair and rehabilitation, particularly of historic or architecturally significant structures, should be strongly encouraged. However, where reuse is not economically feasible, demolition and other measures should be considered. (Landmark and Preservation District properties must follow Policy 2.4 of the Historic Preservation Element.)

*Continued advocacy of downtown Oakland's infrastructure, amenities, and sustainable location as the East Bay's primary regional office center is important, not only to counteract the region's tendency to allow creation of outlying office parks (sprawl), but to capitalize on the substantial public investment that has been made in Oakland.*

#### Policy D7.1 Advocating for Downtown.
Downtown Oakland's advantages for regional office development, including its position as the hub for regional transportation, should be advocated at State and regional planning levels.

<!-- page 43 -->
### Objective D8
**Build on the current office nodes near the 12th and 19th Street BART stations to establish these locations as the principal centers for office development in the city.**

### COMMERCIAL
### Objective D9
**Emphasize the establishment, promotion, and retention of commercial businesses that serve the needs of downtown workers and residents.**

*Current nodes of office development at Downtown BART stations should be enhanced and built upon. (For a discussion of the vision for development at each of Oakland’s BART stations, please see the section on Transit-Oriented Districts, in the Transportation and Transit-Oriented Development section of Chapter 2.)*

#### Policy D8.1 Locating Office Development.
New large scale office development should be primarily located along the Broadway corridor south of Grand Avenue, with concentrations at the 12th Street and 19th Street BART stations. The height of office development should respect the Lake Merritt edge. Small scale offices should be allowed throughout the downtown, including in the downtown neighborhoods, when compatible with the character of surrounding development.

#### Policy D8.2 Respecting Public Parks.
Future office development on Harrison Street opposite Lakeside Park and Snow Park should provide ground level landscaped open space to soften the edge between public park land and the office core. This space should be clearly accessible to office workers and the public.

#### Policy D8.3 Attracting Private Office Development.
Private office development should be aggressively attracted to the downtown.

#### Policy D8.4 Developing the Broadway Spine.
The Broadway spine, particularly near the 12th Street/City Center BART station, should be the primary location of new public office development.

*Oakland continues to strive to attract commercial businesses to support active office and housing environments in Downtown.*

#### Policy D9.1 Concentrating Commercial Development.
Concentrate region-serving or “destination” commercial development in the corridor around Broadway between 12th and 21st streets, in Chinatown, and along the Jack London Waterfront. Ground floor locations for commercial uses that encourage a pedestrian-friendly environment should be encouraged throughout the downtown.

#### Policy D9.2 Meeting Daily Needs.
Downtown residents should have access to goods and services to meet their daily and long term needs within the downtown area.

<!-- page 44 -->
### HOUSING

### Objective D10
**Maximize housing opportunities in the downtown to create a better sense of community.**

Increasing numbers of people living in the various downtown districts by providing the maximum range of housing types and densities will help to create more cohesive and sustainable downtown communities.

#### Policy D10.1 Encouraging Housing.
Housing in the downtown should be encouraged as a vital component of a 24-hour community presence.

#### Policy D10.2 Locating Housing.
Housing in the downtown should be encouraged in identifiable districts, within walking distance of the 12th Street, 19th Street, City Center, and Lake Merritt BART stations to encourage transit use, and in other locations where compatible with surrounding uses.

#### Policy D10.3 Framework for Housing Densities.
Downtown residential areas should generally be within the Urban Density Residential and Central Business District density range where not otherwise specified. The height and bulk should reflect existing and desired district character, the overall city skyline, and the existence of historic structures or areas.

#### Policy D10.4 Providing Housing for a Range of Needs.
Housing in the downtown should not be geared toward any one housing market, but rather should be promoted for a range of incomes, ownership options, household types, household sizes, and needs.

#### Policy D10.5 Designing Housing.
Housing in the downtown should be safe and attractive, of high quality design, and respect the downtown’s distinct neighborhoods and its history.

#### Policy D10.6 Creating Infill Housing.
Infill housing that respects surrounding development and the streetscape should be encouraged in the downtown to strengthen or create distinct districts.

#### Policy D10.7 Developing Live-Work Spaces.
Locational and performance criteria should be developed for live-work developments.

<!-- page 45 -->
### MIXED USE

### Objective D11
**Foster mixed use developments to help create a diverse, lively, and vibrant downtown**

### CULTURAL, ARTS, EDUCATION, AND ENTERTAINMENT

### Objective D12
**Make downtown Oakland a regional destination for innovative learning programs, cultural resources, art, and entertainment.**

*Mixed Use developments can be vital locations that contain both living and working activities within one site. These types of development are ecologically preferable to those that separate housing from jobs and local services, in the downtown as well as along the city’s corridors.*

#### Policy D11.1 Promoting Mixed-Use Development.
Mixed use developments should be encouraged in the downtown for such purposes as to promote its diverse character, provide for needed goods and services, support local art and culture, and give incentive to reuse existing vacant or underutilized structures.

#### Policy D11.2 Locating Mixed-Use Development.
Mixed use development should be allowed in commercial areas, where the residential component is compatible with the desired commercial function of the area.

*Oakland’s strength as the most ethnically and culturally diverse city in the United States is a key reason for its attractiveness to the world. Oakland’s diversity is expressed, in part, through art, cultural events, entertainment, and educational opportunities, which are vital components of a livable city.*

#### Policy D12.1 Promoting Oakland’s Strengths.
Build on and promote Oakland’s educational resources, historic importance as an entertainment venue, existing cultural diversity, and strong arts community.

#### Policy D12.2 Focusing Large-Scale Activities Downtown.
The City should, where feasible and desirable, support and build upon the educational, cultural, art and entertainment resources in the downtown.

#### Policy D12.3 Locating Entertainment Activities.
Large scale entertainment uses should be encouraged to concentrate in the Jack London Waterfront and within the Broadway corridor area. However, existing large scale facilities in the Downtown should be utilized to the fullest extent possible.

#### Policy D12.4 Locating Smaller Scale Entertainment Activities.
Small scale entertainment uses, such as small clubs, should be allowed to locate in the Jack London Waterfront area and to be dispersed throughout downtown districts, provided that the City works with area residents and businesses to manage the impacts of such uses.

#### Policy D12.5 Incorporating Art in the Downtown.
Art should be part of the fabric of the downtown, located in public and private facilities, and in public spaces.

<!-- page 46 -->
**DOWNTOWN TRANSPORTATION**

### Objective D13
**Create and coordinate a well-balanced regional and local transportation system to serve the downtown.**

**Policy D12.6 Supporting Educational.**
Educational institutions should be supported in the downtown and encouraged to integrate with other downtown activities, including private businesses.

**Policy D12.7 Diversifying Building Uses.**
Diversification of the uses of civic and institutional buildings should be encouraged.

*Balancing and meeting resident, business, and tourism needs for convenient automobile access with safe and reliable public transportation and pedestrian access is important for the vitality of the downtown area. Refer also to the Transportation Policy Section.*

**Policy D13.1 Coordinating Transportation Options.**
A variety of transportation modes to and within all downtown districts should be coordinated to safely and efficiently move people and goods. Affordability and convenience are primary considerations.

**Policy D13.2 Providing Parking.**
An adequate quantity of car, bicycle, and truck parking, which has been designed to enhance the pedestrian environment, should be provided to encourage housing development and the economic vitality of commercial, office, entertainment, and mixed use areas.

<!-- page 47 -->
### Waterfront

<<FIGURE>>
Port of Oakland: Seaport

<<FIGURE>>
Channel Park along Estuary

<<FIGURE>>
Jack London Square

<<FIGURE>>
Commercial Recreation Marina

*Nineteen miles of shoreline define Oakland's western and southern edge—more shoreline than in any other Bay Area city. This amenity offers a wealth of future possibilities. The 1990s have brought a heightened awareness of the City's potential to claim its waterfront as a central identifying feature. Community members, city leaders, planning and design professionals, and civic organizations have studied, discussed and appreciated the waterfront for its diversity and its potential. All have concluded that the waterfront has been cut off from the rest of the City, and that this extraordinary place needs to be reunited with the rest of Oakland.*

<!-- page 48 -->
Shore lands have historically been advantageous locations for industry, and much of Oakland's waterfront activity is industry-related, centered around seaport and airport activities. The existing multimodal transportation corridor provides essential capacity to move people and goods by car, truck and rail, but also creates barriers to waterfront districts from elsewhere in the city.

Industrial and transportation uses alone do not maximize the shoreline's potential. Diversification of uses along the estuary shore, including new and revitalized shops, restaurants, entertainment, water-related development, recreation, open space, housing, and cultural activities are among the exciting array of activities being developed to re-claim the waterfront. Public access is fundamental to broadening waterfront activities and improving waterfront connections with the rest of the City, particularly to Downtown and adjacent neighborhoods. The waterfront is also home to a diverse group of plant and animal species (some of which are protected in established Resource Conservation Areas).

The economic importance of the seaport, the airport, and the mixed use waterfront is highlighted with designations of three Oakland Showcases along the Waterfront. Each is discussed in detail in this part of the Policy Framework, with Facts and Figures, a Vision of the Future, and a discussion of how the vision is to be achieved.

### Waterfront Goals

*   Increase the awareness of the waterfront throughout the City and the region, and maximize the benefit of Oakland's waterfront for the people of Oakland.
*   Promote the diversity of the waterfront by providing opportunities for new parks, recreation, and open space; cultural, educational, and entertainment experiences; and new or revitalized retail, commercial, and residential development.
*   Enhance and promote the City's waterfront for the economic benefit of the community with emphasis on Oakland's position as a leading west coast maritime terminal and a primary Bay Area passenger and cargo airport.
*   Connect the waterfront to the rest of the City with emphasis on linking adjacent neighborhoods and Downtown directly to the waterfront, reducing physical barriers and the perception of isolation from the water's edge, and improving public access to and along the waterfront.
*   Preserve and enhance the existing natural areas along the waterfront.

<!-- page 49 -->
**LAND USE**

**Objective W1**
**Enhance the waterfront with a wide variety of uses. The seaport and airport should have uses which promote its economic and transportation assets, and other waterfront areas should have multi-purpose uses including recreation, entertainment, cultural, education, economic, transportation, and residential assets.**

The goals, objectives, and policies pertaining to the waterfront issues give impetus to a new focus for Oakland at the water’s edge. This policy framework provides direction for land use and public access in the estuary area by broadening its possibilities to a wider spectrum of uses. They also support the expansion of the seaport and airport by improving their position in intermodal transportation networks and attracting related commercial and industrial business for economic benefits and jobs for the City.

A central component of the waterfront policies is direction for detailed planning along the estuary shore to guide future development and conservation. The “Estuary Plan,” a joint effort of the Port and city of Oakland is the companion planning effort that focuses on the waterfront. The Estuary Plan will be completed; the waterfront section of this Element provides overall direction for completion of that plan and any concurrent development.

### Waterfront Objectives and Policies
*The Oakland waterfront should become a vigorous, multi-use, regionally known attraction and resource, sensitively developed for the benefit of Oakland residents, visitors, and business interests.*

**Policy W1.1 General Plan Conformance of Projects in the Seaport and Airport Areas**

The Port shall make a written determination on General Plan conformity for each project, plan, and/or land use guideline it approves in the Port area. Prior to making such determination the Port will froward its proposed determination to the Director of City Planning, who may provide the Port with written comments within a specified time period. Any comments so provided shall be considered and responded to in writing by the Port in its conformity determination.

For projects in the Port Area outside the seaport and airport areas, the Port’s determination of General Plan conformity may be appealed to the City Council within 10 days. If not appealed within 10 days, the Port’s determination shall be deemed final. If appealed, the City Council, by a vote of a least 6 members, shall make a final determination on the appeal within 30 days. The City Planning Commission shall provide recommendation to the City Council for consideration in hearing on appeal of the Port’s conformity determination.

<!-- page 50 -->
For purposes of this policy, the Airport area shall be considered that portion of the Port area west of Doolittle Drive, and the Seaport area shall be considered that portion of the Port Area generally lying west of Maritime Street and northwest of the Estuary Plan area.

Projects appealable to the City Council under policy are those for which and Environmental Impact Report of Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; new construction, additions, changes in use, or, expansion of use involving 20,000 square feet or more in floor area; and public improvements in transportation or public access valued at $250,000 or more.

### Policy W1.2 Planning with the Port of Oakland.
Plans for maritime and aviation operations as well as activities on all lands in Port jurisdiction should be coordinated with, and generally consistent with the Oakland General Plan.

### Policy W1.3 Reducing Land Use Conflicts.
Land uses and impacts generated from Port or neighborhood activities should be buffered, protecting adjacent residential areas from the impacts of seaport, airport, or other industrial uses. Appropriate siting of industrial activities, buffering (e.g., landscaping, fencing, transitional uses, etc.), truck traffic management efforts, and other mitigation’s should be used to minimize the impact of incompatible uses.

**LAND USE**

#### Objective W2
**Encourage and accommodate facilities and Public linkages which attract the public to the waterfront without endangering public safety or compromising airport and seaport operations and security.**

*The appropriate level of public access into the Seaport and Airport has been much debated in recent years. The intent of this objective is to find multiple ways to encourage and provide safe access to the water’s edge for everyone, without interfering with airport or water-dependent business operations.*

### Policy W2.1 Linking Neighborhoods with the Waterfront.
All recreational activity sites along the waterfront should be connected to each other to create continuous waterfront access. Safe and direct automobile, bicycle, pedestrian and waterway access between the waterfront and adjacent neighborhoods should be created and strengthened.

### Policy W2.2 Buffering of Heavy Industrial Uses.
Appropriate buffering measures for heavy industrial uses and transportation uses on adjacent residential neighborhoods should be developed and implemented.

<!-- page 51 -->
“In the next ten years the Waterfront may emerge as the most spectacular feature of the city.”

*- Zarka Popovic, General Plan Congress, 1997*

**Policy W2.3 Providing Public Access Improvements.**
Public access improvements to the waterfront and along the water’s edge should be implemented as projects are developed. The access improvement should conform to the requirements of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC).

**Policy W2.4 Mitigation Banking.**
Public access that is developed in advance, by entities with future plans for waterfront project development, should be credited as meeting BCDC’s public access requirement for those waterfront projects.

**Policy W2.5. Improved Railroad Crossings.**
To create safe access to the water pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile railroad crossings should be provided where feasible. Crossings could include grade separations, at-grade crossings, skyway bridges, or connections between buildings.

**Policy W2.6 Providing Maritime and Aviation Viewing Access.**
Safe access to areas for viewing maritime and aviation activities without interfering with seaport and airport activities should be encouraged.

**Policy W2.7**
**Encouraging Public Transportation**
Public transportation to the waterfront should be encouraged, coordinated, and strategically located. Waterfront transportation should be marketed to enhance ease of access both locally and regionally.

**Policy W2.8 Promoting Water Transportation.**
Waterborne transportation should be promoted as an alternative to the street for the movement of people and cargo along and across the waterfront.

**Policy W2.9 Parking at Key Points.**
Parking should be developed at key points generally set back from the waterfront to minimize the impact of private automobile use in high-activity areas. Parking structures that incorporate ground floor uses, are available for day and night activities, and allow for shared use, are preferred.

**Policy W2.10 Making Public Improvements as a Part of Projects.**
Physical improvements to improve the aesthetic qualities of the waterfront, and increase visitor comfort, safety, and enjoyment should be incorporated in the development of projects in the

<!-- page 52 -->
**ENVIRONMENT**

### Objective W3
**Preserve the high quality and uniqueness of the natural and built environment of the waterfront.**

waterfront area. These amenities may include landscaping, lighting, public art, comfort stations, street furniture, picnic facilities, bicycle racks, signage, etc. These facilities should be accessible to all persons and designed to accommodate elderly and physically disabled persons.

**Policy W2.11 Disseminating Public Information.**
Waterfront development should incorporate public, educational and interpretive information for waterfront activities to encourage public knowledge and understanding of the historic, cultural, economic, and environmental context.

*The Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element of the General Plan addresses many facets of this objective. The policies in this section offer further guidance for the function, protection, and preservation of Oakland’s unique waterfront.*

**Policy W3.1 Requiring Consistency with Conservation Objectives and Policies.**
Waterfront objectives, policies, and actions regarding geology, land stability, erosion, soils, water quality, flood hazards, wetland plant and animal habitats, and air quality and pollutants, shall be consistent and in compliance with the 1996 Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element of the City's General Plan.

**Policy W3.2 Enhancing the Quality of the Natural and Built Environment.**
The function, design and appearance, and supplementary characteristics of all uses, activities, and facilities should enhance, and should not detract from or damage the quality of, the overall natural and built environment along the waterfront.

**Policy W3.3 Protecting and Preserving Wetland Plant and Animal Habitats.**
Native plant communities, wildlife habitats, and sensitive habitats should be protected and enhanced.

**Policy W3.4 Preserving Views and Vistas.**
Buildings and facilities should respect scenic viewsheds and enhance opportunities for visual access of the waterfront and its activities.

<!-- page 53 -->
**COORDINATION, IMPLEMENTATION, AND MONITORING**

### Objective W4
**Establish comprehensive approaches to waterfront issues, implementation, and monitoring efforts.**

*Although different in mission, focus, and authority, the Port of Oakland, Oakland Base Reuse Authority, and the City of Oakland have mutual interests in working together proactively to solve waterfront-related land use and circulation issues. Continuing to work together on comprehensive planning, procedural, and implementation issues is critical if a vital waterfront that is responsive to the needs and desires of business, residents, and visitors is to become real and sustainable.*

**Policy W4.1 Creating Coordinated and Comprehensive Approaches.**
Public agencies and jurisdictions involved in waterfront matters should work together in a cooperative and coordinated way and strive for consistency among general planning, strategic planning, and specific planning practices and programs.

**Policy W4.2 Considerations for the OBRA Process.**
The Oakland Base Reuse Authority (OBRA) process should consider issues affecting West Oakland including: public access and public safety to the waterfront, open space, and amenities; buffering of heavy industrial and transportation uses on residential neighborhoods; and potential job creation and other economic benefits generated as a result of the Army Base re-use. (See also the Industry and Commerce Policy Framework section.)

**Policy W4.3 Coordinating Permit Process Procedures.**
The City and Port should ensure that the permit process procedures for waterfront development are coordinated and efficient while providing for public notification and input.

**Policy W4.4 Public Access Plan.**
The City, Port, and Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) will complete a public access plan for the entire waterfront which will then be adopted by the City, Port, and BCDC, as appropriate.

<!-- page 54 -->
# SEAPORT & AIRPORT/GATEWAY SHOWCASE DISTRICTS

### Seaport Showcase

"Passenger and goods movement through the port via ship and rail is increasing substantially."

*- John Glover, Port of Oakland*

Oakland's position as a leading West Coast seaport and a key airport enhances and promotes the City' economy. These facilities are the major international gateways in northern California and serve as hubs of national, regional, and local transportation networks. Policies support expansion of the seaport and airport and improvements to the intermodal transportation networks on which they rely. Oakland can also capitalize on increased seaport and airport activity by attracting related commercial and industrial uses, leading to even greater economic benefits and jobs for the City.

Harbor and seaport activities have had a formative effect on the City's population, industry and commerce. The seaport is a gateway for goods, and like the airport it is dedicated to transportation activities that allow for the efficient movement of cargo. At the same time, seaport activity creates economic benefits that reach to many other sectors of the economy and the region.

#### Facts and Figures
Seaport and maritime activities of the Port of Oakland are located on almost 700 acres of the outer and middle harbor areas of Oakland. In 1996, the Port of Oakland was the third busiest port on the west coast and the fourth busiest in the United States. The seaport plays an important role in the economy of Oakland and the region. The Port of Oakland loads and discharges 98% of all containerized cargo sent through the Golden Gate. Its 30 deep water berths and 30 container cranes are supported by a network of local roads, interstate freeways, warehouses, and intermodal rail yards which are necessary to move cargo to final destinations. A significant percentage of the freight that passes through the port is transported to or from the area through the Union Pacific and Burlington Northern/Santa Fe railroad terminals.

From 1985 to 1995, the Port experienced a 74% growth in revenue tonnage. Principal exports in 1995 included fruits, nuts and vegetables, wastepaper, meat and poultry, chemicals, wood and lumber, and industrial machinery. Principal imports in the same year were auto parts, computer equipment, clothing, meat, lumber, and iron and steel. Direct employment in seaport activities was 8,800 in 1995. Seaport activities that year were estimated to have a total economic impact of $1.3 billion.

#### Vision for the Future
Continued success of the seaport is strongly supported by the Element. The Policy Framework envisions the expansion of seaport activities and facilities, coupled with measures to minimize

<!-- page 55 -->
effects of land use conflicts felt in nearby West Oakland neighborhoods. Opportunities for additions and changes to facilities are offered by potential expansion of Port activities onto portions of former military installations (FISCO, Oakland Army Base) being planned through the Oakland Base Reuse Authority process. Consolidation in the railroad industry make possible changes to the extensive rail yards that are part of the Seaport, and improved access offered by the new Cypress Freeway. Other physical changes to the Seaport area will include completion of the Joint Intermodal Terminal and provision of public shoreline access at locations previously unavailable to the public.

Significant investments are proposed to strengthen Oakland’s competitive ability as a major West Coast seaport and to provide facilities for substantial expansion of the Port’s cargo handling capabilities. These include the next phase of channel dredging to accommodate modern vessels, development of a major intermodal terminal/rail facility, and substantial enlarging of land acreage for maritime operations (including FISCO) allowing development of additional container-ship berths and adjacent terminal areas.

### Achieving the Vision
The majority of the seaport, including most of the FISC site, is given a designation of “General Industry and Transportation” on the Land Use Diagram. The Army Base, which is scheduled to revert to civilian use, is undergoing planning through the Oakland Vase Reuse Authority (OBRA). The Land Use Element designated the Army base west of Maritime as General Industrial and Transportation, and east of Maritime as Business Mix, to reflect the economic importance of this area to the city as a whole. The Army base represents one of the last remaining large tracts of land available for industrial development at a large scale. The “finger piers” at the foot of Maritime near Middle Harbor Road are designated as Open Space. (The General Plan land use classifications are described more fully in Chapter 3). Access for cars, bicycles, and pedestrians will need to be developed and maintained to reach the bay Trail, the new park planned for the Finger Piers, and to the new park planned for the Bay Bridge terminus.

Several transportation improvements critical to expanding seaport capacity are described in general terms on the Transportation Diagram and in the Strategic Transportation Improvements section of Chapter 3. Bound by the City’s General Plan, the Port of Oakland will implement both the land use and transportation components of the Element by developing those activities consistent with the mission of the seaport and with its continued growth and success. The Port is also participating

<!-- page 56 -->
with the City and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission in planning for increased public access to the shoreline.

Resolution of conflicts between the Port, seaport users, and West Oakland neighborhoods adjoining the seaport will be achieved in part through implementation of the Land Use and Transportation diagrams and, more importantly, through a commitment to enforcement of existing regulations regarding parking and container storage.

## Airport / Gateway Showcase

<<FIGURE>>

The Metropolitan Oakland International Airport (MOIA) is a point of destination and departure for both people and goods—a true international gateway to Oakland. The Airport Showcase is devoted to the safe and efficient movement of people and cargo, promoting both economic growth and mobility. Aviation activities at the airport are linked to local, regional, and national transportation systems—to trucks, buses, BART, the Interstate Highways and local streets.

The airport fuels other businesses by providing related support services and products. Airport operations stimulate cargo and distribution operations, as well as visitor-serving businesses in the Hegenberger Road corridor. The airport’s success in moving both cargo and passenger traffic necessitates planning and facility development to meet growing demand.

### Facts and Figures
Established by the Board of Port Commissioners of the City of Oakland in 1927, the airport occupies 2,600 acres in the southwestern corner of the City. MOIA is the most centrally-located airport for travelers and cargo customers in the San Francisco Bay Area. Convenience and the breadth of passenger and cargo services have promoted continued increases in both passenger and cargo movement over the years.

In 1996, close to 10 million passengers used the 11 major domestic and international airlines based at the MOIA. Weekly, more than 1,200 commercial flights connect Oakland to cities throughout the US, Canada, Mexico and Europe. Further, MOIA handles nearly half of all Bay Area air cargo, moving more than one billion pounds of air freight and over 76 million pounds of air mail in 1996. The success of the Airport’s cargo operations has helped to attract other distribution and air cargo businesses to the area in and around the Airport and plays a key role in the economic development future for Oakland and the immediate region.

<!-- page 57 -->
The airport creates substantial social and economic benefits for the City and region. Approximately 7,400 people are employed in aviation-related jobs, mostly in and around the airport, with 2,200 of them in cargo-related jobs. This level of employment represents about 1% of all employment in Alameda County. Annual economic impact of airport activities was estimated in 1994 at over three billion dollars, with over $50 million paid annually in state and local taxes.

### Vision for the Future
Recognizing the Airport’s importance to the City and region, the General Plan’s vision is to capitalize on the economic benefits of the airport and jobs created by its growth, and to improve the Hegenberger gateway into a regional attraction. The Elements also support continued growth in related activities such as cargo handling and distribution, visitor accommodations and services in the Hegenberger Road area, and transportation services to provide access for airport patrons and employees.

Growth at the Airport highlights the need for much-needed improvements (which are underway) in the vicinity of Hegenberger Road and 98th Avenue. Direct access to the airport via 98th Avenue has been completed, and improvements to Hegenberger are expected to attract more businesses, serving visitors and residents, and to provide the confidence in the area’s future needed to spur additional private investment.

The Port of Oakland is proposing a major expansion of cargo and passenger facilities, called the Airport Development Program (ADP). Intended to accommodate close to 14 million air passengers per year by the year 2000, the program includes improvements to both the airport itself and the transportation system serving it. Passenger and air cargo terminals will be improved, airline support facilities added, landside access improvements made, and additional parking and rental car facilities constructed as part of the program. It is probable that over the 20 year life of the General Plan, further facilities improvements will be made at the Airport.

One of the ADP transportation improvements is the Airport Roadway Project, a voter-approved project by the Alameda County Transportation Authority in cooperation with the Port of Oakland, the City of Oakland, and the City of Alameda to improve access to the Airport and Harbor Bay Isle in Alameda. Another Showcase transportation project is a new connection between BART and the airport using fixed-guideway technology. (See description of Transportation Improvements in Chapter 3.)

<!-- page 58 -->
Full construction of the Airport Development Program would support the creation of about 2800 new aviation jobs and 3,000 new induced jobs by the year 2000. By 2010, 4,800 new direct jobs and 1,700 new induced jobs would be created, for a total of almost 23,000 jobs related to Airport activity.

### Achieving the Vision
The pattern of classifications on the Land Use and Transportation Diagram reflects the Showcase's multiple functions. The Airport itself is mapped for "General Industry and Transportation" use. That classification will permit aviation-related and commercial operations including aircraft maintenance and repair as well as normal terminal operations and operations of related facilities such as car rental, food service, gift shops, etc.

The Hegenberger Road frontage is designated for regional commercial uses to capture the potential of the corridor to serve as a more attractive gateway to the City, especially in the airport area. Key areas for new hotels and region serving commercial areas, as well as business mix areas are located along Hegenberger both east and west of the freeway. The Business Mix designation allows for a wide range of activity, including cargo handling and distribution businesses associated with Airport operations. 98th Avenue, recently widened and modernized to accommodate increasing airport traffic, is expected to serve as the primary route to and from the airport, serving travelers on both I-880 and I-580 with direct access to terminals.

The Martin Luther King Regional Shoreline and the Galbraith Golf Course, to re-open in the year 2000 as the City's premiere municipal golf course, enhance the Showcase environment. Natural resource areas presently existing will be expanded with implementation of Port plans for an extensive wetlands restoration project and interpretive area.

Planning for the Metropolitan Oakland International Airport requires a multi-jurisdictional orientation because the boundaries of the airport adjoin land in the neighboring cities of Alameda and San Leandro as well as Oakland. Airport operations and changes in facilities and activities must account for input from neighboring jurisdictions concerned about impacts relating to safety, traffic, and noise. A unique interjurisdictional cooperative planning effort between the City, Port, and San Leandro is underway to create a spectacular gateway with a unified theme. Additionally, a number of regulatory and planning agencies, including the Federal Aviation Authority, the Alameda County Land Use Commission, and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, concern themselves with Airport operations, plans, and impacts.

<!-- page 59 -->
**ECONOMY**

### Objective W5
**Enhance and promote the Port of Oakland as the waterfront’s major economic generator for Oakland.**

**ECONOMY**

### Objective W6
**Develop the seaport and airport as northern California’s major international gateway and hubs of the national, regional, and local transportation network.**

## Seaport and Airport Objectives & Policies
*To assure the continued health and growth of Oakland’s shipping industry, and the benefits provided to Oakland, the Port of Oakland’s maritime and aviation operations should be enhanced and supported wherever possible.*

### Policy W5.1 Conserving Land for Airport and Seaport Use.
Lands needed for maritime and aviation operations are of local, regional, national, and international importance and should be recognized as a valuable economic resource. The development of these lands to enhance maritime and aviation functions should be encouraged, and uses that would impair functional operation of the airport and seaport should not be permitted.

### Policy W5.2 Defining Seaport and Airport Uses.
Pursuant to the Port of Oakland’s mission and the ‘Trust Provisions’ established by the State of California, Port controlled property within the Seaport and Airport areas should be used primarily for purposes that are unique to a modern seaport or airport, require water frontage or access to regional airspace, relate to port operations and expansion, or are dependent on proximity to maritime and/or aviation facilities. Examples of such activities include:

*   Cargo handling; Ship and Airplane Handling/Building/Repair; Commercial Fishing, etc.
*   Cargo Industry Services, e.g. Warehousing, Distribution, Freight Forwarding, Container Storage and Repair, etc.
*   Passenger Services, e.g. Ferry facilities, Shuttle and Car Rental Facilities, Reservations and Ticketing, Flight Catering, Baggage Handling, Parking, Hotels, etc.
*   Ancillary and Support Services, e.g. Truck and Rail Operations and Associated Services, Administration, Customs, Education/Training Facilities, etc.

*Oakland’s mid-coast location offers unparalleled access to and from International markets. Dredging of the outer and middle harbors, installation of the Joint Intermodal Terminal (ship to rail), and improvements to airline terminals and facilities will all contribute to making Oakland’s port the best on the West Coast.*

### Policy W6.1 Maintaining a Competitive Edge.
In order to maintain international stature and competitiveness, the Port should continue to develop, expand, or otherwise modernize facilities and/or support infrastructure to enhance its

<!-- page 60 -->
overall efficiency and capabilities to handle increasing amounts of cargo and passengers.
Examples include:

*   Outer harbor terminals expansion and modernization
*   Channel deepening as necessary
*   Consolidation of rail services and facilities
*   Air passenger terminals expansion and modernization
*   Expansion of air cargo services and facilities
*   Improvement of BART/Airport access and other public transportation access
*   Continued development of ferry service
*   Expansion of telecommunications and utility networks

#### Policy W6.2 Developing Areas Adjacent to the Airport.
Development of sites proximate to airport flight paths should be in conformance with Federal and State standards, as articulated in Federal Aviation Regulation, Part 77 and Part 150 ALUC planning guidelines, and any other applicable regulations and amendments.

#### Policy W6.3 Enhancing Intermodal Transportation.
Transportation corridors which serve the harbor/airport terminals should be preserved and enhanced to accommodate higher capacities, service and safety levels, and intermodal connections.

### ECONOMY

### Objective W7
**Capitalize on the seaport and airport for increased economic activity and jobs in Oakland.**

*The Port’s expanding operations provide good jobs and an essential economic boost to Oakland. A spin-off benefit of Port operations is the rapid development of many businesses that support the shipping industry and the people who work there. These “secondary” businesses, such as freight delivery, distribution centers, truck stops, hotels, entertainment, and restaurants, are a vital and ever-increasing source of employment in Oakland’s economy.*

#### Policy W7.1 Developing Lands in the Vicinity of the Seaport/Airport.
Outside the seaport and airport, land should be developed with a variety of uses that benefit from the close proximity to the seaport and airport and that enhance the unique characteristics of the seaport and airport. These lands should be developed with uses which can buffer adjacent neighborhoods from impacts related to such activities.

<!-- page 61 -->
**Policy W7.2 Encouraging Commercial and Industrial Uses.**
Other commercial and industrial uses should be encouraged at appropriate locations (Port-owned or not) where they can provide economic opportunity to the community at large.

**Policy W7.3 Encouraging International Trade.**
The City and Port should encourage the development of uses, facilities, and services which enhance the City’s role in international trade and tourism. Examples include:

*   Foreign Trade Zones
*   Customs Facilities
*   Trade and Tourism Marketing
*   Tourist facilities and services, convention halls, hotels, etc.

**Policy W7.4 Job Opportunity Programs.**
The Port of Oakland should develop and expand programs to provide job opportunities, as well as business development assistance for Oakland residents.

<!-- page 62 -->
# MIXED USE WATERFRONT SHOWCASE

<<FIGURE>>

"Can the Waterfront be more than a port?"

*- League of Women Voters, Waterfront Study, 1995*

Oakland has the longest and most varied shoreline of any city in the Bay Area, with natural areas and industrial plants, one-of-a-kind artist's studios, restaurants, and multiplex theaters. The estuary area's buildings vary as much as its uses: the arcades of the produce market contrast with the vastness of the Port's Ninth Avenue Terminal and the newness of Barnes and Noble's spacious store at the foot of Broadway, while large industrial sites like Con Agra present environments that contrast with the calm of the Martin Luther King Junior Regional Shoreline or the quaintness of the Quinn's Lighthouse area of smaller offices and restaurants.

Despite the waterfront's extent and its attractions, physical barriers have cut it off from the rest of Oakland. Access to and along the estuary has emerged as a key concern for residents. The part of the waterfront best known to many Oakland residents and visitors is Jack London Square, centered around lower Broadway, effectively an extension of Downtown. The success of Jack London Square's entertainment, shopping, hospitality and special-events district demonstrates the value of actively yet patiently pursuing a vision.

### Facts and Figures
The Estuary shoreline has experienced tremendous change over the past several decades. The nature of industry in general and the development of container terminals have changed the role of land uses in this area. This has created an opportunity for a more diverse and public waterfront along the estuary, starting southeast of the seaport and continuing to Damon Slough. Functionally, and for planning purposes, the estuary portion of the waterfront is divided into three subareas, which have been somewhat modified by the Estuary Planning process. For this document, we have analyzed and created policy for three areas.

The **Jack London District** includes Jack London Square, Phase II of Jack London Square, the off price retail area, the Produce Market, and the residential area. The area is bounded by Martin Luther King Boulevard, Oak Street, Interstate 880 and the estuary. The transformation of the Jack London District is well under way, and the overall area has potential for additional development in the future. The mix of uses found in the area has established itself after an intensive, 20-year revitalization effort that has resulted in the area's vibrant mixed use character. Opportunities may exist as the Produce Market faces obsolescence due to the pressures of new distribution systems.

<!-- page 63 -->
The **Embarcadero Cove** area includes a narrow crescent of land bounded by Estuary Park, Channel Park, Interstate 880, Dennison Street, and the estuary. This area includes Estuary Park, land on both sides of the Channel, Oak through 9th Avenue Terminal, and a mix of uses including business park, boat sales, hotel/motel and restaurant, closer to Dennison Street Bridge. The area from Estuary Park through 9th Avenue Terminal has the greatest potential for redevelopment and opportunity for a major civic open space on the estuary. It can further be linked up on both sides of the channel for a strong connection to Lake Merritt and the public and quasi-public civic uses that currently border the channel. Although this stretch of the waterfront is dominated by the freeway, which has a great impact on the character of the area, improved roadway access to and from the San Antonio neighborhoods and a proposed Embarcadero waterfront parkway can begin to break the physical barriers to this area.

The **Fruitvale Waterfront** includes Union Point, significant industrial uses, artist live/work communities, and Damon Slough/San Leandro Bay. The area is bounded by Dennison Street Bridge, Interstate 880, Damon Slough, and the estuary. It has smaller-scale uses, housing, and industrial/warehouse uses. Major industrial users include a number of food processing businesses including Con Agra, Kilpatrick’s bakery, and Mi Rancho. Occasional points for public access are along this section of the estuary. Opportunities for improved public access exist along the shoreline from Derby Street to Lancaster Street to Fruitvale Fishing Pier as a public greenway and boardwalk and continues south of the fishing pier to the High Street Bridge. Additionally, potential public open spaces are at Union Point and at the end of Derby and Lancaster Streets.

### Vision for the Future
Better connecting the waterfront to the city and shifting perceptions toward Oakland as a true Waterfront City is envisioned and most achievable along the estuary shore where connections can be made to the Downtown and neighborhood areas. This idea has implications for land use, transportation, urban design, and even the process of planning for the waterfront’s future.

Land use, public access, and transportation objectives for the estuary portion of the waterfront are included in the Policy Framework and in the Estuary Plan. Additional public access objectives and policies will be part of the Public Access Plan being prepared jointly by the City, the Port, and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission.

<!-- page 64 -->
The Jack London and Embarcadero areas are to continue to be dominated by a mix and intensification of uses at the base of Broadway and changes at key opportunity sites which may include the Produce District, Jack London Village area, and Oak through 9th Avenue Terminal. In the Fruitvale Waterfront, the mix of industry, manufacturing, and housing is to be retained, but over time industrial uses adjoining the shoreline should transition to uses that take advantage of the estuary edge and offer opportunities for public access.

Transforming Oakland into a waterfront city means overcoming the barriers imposed by the transportation systems. Improved land, water, pedestrian, transit, and bike connections between the waterfront and downtown are required, as is greater clarity and connection to the freeway system. Perhaps most important of all, if Oakland is to be more aware of the waterfront’s setting and offerings, it will need to improve connections to the West Oakland, downtown, San Antonio, Fruitvale, and East Oakland neighborhoods that have not for many decades been able to enjoy the benefits of proximity to the waterfront. Improvements are identified in the Element’s Land Use and Transportation Plan and in the Waterfront Estuary Plan.

### Achieving the Vision
The Mixed-Use Waterfront Showcase has subdistricts differentiated by location, use, urban design features, and natural features. The area is addressed by a focused Policy Framework that reflects its importance to the community and to the General Plan. The Land Use diagram applies a single classification for the area, capturing the idea of a mixed use district. This district has a more detailed study, the Estuary Plan, to be integrated as part of the General Plan, that enhances and better defines the estuary subdistricts. More detailed land use classifications that respond to the unique character of the waterfront will be incorporated into the General Plan. Achieving the vision of the waterfront will require continued cooperation and coordination with the City and the Port, as well as coordination with the City of Alameda. The importance of multimodal transportation improvements makes coordination with CalTrans, MTC, BART, and other transportation agencies equally essential.

<!-- page 65 -->
# Mixed Use Waterfront Objectives & Policies

### FURTHER DETAILED PLANS FOR THE ESTUARY

#### Objective W8
**Provide a comprehensive planning framework, for the Jack London Square, the Embarcadero Cove, and the Fruitvale Waterfront Area. In addition to these general objectives and polices, the Estuary Plan to be adopted as part of the General Plan will provide additional detail.**

*The Mixed-Use Waterfront, or the area covered by the Estuary Plan, covers three distinct regions of the waterfront: Jack London Square area, Embarcadero Cove area, and the Fruitvale Waterfront. These areas may be described with slightly different boundaries as a result of the Estuary Planning process, however, the overarching set of policies below are intended to guide the creation and production of the Estuary Plan, which will provide more specific guidance for each area.*

**Policy W8.1 Defining the Interim Relationship of the General Plan and Estuary Plan.**
In the interim period until the Estuary Plan is adopted the City and Port shall cooperate on the review of significant projects in the Estuary Plan to ensure the consistency with the goals and intent of the General Plan.

**Policy W8.2 Defining the Relationship of General Plan and Estuary Plan Upon Completion.**
The Estuary Plan shall be adopted as part of the General Plan. The following elements will be included in the General Plan:

* policies governing future land use, transportation, and development
* clearly defined and differentiated land use classification to reflect the diversity of used within the study area (not a single classification)
* a statement of population density and building intensity recommended for all land use classifications
* the desired characteristics of each land use classification
* the appropriate standards

an implementation program including a framework for sustained institutional collaboration and comprehensive implementation

**Policy W8.3 Assuring Implementation of the General Plan and Estuary Plan in the Port Areas.**
The city and Port through the Estuary Plan should develop mechanisms that ensure cooperative implementation. The Estuary Plan should include specific recommendations to build on a further City/Port cooperation to implement the jointly developed plan.

<!-- page 66 -->
### MIXED USE AND THE WATERFRONT'S UNIQUE CHARACTER

#### Objective W9
**Develop and encourage mixed use areas along the estuary shoreline, while enhancing and promoting economic opportunities in Oakland which take advantage of the waterfront's unique character to attract public uses and activities.**

*Providing for a mix of land uses with appropriate transportation options is one important component of a sustainable city. Mixed-use development will be sought in the emerging waterfront growth areas. Development of attractions, including public art, that excite, inform, invite, and tell the history of Oakland and its unique waterfront is an important component of shoreline development.*

##### Policy W9.1 Defining Mixed-use Along the Estuary
Mixed use areas are areas or developments where residential uses are integrated with other non-residential uses such as commercial, recreation, and industrial areas. Live/work units are appropriate mixed use developments and unique residential opportunities for the waterfront.

##### Policy W9.2 Encouraging Mixed Land Uses Along the Estuary.
Mixed land uses should be encouraged in areas where the integration of housing with other compatible uses will add to the overall environmental, social, and economic vitality of the waterfront, and will create a safe environment.

##### Policy W9.3 Defining Development Characteristics Along the Estuary.
Mixed use and residential developments should be sensitive to adjacent properties and designed to enhance the existing and unique characteristics of the waterfront and immediate surroundings. Individual properties should be designed to encourage and provide sufficient public access to the waterfront and designed to avoid the feeling of “gated” or private communities.

##### Policy W9.5 Defining Development Intensity Along the Estuary.
Development along the estuary shore should reflect higher intensity mixed use activities and areas at Jack London Square. The balance of development along the estuary should be of lower intensity than at Jack London Square; however, higher density nodes of development may be appropriate at key location. Access to transportation corridors and transit should be provided. The development intensity should significantly decrease adjacent to Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline.

##### Policy W9.6 Developing Housing Along the Estuary: Quality, Type, and Services.
Housing quality, type, and services should be developed in a manner that is consistent with the policies and requirements of : future detailed plans created for the Waterfront; the Housing Element of the General Plan; the City’s Building Code; and/or other appropriate codes pr regulations.

<!-- page 67 -->
### Jack London Square Area of the Mixed-Use Waterfront

**Policy W9.7 Supporting Existing Residential Communities Along the Estuary.**
The existing residential communities within and adjacent to the waterfront should be supported and enhanced.

**Policy W9.8 Taking Advantage of the Unique Waterfront Along the Estuary.**
Programmed events and activities that take advantage of the unique waterfront setting should be encouraged. Appropriately scaled conference and convention facilities, hotels, etc., and businesses that benefit from the close proximity to the seaport and airport should be encouraged and be consistent with City economic development strategies. These uses may include retail, restaurants, destination entertainment, waterfront related commercial. And recreational services (boat tours, water taxis, etc.)

*The Jack London Square commercial and entertainment area of the waterfront is the portion of the shoreline most widely known and used by Oakland residents and visitors. Efforts are being made to further define and enhance this area, and establish easy connections to Downtown and close-by neighborhoods.*

**Policy W10.1 Defining Boundaries of Jack London Square.**
The area should be generally bounded by Adeline Street, Interstate 880, Channel Park, and the shoreline.

**Policy W10.2 Defining Jack London Square Land Uses.**
The area should reflect its current dominant use of commercial and entertainment uses and activities such as restaurants, retail, theater, hotel, farmers market, concert series, boat shows, and other entertainment and cultural activities. Other appropriate uses include office, live/work, and waterfront density residential development as described in the Land Use Classifications in Chapter 3.

**Policy W10.3 Defining Jack London Square Development Intensity and Characteristics.**
Development in this area should be high intensity commercial, entertainment, and cultural activities which capitalize on proximity to downtown, existing area of bigger establishments retailing durable goods, existing produce market area with offices and live/work spaces, and proximity to ferry and AMTRAK stations. Development must be sensitive to open, public gathering spaces such as boardwalks, open plazas, outside eating areas for restaurants, etc.

<!-- page 68 -->
Properties along the shoreline should be particularly sensitive to public uses and access due to the unique potential for direct water access and viewing opportunities of the estuary, San Francisco Bay, City of Alameda, San Francisco skyline, and Port of Oakland shipping activity.

### Policy W10.4 Defining Jack London Square Mixed Use Characteristics.
The character of this area should be mixed use. Higher density housing, single use housing, and live/work lofts and units are appropriate within the area and developments. Mixed use should be sensitive to the surrounding character and design of existing buildings as well as the desire to have the shoreline fully accessible to the public.

### Policy W10.5 Reusing the Produce Market Area.
If preservation of the Produce Market on its current site is not feasible, appropriate reuse of the area should be explored with consideration of a mixture of uses including retail commercial, office, and live/work units.

### Policy W10.6 Specifying Public Access and Linkages.
Public access along the estuary should be facilitated by commercial and active recreational uses. It is important to have physical access to and between uses and activities along the waterfront, particularly along the shoreline. Opportunities for landscaped and signed linkages along Broadway, Webster, Harrison, and Oak streets, as well as the Lake Merritt Channel, should be developed for (land and water) auto, bicycle, pedestrian, and public transportation.

### Policy W10.7 Jack London Square Area Design Criteria.
Developments in this area should be designed to enhance direct access to and along the water's edge, maximize waterfront views and vistas, and make inviting public pedestrian access and spaces. Development and amenities must be sensitive to the surrounding character of pedestrian-oriented activities with focus on cultural and retail entertainment. Traditional and historic buildings and structures are character defining and should be preserved, adapted for new uses, or integrated into new development, where feasible.

<!-- page 69 -->
# Embarcadero Cove Area of the Mixed-Use Waterfront

**ECONOMY**

### Objective W11
**Enhance and promote economic opportunities in Oakland which take advantage of the waterfront's unique character to attract public uses and activities.**

**MIXED USE AND HOUSING**

### Objective W12
**Develop and encourage mixed use areas along the estuary shoreline.**

*The Embarcadero Cove area has the potential to develop into a strong mix of distinctive living enclaves among lighter industrial and visitor-serving commercial businesses. Public access from the 16th Street overpass should make this area a favorite for nearby residents and visitors who wish to be near the water.*

#### Policy W11.1. Defining Embarcadero Cove Boundaries.
The area should be generally bounded by Channel Park, Interstate 880, Dennison Street, and the shoreline.

#### Policy W11.2. Defining Embarcadero Cove Land Uses.
The area should reflect its current variety of uses in areas with distinct characteristics. The area around Inner Harbor and 9th Street Terminal has an artist community mixed with some industrial uses that should be supported. Other uses such as commercial/service uses (restaurants, retail, office, hotel/motel, etc.) may be appropriate as well as a marina with support services.

#### Policy W11.3 Defining Embarcadero Cove Development Intensity and Characteristics.
The development intensity of the area should be moderate with lower use intensity and density than Jack London Square; however, nodes of higher intensity development may be appropriate. Access to transportation corridors and transit should be provided. Development intensity should be sensitive to the open feeling of the marina and view opportunities. Overall development of the area must be sensitive to the close proximity of the water's edge. Properties along the shoreline should be planned, developed and operated with particular sensitivity to public access.

#### Policy W11.4 Defining Embarcadero Cove Mixed Use Characteristics.
The mixed use character for this area should incorporate a variety of uses throughout, including artist residential use, where appropriate.

#### Policy W11.5 Specifying Public Access and Linkages.
Public access and linkages should be provided from the San Antonio neighborhoods to the Embarcadero Cove. Signage, landscaping, and gateways should be provided, where necessary, to access points and pathways.

<!-- page 70 -->
## The Fruitvale Waterfront Area of the Mixed-Use Waterfront

#### Policy W11.6 Defining Embarcadero Cove Design Criteria.
Development in this area should be designed to enhance direct access to and along the water's edge, to maximize the waterfront views and vistas, and to make the public pedestrian access and spaces inviting. Development and amenities must be sensitive to immediate surroundings.

*Fruitvale area neighborhoods are keen to have improved waterfront access, and are working with the Port, other landholders, and investors to create open space or trail opportunities in this area. Assisting the compatible coexistence of existing manufacturing, light industry, and housing in this area is an ongoing challenge that requires careful site planning and development of innovative buffering techniques.*

#### Policy W12.1 Defining Fruitvale Waterfront Boundaries.
This area should be generally bounded by Dennison Street, Interstate 880, Damon Slough Channel, and the shoreline.

#### Policy W12.2 Defining Fruitvale Waterfront Land Uses.
This area should allow for the current use of existing industry and manufacturing uses as well as residential use; however, the area should be promoted for uses that better utilize the waterfront's unique position in the City. Depending on the level of intensity, uses that can benefit from close proximity to the airport and business park may be appropriate. Commercial businesses, recreation, and housing should be able to coexist in this area with appropriate buffering measures.

#### Policy W12.3 Defining Fruitvale Waterfront Development Intensity and Characteristics.
This area should reflect a combination of intensities, generally lower than lands to the east, but with special commercial nodes and extensive open space and public access.

#### Policy W12.4 Defining Mixed Use Characteristics.
The mixed use characteristics for the area should incorporate office, commercial, and industrial uses, with recreation facilities and housing where appropriate and feasible.

#### Policy W12.5 Mitigating Land Use Conflicts.
Since this area is and may continue to be an area that has a variety of uses including industrial, incompatibilities should be mitigated through appropriate site planning, landscaping, and buffering.

<!-- page 71 -->
**Policy W12.6 Specifying Public Access and Linkages.**
With a residential community, the Kennedy Tract neighborhood, adjacent to the waterfront, efforts should be made to create inviting, landscape, and signed connections and gateways to the waterfront. Support efforts in developing access to the Fruitvale Bridge fishing pier and additional open space.

**Policy W12.7. Defining Design Criteria.**
Development in this area should be designed to enhance direct access to and along the water’s edge, maximize waterfront views and vistas, and make public pedestrian access and spaces inviting. Development and amenities must be sensitive to immediate surroundings.

<!-- page 72 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 73 -->
# Neighborhoods

<<FIGURE>>
Detached Housing

<<FIGURE>>
His-Men Hin Nu

<<FIGURE>>
Downtown Housing

<<FIGURE>>
Neighborhoods in Oakland

<<FIGURE>>
Downtown lofts

*Envision yourself living in a distinctive and attractive Oakland neighborhood. Its unique mix of architectural styles, landscaping, community facilities, and people help identify this community. In the heart of the neighborhood is an Activity Center, which serves as the focus of neighborhood life. This cluster of shops, small businesses, community services, and homes helps create a sense of community and belonging. The parks and schools distributed throughout the area further support this active community. The neighborhood has been preserved and protected from incompatible development. Higher-density housing geared to meet the needs of a growing population, has arisen elsewhere: in the downtown, near the waterfront, and along major thoroughfares where public transit is readily available. Oakland's neighborhoods are clean, attractive, and diverse.*

<!-- page 74 -->
# Goals for Oakland’s Neighborhoods

“Successful neighborhoods provide fundamental, unique qualities and places that are essential in thriving cities. In such an environment, residents gain a sense of place and pride in where they live. The basic elements vary in their completeness throughout Oakland’s neighborhoods. An overriding objective of this Plan is to conserve, expand, and enhance these qualities to improve the city as a whole.”

*- Art Clarke, General Plan Congress, 1997*

The Policy Framework for neighborhoods is geared toward strengthening and expanding the framework of healthy, cohesive, and identifiable neighborhoods throughout the City. Below are the principle goals for Oakland’s neighborhood areas, followed by a discussion of each policy theme:

*   Foster healthy, vital, and distinctive neighborhoods with adequate open space. (See also the Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element of the General Plan.)
*   Encourage quality housing for a range of incomes in Oakland’s neighborhoods.
*   Encourage thriving, diverse, and attractive shopping districts in Oakland’s neighborhoods that provide a variety of goods, services, and entertainment, and which are oriented to and well served by public transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities.
*   Design neighborhoods that encourage and support alternative transportation types.

**Neighborhood Identity:** A sense of community is derived from strong neighborhood identity. Neighborhood policies are directed toward strengthening the character of Oakland’s neighborhoods through compatibility of design and land uses, through local improvement programs, and by recognizing neighborhood patterns when establishing city service areas.

**Neighborhood Conservation:** Residential neighborhoods occupy the largest percentage of land in Oakland, and provide housing, character, a sense of community, and diversity. Policies seek to preserve areas that are predominantly low density and to ensure that infill development is compatible. (Refer also to the Housing and Historic Preservation Elements of the General Plan.)

**Neighborhood Activity Centers:** Local shopping districts should serve as cultural, civic, social, and economic centers for each neighborhood and should be served by transit. Customer-based and community-based public services such as post offices, senior centers, branch libraries, and homework centers should locate in designated activity centers.

**Targeted Growth:** Neighborhood policies direct new moderate and higher density housing away from lower density neighborhoods, toward parts of the City that are accessible by transit, such as areas near transit stations and transit corridors, downtown, and the waterfront.

**Compatibility of Development:** Neighborhoods should be protected from incompatible types of development. In areas where incompatibilities exist, policies prescribe ways to buffer the negative

<!-- page 75 -->
**Commercial Areas**

### Objective N1
**Provide for healthy, vital, and accessible commercial areas that help meet local consumer needs in the neighborhoods.**

impacts of conflicting land uses which cause a degradation in the quality of life.

Objectives and policies in this section address all physical aspects of neighborhoods: housing areas, neighborhood activity centers, civic and institutional uses, and open space. Locations where housing areas should be maintained and enhanced, and those where housing should be added are addressed in policies in this section and shown in the Strategy Diagram in Chapter 3. Other issues addressed include land use incompatibilities and availability of public facilities and services.

Readers who are interested in more data and policies relating to programs for housing conservation, affordability and opportunity should consult the General Plan Housing Element. For more detailed information on parks and open space, consult the Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element, and for preservation of historic resources, the Historic Preservation Element.

### Neighborhood Objectives and Policies
*Commercial activity is essential to vital and dynamic neighborhoods. The Policy Framework calls for neighborhood commercial areas in the neighborhoods to be concentrated, neighborhood-oriented and pedestrian oriented, thereby creating activity centers that are accessible and friendly to nearby residents. Long commercial corridors are to be divided into areas of distinct activity, with housing segments linking designated commercial areas.*

#### Policy N1.1 Concentrating Commercial Development.
Commercial development in the neighborhoods should be concentrated in areas that are economically viable and provide opportunities for smaller scale, neighborhood-oriented retail.

#### Policy N1.2 Placing Public Transit Stops.
The majority of commercial development should be accessible by public transit. Public transit stops should be placed at strategic locations in Neighborhood Activity Centers and Transit-Oriented Districts to promote browsing and shopping by transit users.

#### Policy N1.3 Locating Parking Facilities.
Wherever feasible, and desired by merchants and residents, the City should construct strategically located, safe, and attractive parking facilities in Neighborhood Activity Centers. Use of in lieu fees, parking assessment districts, or other programs to pay for these facilities should be explored.

<!-- page 76 -->
**Policy N1.4 Locating Large-Scale Commercial Activities.**
Commercial uses which serve long term retail needs or regional consumers and which primarily offer high volume goods should be located in areas visible or amenable to high volumes of traffic. Traffic generated by large scale commercial developments should be directed to arterial streets and freeways and not adversely affect nearby residential streets.

**Policy N1.5 Designing Commercial Development.**
Commercial development should be designed in a manner that is sensitive to surrounding residential uses.

**Policy N1.6 Reviewing Potential Nuisance Activities.**
The City should closely review any proposed new commercial activities that have the potential to create public nuisance or crime problems, and should monitor those that are existing. These may include isolated commercial or industrial establishments located within residential areas, alcoholic beverage sales activities (excluding restaurants), adult entertainment, or other entertainment activities.

**Policy N1.7 Locating Hotels and Motels.**
Hotels and motels should be encouraged to locate downtown, along the waterfront, near the airport, or along the I-880 corridor. No new hotels or motels should be located elsewhere in the city; however, the development of “bed-and-breakfast” type lodgings should be allowed in the neighborhoods, provided that the use and activities of the establishment do not adversely impact nearby areas, and parking areas are screened.

**Policy N1.8 Making Compatible Development.**
The height and bulk of commercial development in “Neighborhood Mixed-Use Center” and “Community Commercial” areas should be compatible with that which is allowed for residential development.

**Policy N1.9 Locating Major Office Development.**
While office development should be allowed in commercial areas in the neighborhoods, the City should encourage major office development to locate in the downtown.

<!-- page 77 -->
# GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - PHASE 1:

# TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT (LUTE)

Adopted 9.26.23, Resolution #: 89907 C.M.S

*Chapter 2 – Policy Framework*

**(Page 104): Policy N1.7 Locating Hotels and Motels.**

Hotels and motels should be encouraged to locate downtown, along the waterfront, near the airport, ~~or~~ along the I-880 corridor, <u>in a specific plan area, or in other areas well-served by public transit with a concentration of amenities for hotel patrons, including but not limited to restaurant, retail, recreation, open space and exercise facilities.</u> No new hotels or motels should be located elsewhere in the city; however, the development of "bed-and-breakfast" type lodgings should be allowed in the neighborhoods, provided that the use and activities of the establishment do not adversely impact nearby areas, and parking areas are screened.

<!-- page 78 -->
**CIVIC AND INSTITUTIONAL USES**

**Objective N2**

**Encourage adequate civic, institutional, and educational facilities located within Oakland, appropriately designed and sited to serve the community.**

*Oakland houses a number of renowned educational, medical, and other types of institutional facilities that serve not only the City, but the region as well. Over the course of the life of the General Plan, these institutions will continue to grow and expand to meet the changing demands of their patrons. However, expansion plans have previously raised issues about compatibility with surrounding residential uses. The scale of development, traffic impacts, and removal of housing units have been among the concerns expressed. The General Plan policies will help guide these institutions’ physical and operational changes.*

**Policy N2.1 Designing and Maintaining Institutions.**
As Institutional uses are among the most visible activities in the City and can be sources of community pride, high-quality design and upkeep/maintenance should be encouraged. The facilities should be designed and operated in a manner that is sensitive to surrounding residential and other uses.

**Policy N2.2 Providing Distributed Services.**
Provision of government and institutional services should be distributed and coordinated to meet the needs of City residents.

**Policy N2.3 Supporting Institutional Facilities.**
The City should support many uses occurring in institutional facilities where they are compatible with surrounding activities and where the facility site adequately supports the proposed uses.

**Policy N2.4 Locating Services Along Major Streets.**
New large scale community, government, and institutional uses should be located outside of areas that are predominantly residential. Preferably, they should be located along major thoroughfares with easy access to freeways and public transit or in the Downtown.

**Policy N2.5 Balancing City and Local Benefits of Institutions.**
When reviewing land use permit applications for the establishment or expansion of institutional uses, the decision-making body should take into account the institution’s overall benefit to the entire Oakland community, as well as its effects upon the immediately surrounding area.

**Policy N2.6 Disposing of Public Property.**
Before disposing of schools or other significant public or quasi-public properties that are no longer needed for their original purpose, careful consideration should be given to their possible utilization for other kinds of civic, institutional, or open space uses.

<!-- page 79 -->
**HOUSING PRODUCTION, CONSERVATION, AND ENHANCEMENT**

### Objective N3
**Encourage the construction, conservation, and enhancement of housing resources in order to meet the current and future needs of the Oakland community.**

**Policy N2.7 Designing Community Facilities.**
Site design, architecture and operating practices of community facilities should be compatible with the area’s desired character, and should include public art where possible.

**Policy N2.8 Long Range Development Planning.**
Require, where legally allowed, and in all other situations encourage, those institutions designated with the “Institutional” land use classification should be required to present Long Range Operation and Development Plans to the City Planning Commission. While these plans could be binding or non-binding, they should present realistic information regarding the continued operation and/or expansion of the facilities. The City suggests that substantial public input be built into the process of developing the plans. The plans could be required as a part of development applications, or on a periodic basis.

*Although Oakland is largely developed, new housing construction is needed to meet the demands of a growing population and address existing overcrowding. The Land Use and Transportation Plan identifies sites for added housing consistent with the Policy Framework’s emphasis on maintenance and enhancement of existing neighborhoods. The design of all new housing in the City should take issues such as sunlight, views, and privacy into account. For more information on housing affordability, equal access, or publicly assisted housing, please consult the Housing Element of the General Plan. For preservation policies related to historic properties, refer to the Historic Preservation Element.*

**Policy N3.1 Facilitating Housing Construction.**
Facilitating the construction of housing units should be considered a high priority for the City of Oakland.

**Policy N3.2 Encouraging Infill Development.**
In order to facilitate the construction of needed housing units, infill development that is consistent with the General Plan should take place throughout the City of Oakland.

**Policy N3.3 Facilitating Development of Second Units.**
One accessory housing unit (also known as second or secondary unit) per property should be permitted outright in all residential zones provided that it meets the setback requirements for the primary structure, is clearly secondary to the primary structure, is compatible with other structures on the site and in the vicinity, and the property owner lives on-site. The permitting procedures and performance criteria applied to these units should facilitate construction of

<!-- page 80 -->
# GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - PHASE 1:
# TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT (LUTE)
Adopted 9.26.23, Resolution #: 89907 C.M.S

<u>Chapter 2 – Policy Framework</u>

*(Page 106):* **Policy N3.3 Facilitating Development of <u>Accessory Dwelling</u> ~~Second~~ Units.**

~~One a~~<u>Accessory Dwelling Units</u> ~~housing unit~~ (also known as <u>ADUs</u> ~~second or secondary units~~) ~~per property~~ should be ~~conditionally~~ permitted in all residential zones provided that it meets <u>fire safety requirements.</u> ~~the setback requirements for the primary structure, is clearly secondary to the primary structure, is compatible with other structures on the site and in the vicinity, and the property owner lives on site.~~ The permitting procedures and performance criteria applied to these units should facilitate construction of units, and not be prohibitive in their requirements. Accessory <u>Dwelling U</u>~~u~~nits should be allowed when a new primary residence is being constructed or ~~maybe~~ added to properties with an existing residence. (See also Policy N7.2 "Defining Compatibility")

<!-- page 81 -->
units, and not be prohibitive in their requirements. Accessory units should be allowed when a new primary residence is being constructed or maybe added to properties with an existing residence. (See also Policy N7.2 "Defining Compatibility")

### Policy N3.4 Constructing Housing on Orphan Lots.
Construction of housing units on "orphan lots" in residential areas (i.e. lots that are substandard in area but which cannot be increased in size because existing development is located on all sides) should be allowed where the proposed unit meets other applicable standards.

### Policy N3.5 Encouraging Housing Development.
The City should actively encourage development of housing in designated mixed housing type and urban housing areas through regulatory and fiscal incentives, assistance in identifying parcels that are appropriate for new development, and other measures

### Policy N3.6 Encouraging Retention of Dwellings.
The City strongly encourages the moving of dwellings which might otherwise be demolished onto vacant lots, where appropriate and economically feasible, such as onto infill lots.

### Policy N3.7 Allowing Rebuilding.
Legal non-conforming residential structures in residential areas may be allowed to rebuild at the original density in the case of catastrophic damage or destruction. However, such rebuilding should be subject to development standards and should address other neighborhood concerns, as appropriate.

### Policy N3.8 Required High-Quality Design.
High-quality design standards should be required of all new residential construction. Design requirements and permitting procedures should be developed and implemented in a manner that is sensitive to the added costs of those requirements and procedures.

### Policy N3.9 Orienting Residential Development.
Residential developments should be encouraged to face the street and to orient their units to desirable sunlight and views, while avoiding unreasonably blocking sunlight and views for neighboring buildings, respecting the privacy needs of residents of the development and surrounding properties, providing for sufficient conveniently located on-site open space, and avoiding undue noise exposure.

<!-- page 82 -->
**AFFORDABLE HOUSING**

### Objective N4
**Actively encourage the provision of affordable housing throughout the Bay Area.**

**RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL ACTIVITIES**

### Objective N5
**Minimize conflicts between residential and non-residential activities while providing opportunities for residents to live and work at the same location.**

#### Policy N3.10 Guiding the Development of Parking.
Off-street parking for residential buildings should be adequate in amount and conveniently located and laid out, but its visual prominence should be minimized.

#### Policy N3.11 Enforcing Codes.
The City should aggressively enforce the requirements of the City’s Housing Code and other applicable regulations on housing of all types.

*See the General Plan Housing Element for detailed discussion of housing needs and City efforts to encourage the provision of affordable housing.*

#### Policy N4.1 Supporting “Fair Share” Accountability.
The City is generally supportive of any efforts to establish accountability for communities that do not provide their fair share of affordable housing units.

#### Policy N4.2 Advocating for Affordable Housing.
The City encourages local non-profit organizations, affordable housing proponents, the business community, the real estate industry, and other local policy makers to join in efforts to advocate for the provision of affordable housing in communities throughout the Bay Area region.

*The mix of residential and non-residential activities in Oakland neighborhoods is one factor making these areas so dynamic and distinctive. This intermixing of activities is likely to continue as telecommunications and improved technology make living and working at the same location increasingly feasible and desirable. However, both non-residential and residential activities can be negatively impacted if proper consideration of compatibility issues is not taken.*

#### Policy N5.1 Environmental Justice
The City is committed to the identification of issues related to the consequences of development on racial, ethnic, and disadvantaged socio-economic groups. The City will encourage active participation of all its communities, and will make efforts to inform and involve groups concerned about environmental justice and representatives of communities most impacted by environmental hazards in the early stages of the planning and development process through notification and two-way communication.

<!-- page 83 -->
**HOUSING VARIETY**

### Objective N6
**Encourage a mix of housing costs, unit sizes, types, and ownership structures.**

**DETACHED AND MIXED TYPE HOUSING**

### Objective N7
**Protect and enhance existing areas of predominantly "Detached Unit" and "Mixed Housing Type" residential development.**

#### Policy N5.2 Buffering Residential Areas.
Residential areas should be buffered and reinforced from conflicting uses through the establishment of performance-based regulations, the removal of non-conforming uses, and other tools.

#### Policy N5.3 Supporting Live-Work Development.
The city should support and encourage residents desiring to live and work at the same location where neither the residential use nor the work occupation adversely affects nearby properties or the character of the surrounding area.

*Oakland presently offers a dramatic variety of household types including single habitants, roommates, two-parent and single-parent families, and an increasing number of shared housing arrangements such as co-housing. The policies support continued diversity in unit and ownership type to meet the needs of these different households.*

#### Policy N6.1 Mixing Housing Types.
The City will generally be supportive of a mix of projects that provide a variety of housing types, unit sizes, and lot sizes which are available to households with a range of incomes.

#### Policy N6.2 Increased Home Ownership.
Housing developments that increase home ownership opportunities for households of all incomes are desirable.

*Oakland's neighborhoods contain some of the Bay Area's most attractive architecture and most comfortable living environments. However, a number of the City's low density neighborhoods have been subject to significant development pressures in past decades as a result of land use policies that have allowed the construction of multi-story, multi-unit apartment buildings immediately adjacent to single unit, single story residences. While mixed unit neighborhoods are generally desirable, lack of attention to compatibility concerns has affected the character and stability of some areas of the City. The General Plan policies recommend that new development be compatible with the existing or desired character of an area and that infrastructure and street width/capacity be taken into consideration when analyzing development proposals.*

#### Policy N7.1 Ensuring Compatible Development.
New residential development in Detached Unit and Mixed Housing Type areas should be compatible with the density, scale, design, and existing or desired character of surrounding development.

<!-- page 84 -->
# GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - PHASE 1:
# TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT (LUTE)
Adopted 9.26.23, Resolution #: 89907 C.M.S

<u>Chapter 2 – Policy Framework</u>

(Page 109): **Policy N7.1 Ensuring Compatible Development.**
New residential development in Detached Unit and Mixed Housing Type areas should be compatible with the ~~density,~~ scale, design, and existing or desired character of surrounding development.

<!-- page 85 -->
"For this plan to be deemed a success the City must come to an agreement with major neighborhood groups on open space, rezoning, developments standards, and housing, to ensure an enhanced quality of life for Oakland residents that will attract business."

-James Servais, General Plan Congress, 1997

### Policy N7.2 Defining Compatibility.
Infrastructure availability, environmental constraints and natural features, emergency response and evacuation times, street width and function, prevailing lot size, predominant development type and height, scenic values, distance from public transit, and desired neighborhood character are among the factors that could be taken into account when developing and mapping zoning designations or determining "compatibility". These factors should be balanced with the citywide need for additional housing.

### Policy N7.3 Subdividing Hill Area Properties.
At least 8,000 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit should be required when land in the hill area is subdivided. Lots smaller than 8,000 square feet may be created to cluster development, and as long as this ratio is maintained for the parcel being divided.

### Policy N7.4 Designing Local Streets.
Local streets should be designed to create an intimate neighborhood environment and not support high speed nor large volumes of traffic. Providing on-site parking for cars and bicycles, planting and maintaining street trees, and landscaping, minimizing the width of driveway curb cuts, maintaining streets, bike routes, and sidewalks, and orienting residential buildings toward the street all contribute to the desired environment.

### Policy N7.5 Respecting the Existing Development Pattern.
Exceptions to the minimum developable lot size may be made in areas where the existing lot and development pattern provides for a substantial number of lots below the minimum otherwise required by zoning regulations.

### Policy N7.6 Developing Subdivided Parcels.
Development on subdivided parcels should be allowed where site and building design minimize environmental impacts, building intensity and activity can be accommodated by available and planned infrastructure, and site and building designs are compatible with neighborhood character.

### Policy N7.7 Facilitating Lot Consolidation.
Where full development of subdivided parcels cannot occur due to infrastructure constraints, the City should work with property owners to facilitate lot consolidation that will permit development.

<!-- page 86 -->
**MEDIUM AND HIGHER DENSITY HOUSING**

### Objective N8
**Direct urban density and mixed use housing development to locate near transit or commercial corridors, transit stations, the Downtown, waterfront, underutilized properties where residential uses do not presently exist but may be appropriate, areas where this type of development already exists and is compatible with desired neighborhood character, and other suitable locations.**

**Policy N7.8 Coordinating Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions.**
Private development should maintain local Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that are compatible with City development standards such as lot size, set backs, and height.

The need for additional housing units in Oakland, coupled with the number of vacant or underutilized properties along the major commercial corridors, makes those corridors one of the logical locations for future housing development. In addition, the BART stations, Downtown, and the waterfront are areas where the full potential benefits of additional housing have not yet been realized. By directing housing development to these locations, the objective of maintaining the existing low density neighborhoods can be met while continuing to allow adequate locations for housing to be developed to meet projected demand.

**Policy N8.1 Developing Transit Villages.**
"Transit Village" areas should consist of attached multi-story development on properties near or adjacent to BART stations or other well-used or high volume transit facilities, such as light rail, train, ferry stations. or multiple-bus transfer locations. While residential units should be encouraged as part of any transit village, other uses may be included where they will not negatively affect the residential living environment. (See discussion of Transit-Oriented Districts in the Transportation section in this chapter.)

**Policy N8.2 Making Compatible Interfaces Between Densities.**
The height of development in urban residential and other higher density residential areas should step down as it nears lower density residential areas to minimize conflicts at the interface between the different types of development.

<!-- page 87 -->
### SENSE OF COMMUNITY

#### Objective N9
**Promote a strong sense of community within the city of Oakland, and support and enhance the district character of different areas of the city, while promoting linkages between them.**

"To understand what is meant by 'The Success of Oakland' requires us to take a step back and see the city is not as a static design or a machine, but as an organic, complex weaving of non-linear systems in time."

*- Rick Phillips, General Plan Congress, 1997*

Oakland's neighborhoods are one of its greatest assets, both in terms of physical design and sense of community. Oakland's neighborhoods are diverse, in part due to the fact that different areas of the City developed incrementally over time. As an example, West Oakland's collection of Victorian homes are reminders of the City's earliest neighborhoods, while the ranch style housing in East Oakland arose around the time of World War II and reflects the predominant housing type of that era. Today, the neighborhoods have increasingly distinct identities as households from different cultures bring unique character to their areas making them their own. The existing diversity in physical form and cultures are attributes that are supported through the General Plan. Local neighborhood organizations and groups are important participants in maintaining and improving the quality of life in the City. The General Plan is generally supportive of local improvement efforts and suggests the City facilitate these efforts and support public events and other activities that foster community spirit. Linkages among these neighborhoods will be essential to maintaining a sense of unity across the city.

**Policy N9.1 Recognizing Distinct Neighborhoods.**
The City should encourage and support the identification of distinct neighborhoods. (Many of these neighborhoods are identified on the Structure Diagram and in the Area View section of the Plan.)

**Policy N9.2 Supporting Neighborhood Improvement.**
The City should be supportive of the efforts of local neighborhood organizations in improving their neighborhoods, by providing information, guidance, and assistance where feasible.

**Policy N9.3 Maintaining a Positive Image.**
The City should strive to maintain a positive and safe public image.

**Policy N9.4 Facilitating Public Events.**
Public events, such as street fairs and parades, contribute to vibrant neighborhood life. The City should facilitate and support these events and work with area residents and businesses to manage their impacts.

**Policy N9.5 Marking Significant Sites.**
Identify locations of interest and historic significance by markers, signs, public art, landscape, installations, or by other means. (See the Historic Preservation Element for treatment of historic resources.)

**Policy N9.6 Respecting Diversity.**
The City's diversity in cultures and populations should be respected and built upon.

<!-- page 88 -->
**NEIGHBORHOOD ACTIVITY CENTERS**

**Objective N10**

**Support and create social, informational, cultural, and active economic centers in the neighborhoods.**

**Policy N9.7 Creating Compatible but Diverse Development.**
Diversity in Oakland’s built environment should be as valued as the diversity in population. Regulations and permit processes should be geared toward creating compatible and attractive development, rather than “cookie cutter” development.

**Policy N9.8 Preserving History and Community.**
Locations that create a sense of history and community within the City should be identified and preserved where feasible. (see the Historic Preservation Element for more information).

**Policy N9.9 Respecting Architectural Integrity.**
*The City encourages rehabilitation efforts which respects the architectural integrity of a building’s original style. (see the Historic Preservation Element for more information).*

*Some of the most vital areas of the City of Oakland are the neighborhood activity centers where local residents shop, meet, and have a cup of coffee or an ice cream cone. The pedestrian activity, unique shops and services, and older buildings provide the City with a character that stands apart from the homogeneity of much suburban development found today. These activity centers need to be supported through pedestrian amenities such as trees and benches, and recognition of the areas’ history. Their importance to the city is reflected by their inclusion in the City Structure Diagram in Section 1 of the Policy Framework. (See the Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element for more information on street trees.)*

**Policy N10.1 Identifying Neighborhood “Activity Centers”.**
Neighborhood Activity Centers should become identifiable commercial, activity and communication centers for the surrounding neighborhood. The physical design of neighborhood activity centers should support social interaction and attract persons to the area. Some of the attributes that may facilitate this interaction include plazas, pocket parks, outdoor seating on public and private property, ample sidewalk width, street amenities such as trash cans and benches, and attractive landscaping.

**Policy N10.2 Maintaining Public Property.**
The installation of amenities and maintenance of all public-owned property in neighborhood commercial areas should be a high priority for the City.

<!-- page 89 -->
### PERMITTING/ENFORCEMENT

#### Objective N11
**Develop and implement regulations, permitting procedures, and enforcement procedures that allow an open, fair, timely, and fully informed process which involves public participation. These regulations and procedures should be created with the intent of maintaining or establishing a high quality living and a thriving business environment, while reducing barriers to development.**

While the General Plan provides the policy foundation for future development in Oakland, it largely becomes realized through the creation of Zoning Regulations and implementation of permitting procedures. In an effort to respect the extensive community-based effort that led to the development of the General Plan, the plan mandates consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Regulations. The Plan also discourages the granting of variances which may undermine the integrity of the plan. In terms of enforcement, continued diligence will be needed to reduce public nuisances and activities that violate the General Plan or Zoning Regulations.

**Policy N11.1 Required Zoning Consistency.**
Consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Regulations should be provided within a reasonable time period of adoption of the final elements (i.e., Housing, Safety, or Noise elements) in the 1990s' General Plan update. (See the Implementation Agenda item B.)

**Policy N11.2 Streamlining Permit Procedures.**
The City of Oakland should review, streamline, modernize, and simplify its permit review procedures to facilitate new construction.

**Policy N11.3 Requiring Strict Compliance with Variance Criteria.**
As variances are exceptions to the adopted regulations and undermine those regulations when approved in large numbers, they should not be granted lightly and without strict compliance with defined conditions, including evidence that hardship will be caused by unique physical or topographic constraints and the owner will be deprived privileges enjoyed by similar properties, as well as the fact that the variance will not adversely affect the surrounding area nor will it grant special privilege to the property. In those instances where large numbers of variances are being requested, the City should review its policies and regulations and determine whether revisions are necessary.

**Policy N11.4 Alleviating Public Nuisances.**
The City should strive to alleviate public nuisances and unsafe and illegal activities. Code Enforcement efforts should be given as high a priority as facilitating the development process. Public nuisance regulations should be designed to allow community members to use City codes to facilitate nuisance abatement in their neighborhood.

**Policy N11.5 Relying on Local Resources.**
City departments involved in rehabilitation and property maintenance should utilize local community members and groups as resources in their efforts where ever possible.

<!-- page 90 -->
**Policy N11.6 Suggested Proactive Developer and Community Relations.**
Prior to submitting required permit application(s), project sponsors of medium and large scale housing developments should be encouraged to meet with established neighborhood groups, adjacent neighbors, and other interested local community members, hear their concerns regarding the proposed project, and take those concerns into consideration. It is suggested that the relationship established between the developer and the community continue throughout the construction process to minimize the impacts of construction activity on the surrounding area.

**INFRASTRUCTURE**

### Objective N12
**Provide adequate infrastructure to meet the needs of Oakland's growing community.**

*The General Plan recommends that consideration be given to the adequacy of infrastructure when contemplating additional development, particularly in the hill areas of Oakland. Infrastructure capacity and availability are critical determinants of future development throughout the City and will be a major factor affecting proposed construction or future annexation requests.*

**Policy N12.1 Developing Public Service Facilities.**
The development of public facilities and staffing of safety-related services, such as fire stations, should be sequenced and timed to provide a balance between land use and population growth, and public services at all times.

**Policy N12.2 Making Schools Available.**
Adequate public school capacity should be available to meet the needs of Oakland's growing community. The City and the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) should work together to establish a continuing procedure for coordinating residential and commercial development and exploring residential and commercial development and exploring the imposition of mutually agreed upon reasonable and feasible strategies to provide for adequate school capacity. The City and OUSD should jointly consider where feasible and appropriate, finding mechanisms such as assessment districts, Redevelopment Agency funding (AB 1290), use of surplus, City-owned land, bond issues, and adjacent or shared use of land or school facilities with recreation, libraries, child care and other public uses.

**Policy N12.3 Making Day Care Available.**
High quality day care should be available throughout Oakland, appropriately sited and designed based on its capacity and attributes. The City should, when appropriate and feasible, require major development projects to provide on or off-site facilities or other means to address

<!-- page 91 -->
potential child care inadequacies and encourage the inclusion of child care centers in major residential and commercial developments near transit centers, community centers, and schools.

#### Policy N12.4 Undergrounding Utility Lines.
Electrical, telephone, and related distribution lines should be undergrounded in commercial and residential areas, except where special local conditions such as limited visibility of the poles and wires make this unneeded. They should also be undergrounded in appropriate institutional, industrial, and other areas, and generally along freeways, scenic routes, and heavily traveled streets. Programs should lead systematically toward the eventual undergrounding of all existing lines in such places. Where significant utility extensions are taking place in these areas, such as in new subdivisions, utilities should be installed underground from the start.

#### Policy N12.5 Reducing Capital Improvement Disparities.
In its capital improvement and public services programs, the City should give special priority to reducing deficiencies in, and disparities between, existing residential areas.

#### Policy N12.6 Applying Development Standards Within Oakland's Sphere of Influence.
Potential development of propertied outside Oakland’s municipal boundary but inside the City’s Sphere of Influence shall be governed by the “Agricultural” land use designation of Contra Costa County.

#### Policy N12.7 Billboard Reduction
Billboards should be reduced or eliminated in commercial and residential areas in Oakland neighborhoods through mechanisms that minimize or do not require the expenditure of City funds.

<!-- page 92 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 93 -->
<<FIGURE>>

---

## Housing — 2023-2031 Adopted Housing Element, Chapters 1-4 (Clean)

- Source: https://www.oaklandca.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/planning-amp-building/documents/sp/gp/housing-element/oakland-adopted-housing-element-ch-1-4-21023_2023-02-17-213804_ddow.pdf
- Pages: 138
- Covers: housing

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

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

# City of Oakland
# 2023-2031 Housing Element
## Adopted January 31, 2023
### Resolution No. 89565

<!-- page 2 -->
Prepared by:

# DYETT & BHATIA
Urban and Regional Planners

Prepared for:

<<FIGURE>>

Cover photos: Greg Linhares, City of Oakland, and Dyett & Bhatia

<!-- page 3 -->
# Table of Contents

**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. I**

## 01 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1.1 Purpose of the Housing Element......................................................................................................... 8
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1.2 Oakland’s Housing Approach.............................................................................................................. 13
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1.3 Organization and Summary of the Housing Element................................................................... 15
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1.4 Relationship to Other General Plan Elements ................................................................................ 18
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;1.5 Sources of Information ......................................................................................................................... 19

## 02 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ......................................................................................... 23
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2.1 Summary of Community Outreach Activities ................................................................................. 24
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2.2 Public Participation Themes................................................................................................................. 33

## 03 SUMMARY OF THE HOUSING SITES INVENTORY ............................................ 37
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3.1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation................................................................................................. 38
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3.2 Capacity to Accommodate the RHNA ............................................................................................. 39
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3.3 Assessing Housing Sites Through a Fair Housing Lens............................................................... 45

## 04 HOUSING ACTION PLAN ........................................................................................ 49
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4.1 Goals, Policies, and Actions ............................................................................................................ 50
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Goal 1. Protect Oakland Residents from Displacement and Prevent Homelessness........ 51
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Goal 2. Preserve and Improve Existing Affordable Housing Stock .......................................... 59
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Goal 3. Close the Gap Between Affordable and Market-Rate Housing Production by 
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Expanding Affordable Housing Opportunities ...................................................................... 68
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Goal 4. Address Homelessness and Expand Services for the Unhoused ............................. 103
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Goal 5. Promote Neighborhood Stability and Health.................................................................. 114
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;4.2 Quantified Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 126

<!-- page 4 -->
# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

<!-- page 5 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# Executive Summary

Oakland’s 2023-2031 Housing Element is a plan that presents goals, policies, and actions to address Oakland’s need for more affordable homes and to promote integrated, vibrant communities. By expanding housing options in more affluent neighborhoods and reinvesting in less affluent neighborhoods, the Housing Element will affirmatively further fair housing for all Oaklanders. The Housing Element takes significant action to address urgent community needs, including protecting Oakland residents from displacement, improving Oakland’s existing housing stock, expanding affordable housing opportunities, expanding resources for the unhoused, and promoting neighborhood stability and health.

The Housing Element includes five specific goals with associated programs that are priorities for the City of Oakland. The goals were developed through a careful review of community input from each of the outreach and engagement sessions listed in Chapter 2 and is further informed by the comprehensive analysis of housing production capacity, constraints analysis and other topics covered throughout the Housing Element appendices.

Many of Oakland’s existing housing programs will be carried forward, but there are many **new actions, that are shown in blue**, that address the city’s housing needs that are added to the Housing Element.

<!-- page 6 -->
# Goal 1. Protect Oakland Residents from Displacement and Prevent Homelessness

The Housing Element protects Oakland tenants from displacement and creates conditions that enable them to remain in their homes and communities.

* Action 1.1.1: Continue to Implement the Rent Adjustment Ordinance.
* **Action 1.1.2: Enforce Just Cause for Eviction measures.**
* Action 1.1.3: Enforce and Strengthen Ellis Act protections.
* **Action 1.1.4: Implement tenant relocation measures.**
* **Action 1.1.5: Implement a right to counsel in Rent Adjustment Program proceedings.**
* Action 1.1.6: Enhance housing related legal services
* **Action 1.1.7: Expand our ability to enforce rent control to maintain affordability.**
* **Action 1.1.8: Monitor neighborhood displacement**
* **Action 1.1.9: Implement a rental housing registry.**
* Action 1.1.10: City Enforcement of the Tenant Protection Ordinance (TPO).
* **Action 1.1.11: Enforce the tenant right to return and protections from coercive buyouts.**
* **Action 1.1.12: Provide a local preference in affordable housing projects**
* **Action 1.1.13: Negotiate for appropriate community benefits during development agreement approvals for major entitlements and use of City land.**
* Action 1.1.14: Protect Oakland residents from displacement and becoming homeless.

<<FIGURE>>

# Goal 2. Preserve and Improve Existing Housing Stock

The Housing Element conserves and improves the affordability of existing housing stock in Oakland and addresses substandard conditions.

* Action 2.1.1: Support home rehabilitation programs.
* Action 2.1.2: Promote healthy homes and lead-safe housing.
* **Action 2.1.3: Conduct proactive rental inspections.**
* Action 2.1.4: Support historic preservation and rehabilitation.
* **Action 2.1.5: Implement universal design strategies**
* **Action 2.1.6: Increase funding for improved indoor air quality.**
* Action 2.2.1: Continue to implement resale controls on assisted housing.
* Action 2.2.2: Enforce, monitor, and preserve affordable housing covenants with an emphasis on “at-risk” units.

<!-- page 7 -->
*   Action 2.2.3: Enforce residential demolition and conversion restrictions for residential hotels.
*   Action 2.2.4: Limit condominium conversions.
*   Action 2.2.5: Extend local replacement unit provisions.
*   **Action 2.2.6: Reduce short-term home purchases/sales (i.e., “house flipping”) to ensure affordability and prevent displacement.**
*   **Action 2.2.7: Provide additional subsidy for residential hotels.**
*   **Action 2.2.8: Investigate a Tenant/ Community Opportunity to Purchase Act.**

# Goal 3. Close the Gap Between Affordable and Market-Rate Housing Production by Expanding Affordable Housing Opportunities

The Housing Element facilitates the production of housing for extremely low, very low, low, and moderate-income households. In addition to increased production generally, the Housing Element provides a diversity of housing types, ownership opportunities, living arrangements, and features supportive of special needs. The Housing Element locates new housing to further access to opportunity (while simultaneously investing in and protecting tenants in disinvested communities) and removes constraints to affordable housing development.

*   **Action 3.1.1: Develop a project-based rental or operating subsidy program for extremely-low-income residents.**
*   **Action 3.1.2: Align and target Oakland Housing Authority Section 8 Vouchers for permanent supportive housing and extremely-low-income units.**
*   **Action 3.2.1: Develop zoning standards to encourage missing middle and multi-unit**

<<FIGURE>>

**housing types in currently single-family-dominated neighborhoods, including flats, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes/ rowhouses, and ADUs**
*   **Action 3.2.2: Promote and protect live/work housing and housing for artists**
*   Action 3.2.3: Promote flexibility in adaptive reuse to increase the housing stock.
*   **Action 3.2.4: Provide financial incentives for lower-income homeowners to legalize ADUs**
*   **Action 3.2.5: Reduce constraints to the development of ADUs**
*   **Action 3.2.6: Monitor affordability of permitted ADUs**
*   **Action 3.2.7: Proactive Short-Term Rental Enforcement**
*   Action 3.3.1: Sale or ground-lease of City-owned property for affordable housing.
*   Action 3.3.2: Expansion of Section 8 vouchers.
*   Action 3.3.3: City of Oakland Emergency Rental Assistance Program.
*   **Action 3.3.4: Development of permanent housing affordable to extremely-low-income (ELI) households on public land.**
*   **Action 3.3.5: Implement an affordable housing overlay.**

<!-- page 8 -->
* Action 3.3.6: Access to low-cost financing for development.

* **Action 3.3.7: Study the targeted implementation of an inclusionary housing requirement**

* **Action 3.3.8: Right-sized development fees on market-rate developments**

* **Action 3.3.9: Adjusting or waiving City fees and payment timing for affordable housing developments.**

* **Action 3.3.10: Consider a citywide Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD)**

* **Action 3.3.11: Support innovations by design**

* Action 3.3.12: Continue the Acquisition and Conversion to Affordable Housing (ACAH) Program.

* Action 3.3.13: Expand availability of predevelopment funding and low-cost debt products for affordable housing development.

* **Action 3.3.14: Evaluate the creation of a leveraged acquisition fund or debt/equity funds for small sites to support site acquisitions for affordable housing**

* Action 3.3.15: Continue and expand density bonus incentives.

* **Action 3.3.16: Analyze the Real Estate Transfer Tax structure and its current effect on the Affordable Housing subsidy and the effect on the General Purpose Fund**

* Action 3.3.17: Support low-income, grassroots, and BIPOC affordable housing developers.

* **Action 3.3.18: Implement affordable housing investments contained in Measure U**

* **Action 3.3.19: Sites Inventory and Fair Housing Accomplishments Tracking Program**

* **Action 3.4.1: Revise development standards, including allowable building heights, densities, open space and setback requirements**

* **Action 3.4.2: Study the Relationship Between Zoning and Racial Segregation as Part of the Phase 2 General Plan Update**

* **Action 3.4.3: Revise Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requirements**

* **Action 3.4.4: Revise citywide parking standards**

* **Action 3.4.5: Revise open space requirements**

* **Action 3.4.6: Correct zoning district boundaries that cut through parcels**

* **Action 3.4.7: Capture the diversity of existing built fabric in zoning**

* **Action 3.4.8: Implement objective design standards**

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 9 -->
<<FIGURE>>

*   Action 3.4.9: Implement new ADU standards that streamline approvals and address unpermitted units.
*   **Action 3.4.10: Implement a Housing Sites Overlay Zone to permit sites included in the Housing Sites Inventory to develop with affordable housing by right**
*   **Action 3.4.11: Promote educator and/or student housing on public land by reviewing the zoning and General Plan designations of Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) and Peralta Community College District-owned sites for consistency with housing**
*   **Action 3.5.1: Support community land trusts and other shared equity model**
*   **Action 3.5.2: Support housing cooperatives, co-living, and cohousing models**
*   **Action 3.5.3: Advocate for statewide legislation on social housing**
*   **Action 3.5.4: Monitor and consider adopting shallow subsidy programs for lower-income households**
*   **Action 3.5.5: Study Feasibility of Single-Stair Residential Buildings**
*   **Action 3.6.1: Streamline the City permitting process, especially for low-income and nonprofit builders**
*   **Action 3.6.2: Provide increased flexibility in development standards**
*   **Action 3.6.3: Expand by-right approvals and implement entitlement reform for affordable housing**
*   **Action 3.6.4: Continue SB 35 streamlining and encourage projects to use it.**
*   Action 3.6.5: Continue one-stop and online permitting services.
*   **Action 3.7.1: Incentivize the development of senior housing and provide financial assistance to developers of housing for seniors and persons with special needs.**
*   Action 3.7.2: Provide housing for persons with HIV/AIDS.
*   Action 3.7.3: Accessible units in new housing developments.
*   Action 3.7.4: Implement the sponsor-based Housing Assistance Program.
*   **Action 3.7.5: Encourage a range of unit sizes for affordable housing that matches local household needs and family sizes**
*   **Action 3.7.6: Expand areas where rooming units and efficiency units are permitted by right**
*   **Action 3.7.7: Amend Planning Code to comply with the Employee Housing Act**
*   **Action 3.7.8: Expand areas where Residential Care Facilities are permitted by right**
*   **Action 3.8.1: Continue to implement the Vacant Property Tax (VPT)**
*   **Action 3.8.2: Encourage the conversion of vacant ground floor commercial space to residential uses in appropriate locations**
*   **Action 3.8.3: Tax vacant residential rental units**
*   Action 3.8.4: Continue the Oakland Community Buying Program and support scattered site acquisition efforts.
*   Action 3.8.5: Partner with Alameda County Tax Collector to redevelop tax defaulted properties.

<!-- page 10 -->
# GOAL 4. Address Homelessness and Expand Resources for the Unhoused

The Housing Element recognizes housing as a human right and reduces homelessness through Housing First approaches and support coordination across the spectrum, from homelessness prevention to transitional housing/shelter and services to permanent housing with resources for long-term support.

*   **Action 4.1.1: Expand, improve, and maintain crisis response beds**
*   **Action 4.1.2: Expand, improve, and maintain crisis response beds, especially for unsheltered communities of color**
*   **Action 4.1.3: Expand health and hygiene facilities and services and improve access to bathrooms and showers.**
*   **Action 4.1.4: Provide needed support and income to people who have been homeless so they can avoid returning to homelessness.**
*   **Action 4.2.1: Enhance operations of the City’s 2020 Encampment Management Policy**
*   **Action 4.2.2: Lead strategic homelessness response operations and homeless services from the Homelessness Division, Office of the City Administrator**
*   **Action 4.2.3: Strengthen interdepartmental Encampment Management Team**
*   **Action 4.2.4: Increase the oversight of homelessness strategies, investments, outcomes, and encampment operations with Commission on Homelessness.**
*   **Action 4.2.5: Expand co-governance and partnerships with unsheltered residents in the design and delivery of homelessness services.**
*   **Action 4.3.1: Finance the construction and maintenance of permanent supportive and deeply affordable housing for homeless households to expand the supply of deeply affordable and supportive housing for Oakland’s most vulnerable residents.**

<<FIGURE>>

*   **Action 4.3.2: Streamline approval for modular developments to provide quality shelter quickly to address the scale of the crisis**
*   **Action 4.3.3: Remove regulatory constraints to the development of transitional housing and supportive housing**
*   **Action 4.3.4: Ensure that the authority provided by the City’s Shelter Crisis Ordinance and Declaration of a Local Emergency regarding Homelessness remains in place until public health and safety concerns no longer persist**
*   **Action 4.3.5: Provide development standards for low barrier navigation centers**
*   Action 4.3.6: Expand opportunities for the permitting of emergency shelters

<!-- page 11 -->
# GOAL 5: Promote Neighborhood Stability and Health

The Housing Element promotes resilient development in safe, healthy, and just communities. It also increases resources in disinvested communities and create long-time stability through homeownership opportunities.

* Action 5.1.1: Provide first-time homebuyer programs.
* Action 5.1.2: Expand access to low-cost financing for home purchase.
* Action 5.1.3: Provide paths to homeownership for Section 8 voucher holders.
* **Action 5.2.1: Protect against smoke and wildfire.**
* Action 5.2.2: Promote infill, transit-oriented development (TOD), and mixed-use development.
* **Action 5.2.3: Study options to provide financing for the remediation of environmentally contaminated sites, with priority for affordable projects.**
* **Action 5.2.4: Secure funding from the State’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program.**
* Action 5.2.5: Encourage earthquake-resilient housing.
* Action 5.2.6: Encourage climate-resilient housing.
* **Action 5.2.7: Consider the adoption of a disaster reconstruction overlay zone**
* **Action 5.2.8: Encourage new affordable housing in higher resource neighborhoods**
* **Action 5.2.9: Prioritize improvements to meet the needs of low-resourced and disproportionately burdened communities.**
* **Action 5.2.10: Promote the development of mixed-income housing to reduce income-based concentration**
* Action 5.2.11: Provide accountability measures for housing programs, including annual monitoring.
* Action 5.3.1: Provide fair housing services and outreach.
* Action 5.3.2: Promote awareness of predatory lending practices.
* **Action 5.3.3: Provide targeted outreach and support to disproportionately burdened groups and areas.**

<!-- page 12 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# 01 INTRODUCTION

### 1.1 Purpose of the Housing Element
### 1.2 Oakland’s Housing Approach
### 1.3 Organization and Summary of the Housing Element
### 1.4 Relationship to Other General Plan Elements
### 1.5 Sources of Information

<!-- page 13 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# 1. Introduction

This General Plan presents the City of Oakland’s strategy and commitment for how it will meet the housing needs of the community over the next 8 years (covering the years 2023-2031). In the face of a crushing regional housing crisis, the task is formidable, but essential: to make quality housing opportunities available to all Oakland residents through the Protection, Preservation, and Production of homes, and to address systemic housing inequity.

Preparation of this Housing Element comes at a time of challenge and uncertainty for many Oaklanders. It comes amid a global pandemic, a renewed call for racial justice after the murder of George Floyd, and economic and global security uncertainty. It comes while Oakland has imposed one of the strongest eviction moratoriums in the State, and it comes at a moment when the world moves closer to the tipping point of irreversible climate change. All of these systemic challenges play a vital role in the current and future shape of housing for individuals and families who call Oakland home.

The actions in this Housing Element also account for Oakland’s production of affordable and market rate housing over the previous eight-year Housing Element period. The California legislature has found that the state of California has accumulated an unmet housing backlog of nearly 2,000,000 units and must provide for at least 180,000 new units annually to keep pace with growth through 2025.[^p13-1] Over the last eight years, Oakland produced sufficient housing units to meet its share of the overall state-mandated housing production goals. Many other cities throughout the state fell short of their assigned goals, which exacerbates the current housing affordability crisis and creates additional displacement forces on cities like Oakland.

However, Oakland’s housing production skewed significantly toward market-rate development and fell short of producing sufficient affordable housing. This Housing Element explores why this occurred and focuses actions on increasing affordable housing production to address this imbalance. The 2023-2031 Housing Element finds that there are sufficient parcels of land under existing zoning regulations to meet the City’s assigned eight-year housing production goals, and that these sites are zoned at a sufficiently high density so as to not preclude affordable housing development. Nevertheless, this Housing Element additionally concludes that even if the land is available for housing development, this is only one necessary factor to create an environment where affordable housing is constructed at sufficient levels. Given the shortfall in affordable housing production over the previous eight-year period, there is little reason to expect different results over the next eight years unless constraints are removed, incentives are added, and additional funding sources are identified. This Housing Element seeks to do that.

Finally, the Housing Element’s actions are also

[^p13-1]: See California Government Code Section 65589.5, subdivision (a)(2).

<!-- page 14 -->
proposed in the context of the longer historical patterns of segregation and exclusion that have resulted in racial and geographic disparities throughout the region and within the City of Oakland. It is not by accident or coincidence that Oakland has historically had more Black residents and more lower income residents than other cities in Alameda County. Nor is it a coincidence that Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) and lower income residents disproportionately live in the Oakland flatlands and disproportionately not in single-family neighborhoods north of Highway 580.

The historic factors that led to this segregation are numerous and can be difficult to untangle, but it is clear that the City has an obligation to undo these patterns of past harms by taking affirmative steps to further fair housing opportunities for all residents. Again, looking at the past eight-year period, it is apparent that the majority of new housing development occurred in neighborhoods targeted for new development such as the Broadway Valdez area, Downtown, West Oakland, and other major transit corridors. These patterns of growth may be appropriate for purposes of creating transit-oriented development and reducing automobile reliance, but without other actions also serve to maintain the existing exclusivity of other neighborhoods. This Housing Element recognizes that the City’s obligation to affirmatively further fair housing compels the City to redress the fact that some Oakland neighborhoods were purposefully designed to be exclusive, and preserved that exclusivity through racial covenants, unfair mortgage lending practices, and exclusionary zoning. The Housing Element proposes actions to reverse those trends.

## LEARNING FROM THE PAST

What does it mean to call Oakland “home”? Oakland’s current housing landscape tells the story of struggle, of systemic forces that have shaped the neighborhood geography of opportunity. To chart an equitable path forward, Oakland’s history must be examined and addressed. In particular, Oakland and other governmental entities that influence fair housing choice must affirmatively further fair housing by creating policies that increase affordable housing in high-resource neighborhoods that were formed through exclusionary policies and must also bring additional resources to under-resourced neighborhoods.

The land that is now Oakland is the ancestral home of the Ohlone indigenous group who were stewards of the oak and redwood forests, grasslands, and marshlands that make up the coastal region of central and northern California for thousands of years. The arrival of Spanish missionaries in the 1760s and subsequent periods of Spanish colonization, Mexican settlement, and American urbanization of the Ohlone region greatly shifted the cultural and physical landscape. Nevertheless, this land continues to be of great importance to the Ohlone people.[^p14-2]

Oakland has historically been a destination for working people and immigrants who sought out its abundant industrial jobs and relatively affordable neighborhoods. Many of these places, including Chinatown, West Oakland, and East Oakland, formed into cultural and ethnic enclaves as a result of segregationist and racially discriminatory policies and practices, including exclusionary single-family zoning (see ‘Constraints’ chapter for more information).[^p14-3] Government-sponsored “white flight” suburbanization during the early 1930s, followed by disinvestment and takings in neighborhoods of color, created socioeconomic and geographic lines that were further delineated

[^p14-2]: Mitchell Schwarzer, Hella Town: Oakland’s History of Development and Disruption, (Oakland: University of California Press, 2021).
[^p14-3]: City of Oakland, “Environmental Justice and Racial Equity Baseline.” March 2022. Access available at https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Equity-Baseline_revised4.15.22.pdf

<!-- page 15 -->
by redlining (a federally sanctioned practice during the 1930s of denying mortgages in communities of color) and racially restrictive covenants.[^p15-4] In the 1950s and 1960s, urban renewal cut through these disinvested areas to build new high-rises and transportation infrastructure that displaced many low-income residents and residents of color. Segregation pressures and private developer interests prevented additional expansions of public housing, and Hope VI initiatives to replace larger public housing projects decreased the overall number of rent-subsidized units, particularly in West Oakland. During the period between 1960 to 1966 alone, 11,800 housing units were razed in Oakland to make room for freeways, BART projects, new public housing, and other urban renewal developments.[^p15-5]

Since the late 1990s, Oakland has seen an increase in real estate investment, which has had both positive and negative effects. In the years leading up to the 2008 housing crash and Great Recession, banks engaged in a process referred to as “reverse redlining” where predatory lending practices and subprime loans were targeted in the same neighborhoods that were once marked as off-limits for borrowers in the 1950s.[^p15-6] This activity resulted in waves of foreclosures in East and West Oakland. A significant number of these foreclosed properties were then acquired by investors, and once-affordable and stable homes flipped overnight into market-rate rentals. An influx of private capital, in part due to efforts like the City’s 10K plan to revitalize the urban core with infill, market-rate housing, has reinvigorated downtown

<<FIGURE>>

[^p15-4]: Just Cities, East Oakland Displacement Status and Impacts from the BRT Project Summary: A Racial Equity Planning and Policy Justice Report for OakDOT’s East Oakland Mobility Action Plan, June 2021, https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/EOMAP-Appendix-2.pdf, accessed March 16, 2022.
[^p15-5]: See Oakland City Planning Department, Oakland’s Housing Supply: Cost, Condition, Composition, 1960-1966.
[^p15-6]: “East Oakland Displacement Status and Impacts from the BRT Project Summary.” n.d. Oakland: Just Cities. https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/EOMAP-Appendix-2.pdf.

<!-- page 16 -->
and uptown.[^p16-7] The 10K plan aimed to attract new residents, often with higher salaries than existing communities, to spend incomes at commercial establishments downtown. At the same time as this influx, rising housing prices and a lack of new affordable options created waves of residential and commercial gentrification, especially in North and West Oakland and Chinatown, with a growing pattern of displacement in East Oakland.[^p16-8] Massive regional job growth, particularly in the technology sector, coupled with the lack of supply of housing in other cities to keep up, sent waves of new residents to the East Bay in search of more affordable homes.[^p16-9] The impacts of lack of regional supply rippled through other residential areas of the city, where communities of color faced greater vulnerability to rising housing costs than white residents.[^p16-10] California’s Costa Hawkins Law, passed in 1995, also exempted newly constructed units and single-family homes from rent control and effectively banned local vacancy control laws, exacerbating displacement and socioeconomic exclusion in the city.[^p16-11] Generational economic and housing discrimination continues to impact Oakland residents: significant disparities remain in home ownership, household incomes, and health outcomes that are tied to race, income, neighborhood poverty level, and housing status, among other social and environmental conditions.[^p16-12] [^p16-13]

Nowhere has the impacts of these changes been more visible than on Oakland’s streets, as homelessness increased by 83 percent from 2017 to 2022.[^p16-14] Although the individual causes for homelessness are complex, there are key structural reasons why Oakland has one of the worst homelessness crises in America. These reasons include structural racism, unstable rental markets for tenants, systemic barriers to housing for the formerly incarcerated, a lack of living wage job opportunities, and, above all else, a catastrophic shortage of deeply affordable homes. Another vital truth is that the impacts of homelessness compound over time- the longer someone is homeless, the worse the impacts on physical and mental health, social and family networks, and the ability to find, maintain, and sustain permanent housing.

The direct and indirect displacement of residents in these areas, driven by the heated and inequitable

[^p16-7]: *Ibid.*
[^p16-8]: See generally Owens, Darrell, Discourse Lounge, “Where Did All the Black People in Oakland Go?”, September 8, 2021. https://darrellowens.substack.com/p/where-did-all-the-black-people-in, accessed February 21, 2022. See also City of Oakland, “Economic Trends and Prospects, Baseline Analysis for Oakland General Plan”, Commute Trends and Workforce Characteristics, pp. 9-16. Access available at https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Economic_Trends_Prospects_EPS_2022.06.02.pdf
[^p16-9]: Mitchell Schwarzer, Hella Town: Oakland’s History of Development and Disruption (University of California Press, 2021).
[^p16-10]: “East Oakland Displacement Status and Impacts from the BRT Project Summary.” n.d. Oakland: Just Cities. https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/EOMAP-Appendix-2.pdf.
[^p16-11]: Wolfe, T. California’s Affordability and Displacement Crisis: The Role of the Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act. UC Berkeley, Goldman School of Public Policy, 2016. Accessed October 25, 2022. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c09723c55b02cf724c3d340/t/5d517d8db0194b0001a1e29b/1565621653633/Displacement_Dellums_FINAL_022617.pdf
[^p16-12]: Menendian, S., Gambhir, S. and Gailes, A. “Racial Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area, Part 5: Remedies, Solutions, and Targets. The Othering and Belonging Institute, 2020. Accessed October 31, 2022 at https://belonging.berkeley.edu/racial-segregation-san-francisco-bay-area-part-5
[^p16-13]: Nguyen, T. et al. Housing Habitability and Health: Oakland's Hidden Crisis: A Report on Childhood Lead and Asthma by Alameda County Public Health. 2018. Accessed October 25, 2022. https://www.acgov.org/cda/lead/documents/news/health,housinginoakland.pdf
[^p16-14]: Oakland 2022 Point-in-Time Count: Unsheltered and Sheltered Report. EveryOneHome. Accessed November 18, 2022. https://everyonehome.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Oakland-PIT-2022-Infographic-Report.pdf

<!-- page 17 -->
housing market, threatens not only individual households but also the cultural identity and viability of these communities. From 2000 to 2019, Oakland lost nearly 30 percent of its Black population and significant numbers of longtime Asian Americans residing in ethnic enclaves including Chinatown.[^p17-15] The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted and exacerbated racial and economic disparities in housing security; the pandemic has also shown the public health consequences of Oakland’s housing disparities.[^p17-16] The consequence of Oakland’s complex history has and continues to shape the city’s built environment, including the distribution, types, affordability, and quality of housing in Oakland.

Today, Oakland has grown to be the largest city in Alameda County and the busiest port in Northern California. Neighboring cities include Berkeley and Emeryville to the north, San Leandro to the south, Alameda across the Oakland Estuary, and Piedmont surrounded by Oakland. San Francisco is located just 12 miles west across the San Francisco Bay, connected by Interstate 80 (I-80). Oakland is known for its diverse geography, including 19 miles of bay and estuary coastline to the west, the Oakland/Berkeley Hills to the east, and Lake Merritt, a tidal lagoon located within the city’s borders.

## CHARTING AN EQUITABLE, INCLUSIVE FUTURE

With the legacy of inequity top of mind, the City has begun planning for a more equitable future. In 2016, the City established the Department of Race and Equity with a mission “to advance the creation of a city where diversity has been maintained, racial disparities have been eliminated, and racial equity has been achieved.” The Department of Race and Equity is particularly concerned with making a difference in the determinants of equity that lead to creation of a fair and just society, including housing. In 2018, the department published the Equity Indicators Report, which serves as a baseline quantitative framework that can be used by City staff and community members alike to better understand the impacts of policy on racial groups and measure inequities. In 2022, the City declared racism a public health crisis and in response has provided funding for additional staff in the Department of Race and Equity to track performance and equity progress.

The work of the Department of Race and Equity informs the City of Oakland’s Department of Housing and Community Development’s (Oakland HCD) 2021-2023 Strategic Action Plan. This plan is informed by past analyses, planning, and accomplishments such as the 2016 “Oakland At Home: Recommendations for Implementing A Roadmap Toward Equity from the Oakland Housing Cabinet,” and applies a race and equity lens to the City’s housing investments and services in wake of the public health, fiscal, and social crises caused by COVID-19. In practice, this includes:

• Transparent and regular reporting on outcomes disaggregated by race;

• Americans with Disabilities Act-compliant, accessible information provided in multiple languages;

[^p17-15]: American Community Survey (ACS) (2014-2018); U.S. Census 2000, 2010; Urban Displacement Project, 2021.
[^p17-16]: “City of Oakland HCD 2021-2023 Strategic Action Plan City of Oakland Housing & Community Development Department 2021-2023 Strategic Action Plan.” n.d. Accessed May 9, 2022. https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/HCD.final.21-21Strategic-Plan.pdf.

<!-- page 18 -->
• Anti-displacement and housing production programs, policies, and initiatives focused on the most impacted vulnerable populations;

• Access and opportunity pathways to and for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) developers, service providers, and other contractors to the resources the City has to offer in the conduct of its housing work.

The 2021-2023 Strategic Action Plan also details a series of specific actions and policies Oakland HCD will pursue as part of a broader strategy to protect residents from displacement, preserve existing affordable housing - both subsidized and unsubsidized, and produce new affordable housing.

Community-based organizations, many of whom have been leading housing justice efforts for decades, are also shaping housing goals rooted in racial equity. Oakland residents, community organizations, developers, and government partners created the Healthy Development Guidelines (HDG) with the intent of establishing a shared vision of a healthy, equitable community. The guidelines promote policies, goals, and development guidelines that strengthen environmental justice, sustainability, health, and racial equity in Oakland. In particular, the guidelines are intended to empower residents to address planning, policy, and public health issues in Oakland, so that no neighborhood or demographic group is unduly burdened by development that exacerbates health disparities, economic inequality, or access to open space. A City Council resolution recognized the guidelines, which commended the coalition for their collaborative and engaging partnership with the community.

The East Oakland Neighborhood Initiative (EONI) is a collaborative partnership between the City of Oakland and CBOs leveraging the Transformative Climate Communities grant administered by California’s Strategic Growth Council. The EONI plan is a community-driven plan for a just transition to a regenerative economy

### Healthy Development Guideline Goals

Two of the HDG's goals include enhancing access to affordable housing, particularly for vulnerable populations; preserving existing affordable housing and protecting residents from involuntary displacement.

for East Oakland, led by frontline communities, to strengthen the health, wealth, and resilience of East Oakland neighborhoods in the face of displacement and climate impacts. The plan is focused on five goals: reduce greenhouse gases, prevent displacement, improve public health, build economic empowerment, and plan “by and with” the community.

The East Oakland Neighborhoods Initiative, highlights anti-displacement among their plan goals, noting that improvements recommended in the plan must not drive out existing residents by inadvertently increasing the cost of housing. This is achieved in part through local wealth creation, well-crafted policies, and mainstreaming of affordability vehicles.

Goals, Policies, and Actions included in the Housing Action Plan seek to overcome patterns of segregation, foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity and housing, and close the gap between market rate & affordable housing by prioritizing preservation and development of housing for those of the greatest need, including Black & Brown households.

The global climate crisis will also have profound impacts on—among other things—housing security and availability in Oakland. To address the climate crisis, the City released the Oakland 2030 Equitable Climate Action Plan (ECAP) in July 2020. The ECAP is the City’s strategy to create a

<!-- page 19 -->
future built on justice, equal opportunity, and environmental protection. Among the list of Transportation and Land Use (TLU) actions in the ECAP is TLU-3, “Take Action to Reduce and Prevent Displacement of Residents & Businesses.” TLU-3 explicitly links anti-displacement efforts to climate equity action, as the City can only achieve its ECAP goals if Oaklanders are able to fully participate in, and benefit from, climate action without fear of displacement and homelessness.

The City is also undertaking an update to its Land Use and Transportation Element of the General Plan, in tandem with this Housing Element, to promote a land use pattern and policies that will help accelerate and target housing production. Like many other Bay Area cities, nearly every property in Oakland has been developed, with few “greenfield” (not yet developed) sites within its limits or at its borders, meaning that housing development will primarily rely on development and redevelopment of “infill” sites. Within the city limit, there are approximately 29,700 acres (46.4 square miles) of land, including residential, commercial, and industrial developments, as well as public facilities, including parks, schools, and an international airport. The Housing Element applies to land within city limits, depicted in **Figure 1-1**.

## 1.1 Purpose of the Housing Element

TThe 2023-2031 Oakland Housing Element is one component of a larger effort: an update to the City of Oakland General Plan. The General Plan Update will create Oakland’s 2045 General Plan and is a “once-in-a-generation” opportunity for all Oaklanders to work together to create a visionary blueprint for the city’s future over the next 20 years. The Oakland 2045 General Plan will be made up of several “elements” covering a wide range of topics important to the future of Oakland, including environmental justice, land use, transportation, open space, noise, conservation, and safety.

<<FIGURE>>

### Environmental Justice and Racial Equity Baseline

The Environmental Justice and Racial Equity Baseline, published in March 2022, identifies and details disparities by race and by geography that can be influenced directly or indirectly by the General Plan. The findings in the Environmental Justice and Racial Equity Baseline identify environmental justice and racial equity existing conditions and inform conversations between City staff and members of the public. In parallel with the Housing Element, this baseline will be used as a starting place for policymaking related to environmental justice, safe and sanitary housing, and other community equity issues.

The 2023-2031 Housing Element sets forth the City’s housing priorities and goals—as well as its vision for both short- and long-term development—to create a fair and just city. The actions proposed by this Housing Element cover a wide range of housing issues but are largely focused on addressing two major issues: the City’s shortfall of housing production and affirmatively undoing past patterns of exclusivity. State law mandates that the

<!-- page 20 -->
### Figure 1-1: Regional Map

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 21 -->
Housing Element be updated every eight years to reflect changing conditions, community objectives, and goals. The key components of the Housing Element include an evaluation of whether the City has sufficient zoned capacity to accommodate required housing production at all affordability levels, an assessment of whether the geographic distribution of that capacity will either further entrench or help to ameliorate existing patterns of segregation, and finally a set of programs and policies to address shortfalls and reduce identified constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing.

## HOUSING ELEMENT: COMPONENTS

In California, all cities must adopt a General Plan composed of at least seven elements, including the Housing Element. All cities must also incorporate environmental justice into the General Plan. Oakland has chosen to adopt an Environmental Justice Element while also incorporating environmental justice goals into each element, including the Housing Element. The Oakland Housing Element, in tandem with the rest of the General Plan Update, is designed to assess and shape the community’s housing progress and needs. In accordance with State law, the Housing Element must include:

*   A description of outreach conducted in preparation of the element;
*   An analysis of progress in implementing the previous Housing Element and effectiveness of its programs and actions;
*   An assessment of existing and projected housing needs;
*   An analysis of special housing needs, such as those of older adults and people with disabilities;
*   An analysis of existing assisted housing units at risk of conversion from affordable to market-rate;
*   An analysis and inventory of resources and constraints relevant to meeting housing needs;
*   An affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) analysis, which guides the analysis of each set of requirements;
*   An inventory of adequate sites suitable for construction of new housing sufficient to meet needs at all economic levels;
*   A program that sets forth specific actions to address housing needs, with identification of responsible agencies and timelines.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 22 -->
## REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT (RHNA)

Oakland’s Housing Element was last updated in 2015 and covered the years 2015-2023. The current Housing Element update reflects the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) as determined by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for the Sixth Cycle Housing Element update, covering the years 2023-2031. The RHNA is a State-mandated process intended to ensure every city and county plans for enough housing production to accommodate future growth. The State of California Housing and Community Development Department (State HCD) assigns each region of the state an overall RHNA allocation. For the nine-county Bay Area region, ABAG then distributes a “fair share” portion of that allocation to each local jurisdiction. Each city and county must then identify adequate sites with a realistic capacity for development sufficient to meet this RHNA.

For the 2023-2031 period, Oakland must identify sites sufficient to accommodate 26,251 new housing units between 2023 and 2031, with a specific number of units designated as affordable to each income category, as shown in Table 1-1.

A total of 6,511 units must be affordable to households making less than 50 percent of area median income (AMI), 3,750 units must be affordable to households making between 50 and 80 percent of AMI, 4,457 units must be affordable to households making between 80 and 120 percent of AMI, and 11,533 units must be affordable to households making over 120 percent of AMI. The RHNA does not specifically break down the need for extremely-low-income households. As provided by State law, the housing needs of extremely-low-income households, or those making less than 30 percent of area median income (AMI), is estimated as 50 percent of the very-low-income housing need. More detail on the RHNA allocation process is described in Chapter 3 as well as in **Appendix C**.

### Table 1-1: Oakland Regional Housing Needs Assessment, 2023-2031

| INCOME LEVEL[^p22-1] | INCOME RANGE | NEEDED UNITS | PERCENT OF NEEDED UNITS |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Very-Low-Income (0-50% AMI) | <$50,000 | 6,511 | 24.8% |
| *Extremely-Low-Income (<30% AM part of Very-Low-Income in previous row)[^p22-2]* | <$30,000 | 3,256 | - |
| Low-Income (51-80% AMI) | $30,001-80,000 | 3,750 | 14.3% |
| Moderate-Income (81-120% AMI) | $80,001-119,950 | 4,457 | 17.0% |
| Above-Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) | >$119,950 | 11,533 | 43.9% |
| **Total** | | **26,251** | **100.0%** |

[^p22-1]: 1. Income levels reflect 2022 Alameda County Housing and Community Development income limits for a one-person household.
[^p22-2]: 2. Extremely-low-income housing need is assumed to be 50 percent of very-low-income housing need.

*Source: ABAG, Final RHNA Plan, December 2021*

<!-- page 23 -->
## HOUSING ELEMENT: STATE CHANGES

Various amendments have been made to Housing Element law since adoption of the City's current Housing Element, especially since 2017. Some of the key changes for 6th cycle RHNA and Housing Element update include:

* Assembly Bill (AB) 72 (2017) provides additional authority to State HCD to scrutinize housing elements and enforce housing element noncompliance and other violations of state housing laws.
* AB 879 (2017) and AB 1397 (2017) require additional analysis and justification of sites listed on a local government's housing sites inventory, additional explanation of the realistic capacity of those listed sites, and further scrutiny of governmental and nongovernmental constraints that limit the production of housing.
* AB 686 (2018) requires local governments to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) by including in revised housing elements (1) an assessment of fair housing; (2) equitable distribution of housing to meet the needs of households at all income levels and dismantle segregated living patterns with integrated and balanced living patterns; (3) policies and programs that address fair housing barriers and promote fair housing patterns; and (4) a comprehensive, collaborative, accessible, inclusive, and equity-driven public engagement approach.
* AB 215 (2021) extends the housing element compliance review process by requiring local governments to make draft housing elements available for public review prior to submittal to State HCD rather than conducting concurrent review. The draft must be made publicly available for at least 30 days, and the local government must consider and incorporate public comment for at least 10 business days, before sending the draft to State HCD. AB 215 also increased State HCD's review period of the first draft element submittal from 60 to 90 days and within 60 days of its receipt for a subsequent draft amendment or adoption. However, the January 31, 2023, statutory deadline remains the same, even as these new requirements have significantly added to the time a city needs to complete the overall housing element update process.
* AB 1398 (2021) revises the consequences for local governments that miss the deadline for housing element adoption. Local governments must complete rezoning no later than one year from the statutory deadline for adoption of the housing element if that jurisdiction fails to adopt a housing element that State HCD has found to be in substantial compliance with state law within 120 days of the statutory deadline. The City retains the three-year rezoning period if the housing element is adopted within 120 days of the statutory deadline.
* AB 1304 (2021) clarifies that a public agency has a mandatory duty to comply with existing Housing Element Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements. AB 1304 revises the items to be included in AFFH analysis and requires that analysis to be done in a specified manner. In addition, the housing inventory must analyze the relationship of the sites identified in the inventory to the city's duty to affirmatively further fair housing.

The contents of this Housing Element comply with these amendments and all other requirements of Housing Element law.

## ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

The General Plan update is being accompanied by an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which analyzes the potential impacts attributable to the Housing Element Planning Code amendments, as well as the Safety and Environmental Justice Elements and related General Plan and Zoning Map amendments.

<!-- page 24 -->
## 1.2 Oakland’s Housing Approach

Two important components of the Housing Element include a plan to address Oaklanders’ housing needs, and an inventory of sites suitable for housing development at all income levels, based on Oakland’s 6th cycle RHNA.

### HOUSING ACTION PLAN

This Housing Element identifies a foundational framework of five overarching goals in Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan to comprehensively address the housing crisis and needs of Oaklanders. The goals seek to significantly address disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replace segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, foster and maintain compliance with civil rights, and affirmatively further fair housing. The goals were developed through a careful review of community input from each of the outreach and engagement sessions listed in Chapter 2. The Housing Action Plan is further informed by the comprehensive analysis of housing production capacity, constraints analysis and other topics covered throughout the Housing Element appendices. The goals include:

1. **Protect Oakland Residents from Displacement and Prevent Homelessness:** Protect Oakland tenants from displacement and create conditions that enable them to remain in their homes and communities.

2. **Preserve and Improve Existing Housing Stock:** Conserve and improve the affordability of existing housing stock in Oakland and address substandard conditions.

3. **Close the Gap Between Affordable and Market-Rate Housing Production by Expanding Affordable Housing Opportunities:** Facilitate the production of housing for extremely low, very low, low, and moderate-income households. In addition to increased production generally, provide a diversity of housing types, ownership opportunities, living arrangements, and features supportive of special needs. Locate new housing to further access to opportunity (while simultaneously investing in and protecting tenants in disinvested communities) and remove constraints to affordable housing development.

4. **Address Homelessness and Expand Resources for the Unhoused:** Recognize housing as a human right. Reduce homelessness through Housing First approaches and support coordination across the spectrum, from homelessness prevention to transitional housing/shelter and services to permanent housing with resources for long-term support.

5. **Promote Neighborhood Stability and Health:** Promote resilient development in safe, healthy, and just communities. Increase resources in disinvested communities and create long-time stability through homeownership opportunities.

The goals, policies, and actions form the Housing Action Plan for the 2023-2031 planning period and transform this framework into impactful action.

### HOUSING SITES INVENTORY

The Housing Element also presents an inventory under existing zoning of housing sites suitable for new homes in Oakland at all income levels. The purpose of the inventory is to evaluate whether the City currently has a sufficient number of sites available to meet its RHNA over the next eight years, and to determine whether the distribution of these sites will either further entrench or help to ameliorate existing patterns of segregation. To do this, the inventory includes:

* Sites where development is underway or approved (known as “pipeline projects”) or otherwise can be credited to meet the RHNA (such as Accessory Dwelling Units ); and

<!-- page 25 -->
· Opportunity sites where additional development could occur. Opportunity sites were selected in a manner consistent with the City’s mandate to affirmatively further fair housing. Housing sites, especially lower-income sites, were selected so as to reduce segregation and increase affordable development in high resource neighborhoods, where possible.

Chapter 3 provides a summary of the inventory approach and Appendix C includes the detailed site inventory. While the Housing Sites Inventory documents that Oakland has sufficient zoning capacity to meet Oakland’s RHNA requirements, the City’s Housing Action Plan includes several zoning reforms that would further increase production capacity and unlock opportunity for affordable and missing middle housing in high resource areas. These are in addition to the continued enforcement and strengthening of identified tenant protection and anti-displacement measures. A few examples of actions in the Housing Action Plan include:

· Develop zoning standards to encourage missing middle and multi-unit housing types in currently single-family dominated neighborhoods (Action 3.2.1);

· Reduce constraints to the development of accessory dwelling units (Action 3.2.5);

· Implement an affordable housing overlay zone that would allow for 100% affordable housing development at any density up to a specified height in most areas where housing is currently permitted (Action 3.3.5);

· Revise development standards, including allowable building heights, densities, open space, and setback requirements (Action 3.4.1);

· Remove conditional use permit requirements for housing in RD-2 and RM zones (Action 3.4.3);

· Implement objective design standards (Action 3.4.8);

· Implement a housing sites overlay zone that would allow all sites included in the Housing Element’s Housing Sites Inventory (identified in Table C-26, available in a separate Excel file) to develop owner-occupied and rental multifamily uses by right for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower-income households (Action 3.4.10);

· Promote infill, transit-oriented development (TOD), and mixed-use development (Action 5.2.2); and

· Encourage new affordable housing in higher resource neighborhoods (Action 5.2.8)

· Prioritize improvements to meet the needs of low-resourced and disproportionately burdened communities (Action 5.2.9)

The Housing Action Plan and Housing Sites Inventory reflects feedback from members of the community and the goals, policies, and actions reflect both local priorities and State obligations.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 26 -->
## 1.3 Organization and Summary of the Housing Element

The Housing Element is divided into four chapters: an Introduction, a Summary of Public Participation, a Summary of the Housing Sites Inventory, and the Housing Action Plan. In addition, there are several technical appendices that provide extensive detail on a range of topics, including many of the checklist items mandated by state law. This includes an evaluation of the City’s 2015-2023 Housing Element, an assessment of housing needs, resources, and constraints, and the comprehensive housing sites inventory. A summary of the findings from each technical appendix is provided in the main body of the Housing Element. It is organized as follows:

* **Chapter 1 – Introduction:** Provides an overview of State requirements, a summary of the organization of the Housing Element, and an explanation of the Housing Element’s relationship to the General Plan.
* **Chapter 2 – Public Participation:** Provides a description of the public participation process and a summary of community outreach activities.
* **Chapter 3 – Summary of the Housing Sites Inventory:** Summarizes the City’s ability to accommodate the RHNA on available land, and the selection of sites in light of AFFH requirements.
* **Chapter 4 – Housing Action Plan:** Institutes the goals, policies, and actions of the 2023-2031 Housing Element, and provides quantified objectives. The Plan includes five goals: protect Oakland residents from displacement and prevent homelessness; Preserve and improve existing affordable housing stock; Close the gap between affordable and market-rate housing production by expanding affordable housing opportunities; Address homelessness and expand services for the unhoused; and Promote neighborhood stability and health.
* **Appendix A – Evaluation of the 2015-2023 Oakland Housing Element:** Summarizes the City’s achievements in implementing goals, policies, and actions under the previous Housing Element. While the City was able to meet its above-moderate-income RHNA, it fell short of meeting its lower- and moderate-income goals. Oakland recognizes that more can and should be done to close the gap on affordable housing construction. Oakland further recognizes that many cities in the Bay Area region have failed to meet market rate development goals and continue to prohibit housing at densities that can support affordable housing, both of which have contributed to exacerbated regional inequality, a protraction of the housing crisis, and very likely has catalyzed gentrification and displacement in Oakland.
* **Appendix B – Housing Needs Assessment:** Presents community demographic information, including both population and household data, to identify Oakland’s housing needs. Since at least the 1940s, Oakland has had a significantly higher percentage of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) residents than other cities of a similar size in California. BIPOC communities in Oakland have historically faced patterns of discrimination and segregation, as well as neighborhood disinvestment, throughout the 20th century continuing into the 21st century. In recent years, many of these same communities now bear a disproportionate impact of the State’s housing crisis and are increasingly at risk of displacement from Oakland—Oakland’s Black population has decreased from 36 percent in 2000 to 23 percent in 2020. Oakland’s rates of homelessness have also significantly increased from 2017-2022 (83 percent), though the rate of increase has decreased from the period of 2019-2022 (23 percent, compared to 47 percent from 2017-2019). Oaklanders of color also disproportionately face lower rates of homeownership, higher housing cost burden,

<!-- page 27 -->
overcrowded conditions, and homelessness. These trends are being compounded by demographic factors such as the rapid aging of the population and continued prevalence of poverty.

*   **Appendix C – Sites Inventory:** Outlines the selection and capacity methodology used to identify sites to accommodate the RHNA. While the Housing Sites Inventory documents that Oakland does have sufficient zoning capacity to meet Oakland’s RHNA requirements, the City has identified in its Housing Action Plan several zoning reforms that would further increase production capacity and unlock opportunity for affordable and missing middle housing in high resource areas.

*   **Appendix D – Assessment of Fair Housing:** Identifies fair housing issues and solutions to meet Oakland’s AFFH mandate. Oakland is incredibly diverse at the City level, but at the neighborhood level, geographic patterns of income segregation and racial/ethnic segregation are clear. Additionally, Oakland has racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty localized to four areas in the City. Neighborhoods across Oakland have received varying levels of investment, which is reflected in the unequal opportunities available for communities of color. Additionally, access to economic, educational, and environmental opportunities vary greatly across the City. Comparing access to opportunity with displacement risk and gentrification across the City, areas that are exclusive, stable, or in the advanced stages of gentrification offer the best access to opportunity. Much of the City has gentrified in recent years, leaving residents in the few (predominantly BIPOC) neighborhoods that have not gentrified at risk of displacement. Oakland is further impacted by disproportionate housing needs: overcrowding rates are higher in the City than in the County/Bay Area Region, cost burden rates are high (highest for Black and African-American households and lowest for white households), and homelessness is a major public health crisis in the City. Individuals experiencing homelessness increased 83 percent between 2017 and 2022 and individuals identifying as Black or African American are disproportionately represented in the unhoused population.

    *   The goals and actions concluding this appendix have a strong focus on investing in neighborhoods considered “Low Resource” and “High Segregation and Poverty” by the State HCD/TCAC Opportunity Maps (i.e. those neighborhoods with low access to opportunity). These neighborhoods have high concentrations of BIPOC populations.

*   **Appendix E – Housing Resources and Opportunities:** Assesses the City’s financial and administrative resources available for future housing development. This appendix describes and assesses the resources available for the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing in Oakland. The following sections provide an overview of the financial and administrative resources to support the provision of affordable housing. These include Oakland Housing Authority funds, the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, Community Development Block Grant Funds, and other sources of funding. The appendix also describes additional housing resources or considerations relevant for the provision of housing in the city, including publicly-owned and surplus land, as well as utility and service systems to support new housing.

*   **Appendix F – Housing Constraints:** Analyzes governmental and non-governmental constraints to the development of housing. Governmental constraints on affordable housing construction include a lack of local and State funding to support the development of affordable housing, a lack of clarity on permit streamlining processes, higher costs

<!-- page 28 -->
for all housing developments due to a lack of City staff capacity. Both market rate and affordable housing also face constraints from development standards and green building standards. Non-governmental constraints on housing development include environmental constraints such as risk of seismic activity, infrastructure needs for infill housing, rising interest rates, and the high cost of land, materials, and labor in Oakland.

* **Appendix G – Opportunities for Energy Conservation:** Presents opportunities to develop housing in a sustainable manner. While electrification is one of the primary ways to reduce the environmental impact of a building and improve energy performance, residential buildings in Oakland face a range of difficulties when pursuing electrification including lack of electrical panel or service capacity, and the extensive renovations and remediations that the retrofitting for electrification might trigger. Residents and property owners in Oakland have access to a variety of resources to assist with and incentivize residential energy conservation including local and state financing programs, and local resources such as solar rebates and incentives, and assistance with conversions of gas stoves to induction cooktops. Low-income Oakland utility customers who qualify can also take advantage of State and Federal Energy Bill assistance and energy efficiency programs.

* **Appendix H – Glossary.** Defines key terms used in the Housing Element.

* **Appendix I – Public Outreach Materials.** Includes meeting materials, outreach and survey summaries.

* **Appendix J – Proposed Rezoning and Height Changes.** Illustrates proposed rezoning and height changes to increase housing production capacity and unlock additional opportunities for affordable and “missing middle” housing in high-resource neighborhoods and affirmatively

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 29 -->
further fair housing by opening up exclusionary neighborhoods. The proposed changes are also available as an interactive map.

* **Appendix K – Findings Letter from California Housing and Community Development (State HCD) dated 9/28/22 and Responses.** Provides a brief summary of the changes in response to the State HCD letter and where they were made in the revised draft.

* **Appendix L – Response to Public Comments.** Provides an overview of public comments and staff responses, to illustrate how the revised draft reflect public input received during the public comment period. Appendix L-1 includes comment letters; Appendix L-2 includes responses.

* **Appendix M – Recommended Sites for Future Housing (Upzoning/General Plan Update Opportunity Sites).** The City of Oakland has received a number of housing site recommendations from the public. Some of the sites are in the inventory already (shown in yellow); others have been analyzed for Phase I upzone potential or other applicable zoning changes to facilitate housing development. For sites not included in the inventory, the City will consider land use changes as part of the longer-term General Plan Update.

## 1.4 Relationship to Other General Plan Elements

State law requires the Housing Element to contain a statement of “the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements and community goals” (California Government Code, Section 65583(c)(8)). There are two aspects of this analysis: 1) an identification of other General Plan goals, policies, and programs that could affect implementation of the Housing Element or that could be affected by the implementation of the Housing Element, and 2) an identification of actions to ensure consistency between the Housing Element and affected parts of other General Plan elements.

As described above, the City is undergoing a comprehensive update to the General Plan. The General Plan update is undertaken in two phases in order to meet deadlines mandated by State law. Phase 1 focuses on updates to the Housing and Safety Elements, which are due by the beginning of 2023, as well as preparation of a Racial Equity Impact Assessment, Zoning Code and Map update, and a new Environmental Justice Element. Subsequently, Phase 2 will include the update of the Land Use and Transportation (LUTE) Element; Open Space, Conservation and Recreation (OSCAR) Element; Noise Element, and the creation of a new Infrastructure and Facilities Element which are slated to be completed by 2025.

The Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) of the Oakland General Plan was last comprehensively updated in 1998. The vision and specific policies contained in the LUTE seek to encourage and facilitate the types of infill, re-use, mixed-use, and central city/corridor-oriented residential development that are the focus of the Housing Element and the City’s ability to accommodate its regional housing allocation. Most of the housing to be provided in Oakland will result from the development or redevelopment of underutilized and infill parcels. In addition, rezoning will occur in select areas to accommodate additional density such as parcels around BART stations, along transit corridors, and in existing residential neighborhoods to allow for “missing middle” housing.

The goals, policies, and programs contained within this Housing Element will also inform the strategies included in the updated LUTE. As the Housing Element will be adopted prior to the LUTE update, the general distribution, location and extent of land uses as well as population density and building intensity standards prescribed by the current Planning Code are used to determine the City’s ability to accommodate residential

<!-- page 30 -->
development. Some initial amendments to the Land Use and Transportation Element and Planning Code and initial zoning map changes will be made during Phase I; this will allow for upzoning of areas to accommodate additional density on areas near BART stations, along transit corridors, and in existing residential neighborhoods to allow for “missing middle” housing. Anticipated development on these sites is expected to be in compliance with updated policy standards for noise, safety, open space, recreation, and conservation contained in the other General Plan elements.

The policies in the other updated General Plan elements will advance the ability of the City to achieve the objectives contained in the 2023-2031 Housing Element. Likewise, the Housing Element policies will advance the implementation of policies and programs in the other updated General Plan elements. Evaluation of General Plan consistency will be made as part of adoption of the Housing Element. As other elements are updated as part of Phase 2, consistency will be achieved and maintained as part of General Plan adoption and maintained through any General Plan amendments. The City has therefore determined that the updated Housing Element is consistent with the General Plan.

## 1.5 Sources of Information

In preparing the City’s Housing Element, various sources of information were utilized. As a starting point, the Element used ABAG-prepared local data and AFFH package pre-certified by State HCD for use in sixth cycle housing elements, which provides the basis for population and household characteristics and affirmatively furthering fair housing resources. Where necessary, several additional and more current sources are used to provide reliable updates of the ABAG data package. The sources used in the ABAG data package and many additional sources are listed below. Public input from members of the public, community-based organizations (CBOs), and community leaders, was also a key source of information for this Housing Element. More details on what information was collected from these partners can be found in Chapter 2.

1. ABAG Pre-Certified Housing Needs Data Package, 2021
    a. Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council’s (FFIEC) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act loan/ application register (LAR) files
    b. U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000; Census 2010; American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2005-2009 through 2015-2019)
    c. U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files, 2002-2018; Residence Area Characteristics (RAC) files, 2002-2018
    d. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers (2002, 2007, 2012, 2017), Table 7: Hired Farm Labor
    e. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
    f. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019)
    g. California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Age Group (2020); Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence Type (2020)
    h. California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020)

<!-- page 31 -->
i. California Department of Finance, E-5 series

j. California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 5th Cycle Annual Progress Report Permit Summary (2020)

k. California Employment Development Department, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), Sub-county areas monthly updates, 2010-2021

l. California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)/California Housing and Community Development (HCD), Opportunity Maps (2020)

m. California Housing Partnership, Preservation Database (2020)

n. Zillow, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)

2. Freddie Mac, Historical Weekly Mortgage Rates Data, 2015-2021

3. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data, 2012-2020

4. HUD, CHAS ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release

5. HUD, Fair Market Rent, 2019

6. HUD, AFFHT0006 Table 12, July 2020

7. U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000; Census 2010; American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2005-2009 through 2015-2019)

8. California Department of Finance, P-2 series

9. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Certified Farmers’ Markets by County, January 2022

10. California Department of Education, CAASPP, Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments, 2018-2019

11. California Department of Public Health, Licensed and Certified Healthcare Facility Listing, 2022

12. HCD, AFFH Data and Mapping Resources, 2021

13. HCD, State Income Limits, 2021

14. HCD, Qualified Entities, May 2021

15. TCAC, Nine Percent Application, 2022

16. TCAC, Project Staff Reports 2017-2020

17. ABAG-MTC, Existing and Planned Transit Stops, 2021

18. ABAG-MTC, Final RHNA Plan, December 2021

19. Alameda County, Assessor Parcel Data, 2021

20. Alameda County, Historic Assessor Parcel Data, 2014-2015

21. Alameda County, Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) for FY 2020/21-2024/25

22. Alameda Housing Authority, Utility Allowance Schedule, 2021

23. EBMUD, Water and Wastewater System Schedules of Rates and Charges, Capacity Charges and Other Fees, July 2021

24. EBMUD, Water Shortage Contingency Plan, 2020

25. City of Oakland, Planning Code, 2022

26. City of Oakland, Staff Reports, 2019-2021

27. City of Oakland, Accela Building and Planning Permits, March 2022

28. City of Oakland, Building Bureau Code Enforcement Division, FY 2020-2021

29. City of Oakland, Building & Planning Department, 2022

<!-- page 32 -->
30. City of Oakland, Equitable Climate Action Plan, 2020

31. City of Oakland, Housing & Community Development Strategic Action Plan, 2021-2023

32. City of Oakland, Master Fee Schedule and Fee Estimator with Impact Fees, July 2021;

33. City of Oakland, Oakland ADU Initiative, Existing Conditions and Barriers Report, January 2020 (Revised June 2020)

34. City of Oakland, Oakland Equity Indicators Report, 2018

35. City of Oakland, Department of Housing and Community Development, Five Year Strategic Consolidated Plan: Annual Action Plan, 2018-2019

36. City of Oakland, Impact Fee Annual Report, December 24, 2021

37. City of Oakland, Resilient Oakland Playbook, October 10, 2016

38. City of Oakland, 2016-2021 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP)

39. Oakland Housing Authority, Draft Making Transitions Work Annual Plan, FY 2023

40. Oakland Department of Transportation, Geographic Equity Toolbox Planning Areas, 2020

41. Oakland Housing Authority, August 2021

42. City of Berkeley, Building Permit Fee Estimator, 2022 and Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee Ordinance, October 2020

43. City of Emeryville, Master Fee Schedule, July 2021 and Development Impact Fees, FY 2020-2021

44. City of Richmond, Master Fee Schedule, July 2020

45. City of San Francisco, Development Impact Fee Register, December 2021 and Planning Department Fee Schedule, August 2021

46. City of San Jose, Planning Application Filing Fee Schedule, August 2021, Building and Structure Permits Fee Schedule, August 2021, and Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Schedule of Fees, April 2021

47. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., Downtown Oakland Specific Plan: Incentive Program Feasibility Study, July 10, 2020

48. Hausrath Economics Group, Oakland Affordable Housing Impact Fee Five-Year Review, December 23, 2021

49. California Housing Partnership, Preservation Database, February 2022

50. Urban Displacement Project, 2018 and 2019

51. National Association of Realtors Research Group, Downpayment Expectations & Hurdles to Homeownership, April 2020

52. Yelp, 2022

53. Zillow, Mortgage Rates, October 2021

54. Zillow, ZHVI, December 31, 2010, and December 31, 202054.

<!-- page 33 -->
*This page intentionally left blank*

<!-- page 34 -->
# 02 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

### 2.1 Summary of Community Outreach Activities
### 2.2 Public Participation Themes

<!-- page 35 -->
# 2. Public Participation

Inclusive engagement and public participation have been key to the preparation of Oakland’s Housing Element. Public participation is an ongoing process that will continue to occur as the General Plan is updated. Outreach completed as part of phase 1 of the update process will continue to inform phase 2 of the General Plan update. All community outreach is conducted through a racial equity lens to identify actions to affirmatively further fair housing, increase community assets, decrease pollution exposure, and improve overall health.

The community engagement effort is composed of an extensive outreach process that seeks to engage stakeholders throughout the community, with additional resources dedicated to engaging communities historically underrepresented and excluded from traditional planning processes and often most negatively impacted by City policies and represents a diligent effort to include public participation from all economic segments of the community, consistent with outreach requirements under AB 686. All community input shared will be used to “ground truth” data based on peoples’ lived experience, inform areas of focus for General Plan elements, and guide development of General Plan policies. Outreach that informed the development of this Housing Element is summarized in the following chapter, and materials used in the outreach process are included in Appendix I.

## 2.1 Summary of Community Outreach Activities

### GENERAL PLAN UPDATE OUTREACH

The City, based on feedback received from community members, implemented an innovative approach by bringing on two collaborating consultant teams to assist on the General Plan Update. The City partnered with both a Community Consultant Team – Deeply Rooted Collaborative, and a Technical Consultant Team – Dyett and Bhatia, to ensure a planning process that: 1) meets state deadlines and requirements for the GPU, and 2) dedicates significant resources to deep and meaningful community engagement. The Community and Technical Consultants coordinate closely. The team leads meet weekly, and the entire project team meets biweekly to share key findings

<!-- page 36 -->
and provide feedback. Both Community Consultant and Technical Consultant outreach and feedback is incorporated into all components of the Housing Element. This approach aligns with advancing the City’s critical mission of creating a just and fair City for all (Oakland Municipal Code Section 2.29.170.1).

Community engagement efforts for the General Plan Update include an extensive and inclusive outreach process, engaging stakeholders throughout the community with additional resources dedicated to engaging communities historically underrepresented and excluded from traditional planning processes and most negatively impacted by City policies.

The Community Consultant Team, Deeply Rooted Collaborative, focuses on engagement with the following key communities and geographic areas:

* **Communities:** Unhoused; formerly incarcerated; low-income Asian, Pacific Islander, Black, Latinx, multiracial communities including those experiencing environmental injustices

* **Outreach Geographies:** Fruitvale, West Oakland, East Oakland, Chinatown, Eastlake, San Antonio

Deeply Rooted has three organizations providing central support through the design and coordination of the overall structure for community engagement, providing technical assistance and community education in planning, and administrative support.

* EastSide Arts Alliance | Cultural Programming Partner

* Just Cities | Technical Assistance/Community Education Partner

* Urban Strategies Council | Administrative Partner

The Deeply Rooted Collaborative in partnership with community partners as shown in **Figure 2-1**. Deeply Rooted's community partner roles are listed in **Table 2-1**.

## Chapter 2: Public Participation

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 37 -->
# Figure 2-1: Deeply Rooted Collaborative

<<FIGURE>>

\*The Village operates as a network of encampments across Oakland without one address.

## Table 2-1: Deeply Rooted Collaborative Community Partner Roles

| COMMUNITY PARTNER | COMMUNITY / OUTREACH GEOGRAPHY |
| :--- | :--- |
| The Black Cultural Zone Community Development Corporation | Black Community \| East Oakland |
| CURYJ | Formerly incarcerated, Black and Latinx \| Fruitvale |
| House/Full of Black Women/ Deep Waters Dance Theater | |
| Lao Family Community Development, Inc | Southeast Asian American community |
| Malonga Arts Residents Association (MARA) | Black and Brown communities, and partnership with members in Chinatown |
| Oakland Asian Cultural Center (OACC)/ API Cultural Center | Asian American community\| Chinatown |
| Unity Council | Latinx community \| Fruitvale |
| The Village in Oakland | Unhoused curbside communities in North Oakland, West Oakland, Downtown, and East Oakland |
| West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project. | Environmental Justice \| West Oakland |
| Black Arts Movement Business District, CDC (BAMBD, CDC) | West Oakland (Lower Bottoms), Artists, flatland communities of color, those invested in the animation of BAMBD, CDC and its stakeholders |

<!-- page 38 -->
## COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH SUMMARY

A variety of outreach activities such as workshops, focused discussions, pop-ups, open houses, porch chats, and community hub events are planned throughout the entire process. All community input shared will be used to ground truth data based on peoples’ lived experience, inform areas of focus for the update of General Plan elements, and guide development of General Plan policies.

Input related to housing overlaps with many General Plan topic areas and will be incorporated into both the eight-year Housing Element Update as well as into elements with a longer planning horizon, such as the Land Use and Transportation, Environmental Justice, and Safety Elements. A summary of the General Plan update project schedule is provided in **Chart 2-1**. Information on all community engagement events, including engagement summaries; workshop and townhall presentations, recordings, meeting summaries; and discussion group summaries, are provided via the General Plan Update website at https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/meetings-and-events. A summary of these engagement activities is described below:

### Chart 2-1: Oakland 2045 Project Schedule

<<FIGURE>>

* **Popup and Community Hub Events:** Since November 2021 to March 2022, the GPU Deeply Rooted Collaborative has conducted pop-up events in Eastmont, Fruitvale, San Antonio, Chinatown, West Oakland, and Downtown. For example, in West Oakland these events have been porch-side chats and a pop-up at Hoover Elementary. Engagement has also been integrated into larger community events like the Oakland Asian Cultural Center’s (OACC) Asian Pacific New Year Celebration and the Black Joy parade. At these community-embedded events, the team has engaged with over 1,006 people, with a majority being individuals from communities of color. These events sought to hear community concerns, ideas and solutions through interviews and focus group conversations. Community concerns that rose to the top included affordability, displacement, disinvestment, housing quality, pollution (industry and cars), lack of parks, collisions, and illegal dumping.

* **Townhalls:** Two townhalls were held on March 26, 2022, and April 7, 2022. The townhall on March 26, 2022, introduced the General Plan Update process and gathered community input on a vision for the City in 2045, as well as local issues and opportunities that should be

<!-- page 39 -->
addressed in the General Plan. The townhall on April 7, 2022, focused on equity across all issues, with a special focus on EJ and safety priorities in the City.

*   **Community Education Workshops:** Two community education workshops were hosted on April 8, 2022, and April 9, 2022, and organized by the Deeply Rooted Collaborative Community Engagement partner to review the past and present policies that led to today’s conditions in housing and environmental justice. Over 100 people attended the workshops. Speakers included Oakland unhoused leader Needa Bee (The Village in Oakland), EJ leader Ms. Margaret Gordon (West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project), Margaretta Lin (Just Cities) and Diana Benitez (Just Cities). Attendees shared their frustration regarding ongoing displacement and disinvestment and various community-centered solutions that would bring much needed resources to communities of color in Oakland without displacement.

*   **Youth Engagement:** Youth engagement for the GPU will take the form of a Deeply Rooted Fellowship with 15 – 20 fellows. The Fellowship will be a 2-to-3-year commitment and fellows will be provided with a monthly stipend. Planning, design, and training of the fellowship program will be done in coordination with Y-Plan. Fellows will coordinate with the Oakland Youth Advisory Commission (OYAC) and will be engaged in outreach activities such as community-based events, presentations to the community and schools, and social media outreach. Recruitment began in April 2022. On August 31, 2022, twenty (20) young leaders were selected as inaugural Deeply Rooted (DR) Fellows. These young people will lead DR outreach efforts to engage Oakland’s youth in the GPU update. DR Fellow activities will include interviewing and surveying young people about their visions and aspirations for the City; educating elementary, middle and high school students about the OGP; gathering data and conducting research to identify the challenges young people face in the City and their proposed solutions; and, implementing a social media campaign to increase youth awareness of the GPU.

*   **Neighborhood Group Meetings:** Staff are working with Neighborhood Service Coordinators to present at Neighborhood Crime Prevention Councils (NCPCs) on topics including housing, environmental justice, industrial lands and safety and natural hazards and receive feedback. Staff have presented at several NCPCs and will continue to engage and obtain feedback. Staff are presenting to other Neighborhood – Community groups, faith-based organizations, and at other community congregation events as well.

*   **Equity Working Group:** Convened by the Deeply Rooted Collaborative, the Equity Working Group (EWG) is comprised of 20 diverse community members who will: 1) Identify the major challenges and impacts of the General Plan (housing, safety, environmental justice, land use, transportation, and parks); and 2) Advocate for solutions that advance equitable and healthy communities for Oakland residents. Each member will receive a stipend. 20 EWG members who met the following criteria were selected through an interview process from a total of 66 applicants:
    - Hard to reach communities: People from communities that the City traditionally has trouble engaging with including Indigenous, unhoused, formerly incarcerated, low-income, Asian, Black, Latinx, multiracial, people with disabilities, undocumented, and people experiencing environmental injustices.
    - In target geographic areas of: West Oakland, East Oakland, Chinatown, and Fruitvale.
    - Age diversity: People at different stages of their lives to ensure varied knowledge and experiences.

<!-- page 40 -->
- Diversity of gender and sexual orientation: To ensure women’s and LGBTQ+ perspectives are included in this process.
- People who own small businesses in Oakland.

Additional information about the EWG selection process can be found at https://www.oaklandca.gov/news/2022/general-plan-equity-working-group-members-selected.

- **Technical Advisory Committee:** The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is comprised of internal City department representatives as well as other Oakland-based, neighboring, and regional governmental agency representatives. The TAC serves to advise on key strategies to address Oakland’s big issues related to housing, environmental justice, safety, and other topics; review community input collected at key points in the process; and inform, discuss, and provide technical direction on policies and actions. The second TAC meeting was held on March 7, 2022 and TAC members provided recommendations for housing strategies/actions for housing production, preservation, and protections.

- **Study Sessions with Official Decision-Making Bodies:** The Planning Commission, City Council, and various boards and commissions are active participants in the GPU and will have opportunities to provide direction at each Stage in the process. The project team will continue to check in with these decision-making bodies at key milestones to ensure that the project remains on the right track in terms of process, direction, and overall vision. Engagement will take the form of study sessions and informational presentations to review products and generate feedback on drafts. The Planning Commission and Special Community & Economic Development Committee met on February 2nd and February 22nd to discuss potential housing site locations and recommended housing strategies and actions.

## HOUSING ELEMENT OUTREACH

To supplement efforts that were part of the General Plan update, a series of targeted activities related to housing were held prior to the release of the public Draft Housing Element. Additional opportunities for feedback will occur after plan release as well. These efforts are summarized in **Chart 2-2** and described below:

### Chart 2-2: Housing Element Outreach Timeline

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 41 -->
**Housing Workshops:** The team hosted four virtual housing workshops on February 10, 2022, February 17, 2022, March 12, 2022, and June 9, 2022 to solicit feedback on the Draft Housing Element. Approximately 200 people participated in these three virtual workshops. The first workshop provided background information on the General Plan, the Housing Element, and housing sites inventory requirements. Workshop 2 sought to gather input on potential housing programs. Workshop 3 focused on community input on strategies to preserve existing affordable housing, protect tenants, and prevent displacement. Workshop 4 was held on June 9, 2022, and sought Oaklanders’ input on housing sites and proposed strategies included in a public review Housing Element draft before sending it to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (State HCD). Summaries of these workshops are included in Appendix I.

**Discussion Groups:** A series of focus group discussions were held on the housing-related topics to solicit targeted feedback from organizations and individuals with direct experience with housing provisions and housing-related services. Discussion participants included organizations that may not have traditionally participated in the past including housing justice advocates, tenant rights organizations, faith-based organizations, and other community organizations.

Summaries of these meetings, including the names of participating groups, are provided in Appendix I; see below for the themes of the discussion groups:

• Focus Group Discussion 1 (February 2, 2022): Housing Sites

• Focus Group Discussion 2 (March 10, 2022): Production, Preservation, and Protections

• Focus Group Discussion 3 (June 8, 2022): Draft Housing Element

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 42 -->
### Figure 2-2: Interactive Map Survey Snapshot - Draft Housing Element Plan Release

<<FIGURE>>

### Housing Element Update Survey

The Oakland Housing Element Update Survey accompanied the first housing workshop on planning where housing should go. The survey was open from February 11, 2022, through March 7, 2022, received 480 individual responses, and generated a total of 1,976 unique map responses. It included two interactive mapping questions regarding potential locations for future housing in the city of Oakland.

The interactive map in the survey displayed the initial sites under consideration for the Housing Element and focused on identifying community priorities and recommendations for additional locations. See **Figure 2-2** above for a snapshot of the interactive map. As an optional component of the survey, respondents were asked to describe their zip code, and race or ethnicity. The results of this survey guided the selection of sites identified in Chapter 3 and Appendix C, and a summary of the survey’s findings is provided in Appendix I.

The Draft Housing Element was released on May 12, 2022 and was made available at https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/oakland-general-plan-2045-housing-element. Pursuant to AB 215, the city made the first draft available for public review for 32 days between May 12, 2022, to June 13, 2022.

The City also created an interactive Konveio page so the community could read, post comments, and submit questions on the Draft Housing Element and Appendices. During the 30-day mandatory public review period, a fourth Housing Element workshop was held on June 9th to describe the community outreach process and Housing Element content (with particular focus on the Sites Inventory and Housing Action Plan) and provide opportunity for the members of the public to ask questions.

During this initial comment period, the City received 18 letters from Oakland residents and organizations. Staff also sought feedback on the 2023-2031 Draft Housing Element from the Community and Economic Development (CED) Committee of the Oakland City Council on May 24, 2022, and from the Planning Commission on May 18, 2022, and June 1, 2022. City staff incorporated changes to the draft prior to submittal to State HCD where it was feasible to do so within the short time period.

The city provided its draft Housing Element to State HCD for the first 90-day review period on June 30, 2022. The Draft Housing Element (clean and redlined versions) submitted to State HCD is available at https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/oakland-general-plan-2045-housing-element.

<!-- page 43 -->
### EXTENDED PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD FOR COMMUNITY FEEDBACK

To ensure that the community had enough time to review and comment, the City committed to keeping the first draft of the Housing Element available for public comment during the 90-day State HCD review period, until September 30, 2022. The first Draft Housing Element was available for public review and feedback for a total of 142 days between May 12, 2022, until September 30, 2022.

Staff presented the draft Housing Element to neighborhood and community groups such as Monarch Senior Homes – Satellite Affordable Housing Associates (SAHA) development, East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO)’s Oakland Committee, Allen Temple Public Ministry’s Virtual Townhall, Rockridge Community Planning Council (RCPC) Townhall and the Piedmont Avenue Neighborhood Improvement League (PANIL). Finally, staff conducted study sessions with the City Council and Planning Commission in October to seek additional feedback on the 2023-2031 Draft Housing Element.

### Equity Working Group

Between June 2022 and October 2022, the Equity Working Group (EWG) group met eight times to provide feedback and housing policy recommendations on the 2023-2031 Draft Housing Element. EWG members also shared a list of their housing policy recommendations and met with the Directors from the Planning and Building (PBD), Human Services Department (HSD), Oakland Housing and Community Development (Oakland HCD) and the Office of the City Administrator (CAO) and the CAO Homelessness Division to review the policy recommendations.

### Response to Public Comments

**Appendix L** provides an overview of public comments and staff responses, to illustrate how the revised draft reflect public input received during the public comment period.

### Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice

The assessment of fair housing contained in Appendix D relies in part on outreach done in preparation of Alameda County’s 2020 to 2024 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI).[^p43-1] Historically, Oakland has prepared its own AI every five years as a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirement. However, in 2020, the City joined various Alameda County cities and Housing Authority agencies to complete a regional AI.

A year-long community engagement process for the 2020 to 2024 AI consisted of three meetings and a seven-page survey between June 2019 – November 2019. The survey was translated into multiple languages and distributed to priority populations (those most impacted by fair housing issues) via local organizations. Priority populations include racial and ethnic minorities, people experiencing homelessness, people with limited English proficiency, people with disabilities, and people residing in Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs). The survey received 3,296 responses. Key data from the 2020 to 2024 AI is used in the Assessment of Fair Housing in **Appendix D**: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.

[^p43-1]: Alameda County, “Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice.” February 2020. Accessible at https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/ALAMEDA-COUNTY-REGIONAL-ANALYSIS-OF-IMPEDIMENTS-TO-FAIR-HOUSING-Final-AI_Combined_2-24-20.pdf

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

### Housing Element Community Education Materials

The GPU Deeply Rooted Collaborative is preparing Housing Element community education materials that will provide a focused look at housing issues most important to Oaklanders, informed by substantial community outreach. The outreach materials are intended to synthesize a complex, lengthy document into key points and describe how policy changes to help address these issues. These education materials will also provide a deep dive into the historical conditions that have shaped housing quality, access, and opportunity, as well as recommendations for other future City processes (such as Phase 2 of the General Plan Update) that affect housing. These materials are expected to be released in winter/early spring of 2023.

## 2.2 Public Participation Themes

Across discussion groups, workshops, EWG meetings, and other community engagement events, several key themes emerged that informed development of this Housing Element Update’s goals, policies, and actions. This list is not comprehensive, but the key themes listed below are reflected in the overarching goals identified in Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan. The goals, policies, and actions seek to significantly address disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replace segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, foster and maintain compliance with civil rights, and affirmatively further fair housing.

<!-- page 45 -->
- **Address Homelessness:** “Housing is a Human Right.” A common refrain from participants was that Oakland should recognize housing as a human right and focus on addressing the homelessness crisis. As experts from the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty note, “a right to adequate housing is not a requirement that states build free housing for the entire population, rather, it devotes resources and protective measures to prevent homelessness, discrimination, and promote permanent stable housing.”[^p45-2] Participants expressed distrust with the City and frustration with the current unaffordability of housing and ongoing displacement. They suggested a wide variety of strategies to house the unhoused community, including treating unhoused populations with dignity, stopping the current encampment management policy, more flexible building types, temporary units, permanent supportive housing, RVs/safe parking zones, tiny homes, manufactured housing, and working with the unhoused community to understand their needs and priorities. Participants discussed methods for addressing the homelessness crisis, including a moratorium on market rate housing to balance the speed at which housing is built with the need to ensure that new housing is high-quality, affordable, and habitable, partnering with community groups that work with unhoused communities, and creating housing options that include wrap-around services. The Housing Element incorporates this input in the following ways:

    - **Goals:** 1, 2, 3, 4

    - **Policies:** 1.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.3, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3

    - **Actions:** 1.1.1 through 1.1.14, 2.2.1 through 2.2.8, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.3.1 through 3.3.7, 3.3.9, 3.3.11 through 3.3.15, 3.3.17, 3.3.18, 3.5.1 through 3.5.3, 3.6.1, 3.6.2, 3.6.5, 3.7.1, 3.7.2, 3.7.4, 3.7.6, 4.1.1 through 4.1.4, 4.2.1 through 4.2.5, 4.3.1 through 4.3.6

- **Protect Oakland Residents from Displacement and Preserve Existing Affordable Housing.** Over the last two decades, housing costs in Oakland have risen dramatically – meaning many Oakland residents cannot afford to buy or rent a home within their own neighborhood. Participants expressed frustration with increasing displacement pressures while the stock of affordable housing throughout the city decreases, including both subsidized housing and “naturally occurring affordable housing” – or unsubsidized housing that is affordable at market prices. Participants also discussed how Oakland’s cultural institutions and history are at risk of loss due to continuing gentrification. To mitigate the pressures of displacement and gentrification, Oakland residents suggested a number of potential anti-displacement strategies, including enhanced rent stabilization measures, stronger just cause for eviction protections, increased enforcement of anti-harassment tenant protections, and historic

<<FIGURE>>

[^p45-2]: https://www.kqed.org/news/11801176/what-would-housing-as-a-human-right-look-like-in-california

<!-- page 46 -->
preservation programs to preserve cultural institutions. Participants also discussed ways to preserve the city’s existing affordable housing stock, including the implementation of a Community/Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act, innovative solutions to maintain permanent affordability like community land trusts, additional acquisition and conversion to affordable housing efforts, live/work preferences for Oakland residents, and programs to physically rehabilitate homes to allow long-time residents to enjoy new community amenities. Participants also pointed to a need for better data collection to ensure accountability and to better understand and target anti-displacement resources. The Housing Element incorporates this input as through the following goals, policies, and actions:

- **Goals:** 1, 2, 3
- **Policies:** 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.3, 3.5
- **Actions:** 1.1.1 through 1.1.14, 2.1.1 through 2.1.6, 2.2.1 through 2.2.8, 3.3.12, 3.3.18, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.4

- **Focus on Building more Housing Affordable to Extremely Low, Very Low, Low, and Moderate Incomes.** Producing new affordable and deeply affordable housing options was identified as a key strategy to prevent displacement. There were varying opinions about new market rate housing; some participants expressed that the City is currently facing a housing supply shortage, and must add new units of all types, while other participants felt that the City most sorely needs affordable housing and as such should focus explicitly on this type of construction. Groups discussed a wide range of strategies to build more inclusive neighborhoods add more affordable housing units in Oakland, including: legalizing existing nonconforming housing units, inclusionary zoning, changing the zoning to increase density in primarily single-family areas like Rockridge, supporting homeowners in the construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), City land acquisitions to build new permanently affordable housing and create community land trusts, and reducing the amount of discretionary review required for new housing projects. Other recommendations included creating housing commission and neighborhood planning councils for ongoing resident leadership to decide the kind of housing development. The City of Oakland recognizes the need to increase housing supply generally, and, with priority given to increasing housing affordable to very-low-, low-, and moderate-income households in the following ways:

    - **Goals:** 3
    - **Policies:** 3.1 through 3.8
    - **Actions:** 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.1 through 3.2.6, 3.3.1 through 3.3.18, 3.4.1, 3.4.3 through 3.4.11, 3.5.1 through 3.5.4, 3.6.1 through 3.6.5, 3.7.4 through 3.7.6

- **Address Housing Quality Issues.** Housing quality issues can have detrimental impacts on people’s physical and mental health. Through neighborhood outreach processes, many Oaklanders described housing quality issues they were living with, such as overcrowding, unsafe building conditions, and lack of maintenance, caused by landlord neglect, lack of funds for upkeep or housing burden, or fear of reporting these issues. Community-recommended strategies to address these issues included programs/grants to landlords and homeowners to make repairs; universal design to allow all Oaklanders to remain in their homes as they age, or to help mobility-impaired residents; and tax credits or programs to address other housing habitability concerns, like indoor air quality. The Housing Element addresses housing quality issues in the following ways:

<!-- page 47 -->
- **Goals:** 2, 5
- **Policies:** 2.1, 5.2
- **Actions:** 2.1.1 through 2.1.6, 3.3.12, 5.2.1, 5.2.5, 5.2.6

• **Keep Oakland Communities Together.** All Oakland neighborhoods are deserving of high-quality amenities, more affordable housing, and other public investments, especially in areas that have suffered from disinvestment of the past. However, concerns about gentrification and displacement associated with new investment were top of mind for many Oaklanders. Scores of people expressed how difficult it was to pay the rent in light of rising costs. People who have long generational roots in Oakland have been displaced but continue to come to Oakland to be with community and work. This includes a significant loss (30 percent) of Oakland’s Black population from 2000 to 2019. As some community members noted, Oakland neighborhoods are like villages where people care for and nurture each other, and displacement means these villages are fragmented, and culture is lost. Oaklanders recommended creative ways to bring back displaced people as homeowners, such as support for co-ops, land trusts, and shared multi-unit buildings. Other creative ways to prevent displacement include creation of cultural district/anti- displacement zones, a human health/socioeconomic impacts analysis to analyze displacement and homeless impacts of market rate projects before the City provides permits or zoning changes. Another way they saw keeping Oakland communities together was through investment to the most impacted communities via municipal reparation to redress Oakland’s history of eminent domain and urban renewal and for Black Americans who are descendants of chattel slavery. The Housing Element addresses displacement and cultural preservation in the following ways:

- **Goals:** 1, 2, 5
- **Policies:** 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.5, 5.1, 5.3
- **Actions:** 1.1.1 through 1.1.14, 2.1.4, 2.2.1 through 2.2.8, 3.2.2, 3.3.8, 3.3.12, 3.3.18, 3.5.1 through 3.5.4, 5.1.1 through 5.1.3, 5.3.1 through 5.3.3

• **Building in Accountability and Success Metrics.** Oaklanders desire more transparency around housing issues and actions in the City, and to be heard by elected officials and City departments stressing the importance of setting transparent and data-driven metrics to measure the success of various housing programs, and building in accountability measures to ensure that the City can meet its goals. The Housing Elements aims to increase transparency and accountability in the following ways:

- **Goals:** 1 through 5
- **Policies:** 1.1, 2.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.7, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2
- **Actions:** 1.1.8, 1.1.9, 2.1.3, 3.2.5, 3.3.13, 3.3.17, 3.7.1, 4.1.2, 4.2.4, 4.3.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3, 5.2.11

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 48 -->
# 03 SUMMARY OF THE HOUSING SITES INVENTORY

### 3.1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation
### 3.2 Capacity to Accommodate the RHNA
### 3.3 Assessing Housing Sites Through a Fair Housing Lens

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

# 3. Summary of the Housing Sites Inventory

The Housing Element of the General Plan must include an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development to meet the city’s regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) by income level. This inventory is known as the Housing Sites Inventory (“Inventory”). This chapter provides a summary of the full Sites Inventory, available in Appendix C.

## 3.1 Regional Housing Needs Allocation

As required by State housing law, all California cities and counties must plan for the housing needs of all their residents, at various income levels. This number is called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). For the planning period 2023 to 2031 (also known as the 6th housing cycle), Oakland must plan for 26,251 new units, or approximately six percent of the total allocation for the nine-county Bay Area region. Oakland’s allocation is a 77.8 percent increase from the prior cycle’s allocation of 14,765 new units, but many nearby jurisdictions have been assigned a larger percentage increase than Oakland compared to their prior RHNA allocation. This is in alignment with the regional goal of ensuring all cities and counties are affirmatively furthering fair housing. **Table 3-1** shows the income breakdown of the Oakland RHNA with an additional buffer, as recommended by the State, to account for any loss due to reductions in density.

<!-- page 50 -->
### Table 3-1: Oakland Regional Housing Needs Assessment, 2023-2031

| INCOME LEVEL[^p50-1] | NEEDED UNITS | NEEDED UNITS WITH 15% BUFFER | PERCENT OF NEEDED UNITS |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Very-Low-Income (0-50% AMI) | 6,511 | 7,488 | 24.8% |
| Extremely-Low-Income (<30% AMI; part of Very-Low-Income in previous row)[^p50-2] | 3,256 | 3,745 | - |
| Low-Income (51-80% AMI) | 3,750 | 4,313 | 14.3% |
| Moderate-Income (81-120% AMI) | 4,457 | 5,126 | 17.0% |
| Above-Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) | 11,533 | 13,263 | 43.9% |
| **Total** | **26,251** | **30,189** | **100.0%** |

[^p50-1]: Income levels reflect Alameda County Area Median Income. 2022 AMI limits are available at https://www.acgov.org/cda/hcd/hud-income-rent_limits.htm.
[^p50-2]: Extremely-low-income housing need is assumed to be 50 percent of very-low-income housing need, pursuant to Govern-ment Code Section 65583(a). Although extremely-low-income housing need is not explicitly projected in the RHNA, this group often requires the most subsidy and assistance to generate a sufficient number of housing units.

*Source: ABAG, Final RHNA Plan, December 2021*

## 3.2 Capacity to Accommodate the RHNA

Government Code Section 65583.2(c) requires that local jurisdictions determine their realistic capacity for new housing growth by means of a parcel-level analysis of land resources with the potential to accommodate residential uses. Oakland’s analysis of potential to accommodate new housing growth has considered physical and regulatory constraints, including: lot area and configuration, environmental factors (e.g. slope, sensitive habitat, flood risk), allowable density, and other development standards such as parking requirements and building height limits.

Based on the City’s current General Plan and zoning regulations, there is sufficient capacity to accommodate its RHNA allocation with a buffer. In addition, rezoning will also occur in select areas to accommodate additional density such as parcels around BART stations, along transit corridors, and in existing residential neighborhoods to allow for “missing middle” housing. This rezoning proposal will unlock new sites that can accommodate affordable housing within high resource neighborhoods. Sites included in the inventory reflect those that are most likely to develop during the planning period and meet the RHNA; sites that are newly made available by one of the rezoning efforts identified in the Housing Action Plan are not considered as part of this inventory since they do not reflect zoning conditions at the beginning of the Housing Element update process.

<<FIGURE>>

[^p50-1]: Income levels reflect Alameda County Area Median Income. 2022 AMI limits are available at https://www.acgov.org/cda/hcd/hud-income-rent_limits.htm.
[^p50-2]: Extremely-low-income housing need is assumed to be 50 percent of very-low-income housing need, pursuant to Govern-ment Code Section 65583(a). Although extremely-low-income housing need is not explicitly projected in the RHNA, this group often requires the most subsidy and assistance to generate a sufficient number of housing units.

<!-- page 51 -->
The Inventory identifies sufficiently zoned land to accommodate the Oakland RHNA at all income levels. The inventory is divided into two major groups:

* Sites where development is underway or approved (known as “pipeline projects”) or otherwise can be credited to meet the RHNA (such as Accessory Dwelling Units, or ADUs); and

* Opportunity sites where additional development could occur. This includes 1) potential development projects, where projects may be in pre-approval; sites from the previous RHNA cycle that remain available for development; and new opportunity sites, which includes both vacant and non-vacant sites and consists of City-owned sites, sites owned by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) or other government agencies, sites located within a specific plan area, and other sites with expressed or potential development interest.

The analysis of nonvacant properties included only those properties with realistic potential for additional development, in light of 1) existing uses on the site; 2) prevailing market conditions; 3) recent development trends; 4) expressed interests in housing development from property owners or developers; and 5) regulatory and/or other incentives to encourage recycling or intensification of existing development.

A summary of capacity by housing units to meet the Oakland RHNA is provided in **Table 3-2**, on the following page. The complete 2023-2031 Inventory is provided in Table C25 of Appendix C, and can be seen in **Figure 3-1**.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 52 -->
### Table 3-2: Summary of Residential Capacity to Accommodate the 2023-2031 Oakland RHNA

| | RESIDENTIAL UNITS | | | |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| | **VERY-LOW-INCOME[^p52-1],[^p52-2]** | **LOW-INCOME[^p52-1]** | **MODERATE-INCOME** | **ABOVE-MODERATE-INCOME** | **TOTAL** |
| Total Credits | 2,010 | 2,247 | 776 | 9,936 | **14,969** |
| *Pipeline Projects* | *1,238* | *1,555* | *182* | *9,934* | ***12,909*** |
| *Projected ADUs* | *692* | *692* | *594* | *0* | ***1,978*** |
| *Adequate Sites Alternative* | *80* | *0* | *0* | *2* | ***82*** |
| Potential Development Projects[^p52-3] | 374 | 1,494 | 240 | 5,278 | **7,386** |
| *Vacant* | *203* | *787* | *23* | *1,156* | ***2,168*** |
| *Non-Vacant* | *172* | *707* | *217* | *4,122* | ***5,218*** |
| Available 5th Cycle RHNA | | 715 | 3,385 | 374 | **4,474** |
| *Vacant* | | *23* | *596* | *3* | ***622*** |
| *Non-Vacant* | | *692* | *2,789* | *371* | ***3,852*** |
| New Opportunity Sites | | 5,082 | 895 | 2,035 | **8,012** |
| *Vacant* | | *142* | *218* | *0* | ***360*** |
| *Non-Vacant* | | *4,940* | *677* | *2,035* | ***7,652*** |
| **Total Capacity** | | **11,922** | **5,286** | **17,623** | **34,831** |
| **6th Cycle RHNA** | | **10,261** | **4,457** | **11,533** | **26,251** |
| **RHNA + 15% Buffer** | | **11,801** | **5,126** | **13,263** | **30,189** |
| **Surplus Over RHNA** | | **1,661** | **829** | **6,090** | **8,580** |
| | | **116.2%** | **118.6%** | **152.8%** | **132.7%** |

[^p52-1]: Low- and very-low-income capacity on opportunity sites is consolidated per default density assumptions as described in Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3).
[^p52-2]: Extremely-low-income housing need is assumed to be 50% of the total very-low-income housing need, or about 3,256 units.
[^p52-3]: Potential development project totals are reduced by 10% to account for likelihood of pre-application or early-phase planning permits that may not move forward.

Source: ABAG, Final RHNA Plan, December 2021; City of Oakland, 2022

<!-- page 53 -->
# Figure 3-1: City of Oakland 2023-2031 Housing Sites Inventory

<<FIGURE>>

| Housing Site | |
| :--- | :--- |
| **RHNACAT** | |
| Lower-Income | |
| Moderate-Income | |
| Above-Moderate-Income | |
| Mixed-Income | |
| **2020 Planning Areas** | |
| Central East Oakland | |
| Coliseum/Airport | |
| Downtown | |
| East Oakland Hills | |
| Eastlake/Fruitvale | |
| Glenview/ Redwood Heights | |
| North Oakland Hills | |
| North Oakland/Adams Point | |
| West Oakland | |
| | |
| BART Stations | |
| Ferry Terminals | |
| BART Lines | |
| BART Airport Connector | |
| Bus Rapid Transit Line | |
| Ferry Routes | |
| Railroads | |
| Major Highways | |
| Major Roads | |
| City of Oakland | |
| Alameda County | |

<!-- page 54 -->
## CREDITS TOWARDS THE RHNA

State HCD Guidance provides that the RHNA can be accommodated by looking at: 1) projects that are currently in the development pipeline; and 2) by considering alternative means of meeting the RHNA, such as projected accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and a limited number of rehabilitated, converted, or preserved units affordable to lower-income households.

### Pipeline Projects

Pipeline projects are projects that have been approved, permitted, or will receive a Certificate of Occupancy during the projection period (June 30, 2022, to December 15, 2030) and can be credited toward the City’s 6th cycle RHNA. Using data from the City’s Accela permitting system, 336 pipeline projects with 12,593 units are spread across the city, with the majority in the Downtown, West Oakland, Eastlake/Fruitvale, and North Oakland/Adams Point areas. Based on the affordability levels or project-ed rents specified on the project proposal, approximately 21.5 percent of pipeline capacity is affordable for lower-income households, while 1.3 percent is affordable for moderate-income households. The remainder is assumed to be affordable for above-moderate-income households. All pipeline projects are shown in Table C-5a and b, and shown in Figure C-2 in Appendix C.

### Projected ADUs

Cities may consider the development potential of ADUs or junior ADUs (JADUs) to meet their RHNA using past building permit approval patterns since 2018. From 2018 to 2021, approximately 247 ADU permits were issued annually in the City of Oakland. Using a conservative estimate, the City anticipates approximately 1,978 ADUs, or approximately 247 average permits per year times eight years.) Annual ADU approvals are shown in Table C-7 in Appendix C. To estimate affordability during the projection period, the City used the results of its recent online survey of ADU owners.[^p54-1] Projected ADU capacity by affordability level is shown in Appendix C, Table C-8.

### Adequate Alternative Sites

According to State HCD, under “limited circumstances” a local government may credit up to 25 percent of their adequate sites requirement per income category through existing units.[^p54-2] Limited circumstances refer to sites that are substantially rehabilitated; located on a foreclosed property or in a multifamily complex of three or more units converted from non-affordable to affordable rental; preserved at levels affordable to low- or very-low-income households with committed assistance; or preservation of mobile home parks through acquired spaces.

According to Oakland HCD’s 2021-2023 Strategic Action Plan, the City has acquired and converted and/or preserved 600 affordable units between 2018 and 2020. As an ongoing City strategy, there are a number of units that the City will convert and/or preserve during the 2023-2031 planning period. The affordability of these projects reflects the actual affordability levels pursuant to the regulatory agreements that will maintain such income-restricted units. These sites and their capacity are shown in Appendix C, Table C-9.

[^p54-1]: This survey was conducted in preparation of the “Oakland ADU Initiative: Existing Conditions and Barriers Report,” which was published January 2020 and revised June 2020. There were 56 responses to the question “How much does the current ADU oc-cupant pay in rent per month? If the occupant is staying in the ADU for free, then mark $0.”
[^p54-2]: More specific conditions that sites included under this option must meet are provided by HCD on their website: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing-elements/building-blocks/adequate-sites-alternative

<!-- page 55 -->
## OPPORTUNITY SITES

Opportunity sites included in the Inventory are those likely to redevelop with housing considering re-cent development patterns as well as a variety of factors that indicate incentives to redevelop. These include both vacant and underutilized land in potential development projects, available 5th Cycle RHNA sites, and new opportunity sites identified as part of this Housing Element cycle.

### Potential Development Projects

While pipeline projects are those that have received planning approval or are in the building permit process, there are also a number of other potential projects at various stages in the planning process, including those in the pre-application stage and those with filed and under review planning permits. Such projects are considered likely to develop. These sites are shown in Appendix C, Table C-14.

### Available 5th Cycle RHNA Sites

There are a number of opportunity sites selected as part of the 5th cycle RHNA that did not develop over the 2015-2023 period and are still available for housing. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(c), sites identified to accommodate a portion of Oakland’s lower-income RHNA that were also contained in previous Housing Element cycles must be zoned at residential densities of at least 30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and must also be rezoned to allow for residential use by right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households. The proposed Inventory contains sites identified to accommodate a portion of Oakland’s housing need for lower-income households that were included during the previous Housing Element cycles. Specific sites carried over from prior housing cycles are described in more detail in Appendix C, Table C-15.

### New Opportunity Sites

New opportunity sites not included in previous Housing Element cycles were identified to meet the City’s remaining RHNA. These sites include both vacant and non-vacant sites and consist of City-owned sites, sites owned by BART, sites located within a specific plan area, and other sites with ex-pressed or potential development interest, including interest determined as part of a community map-ping exercise. Capacity of and rationale for nonvacant sites redevelopments can be found in Appendix C, Table C-16.

### Site Selection and Capacity

As part of site analysis, a Housing Element also must demonstrate the projected residential development capacity of sites identified that can realistically be achieved. Creation of realistic assumptions involved survey of recently constructed and approved projects by base zone, density, and height; likelihood of residential conversion and infill development rates; and development capacity modifiers such as existing use on a site, and potential development incentives like low assessed value (AV) ratio (when the value of the land is greater than the existing structure) and low floor area ratio (when a building only takes up a small part of a lot.)

To identify adequate sites and determine realistic capacity, a parcel-based analysis was conducted in accordance with the State site requirements for very-low and low-income sites. Sites that were excluded include non-residential projects already in development; sites without much incentive to redevelop; sites that were environmentally constrained by high fire risk, near fault lines, or within a 100-year flood plain; and sites with known contamination. In addition to these considerations, sites that are sought to be designated as capable of accommodating lower-income housing must meet the State-defined standard of 30 du/ac, known as the “default density”, and they must be between 0.5 and 10 acres. A robust description of the methodology and full table of realistic capacity is provided in Appendix C.

<!-- page 56 -->
## 3.3 Assessing Housing Sites Through a Fair Housing Lens

The City of Oakland is committed to ensuring that all of its actions are “fair and just” and further racial equity in Oakland. At the same time, the Environmental Justice Element of the General Plan seeks to address equity issues—including adequate provision and support of affordable, healthy homes—in identified Environmental Justice Communities. As explored in the Environmental Justice and Racial Equity Baseline (March 2022), there are many factors that contribute to the livability of a healthy community, ranging from physical aspects of the natural and built environment to less tangible aspects like historic, socioeconomic, and cultural settings and conditions. By assessing the housing sites inventory against Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) criteria, the Housing Element is an important step in achieving an equitable future in Oakland.

As described in Appendix D, the site identification requirement in the context of affirmatively furthering fair housing involves not only an analysis of site capacity to accommodate the RHNA, but also whether the identified sites serve the purpose of replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity.[^p56-3]Furthermore, this analysis will determine whether programs must be adopted to “make sites available” with appropriate zoning, development standards, and infrastructure capacity to accommodate the new development need.

**Chart 3-1** summarizes the process of developing the housing sites inventory and demonstrates how the inventory meets the criteria for AFFH. Sites were selected in a manner to further and prioritize investment in historically disadvantaged communities, to decrease displacement pressures, and to increase access to existing higher resourced neighborhoods.[^p56-4] More information on each of the steps to identify additional sites for lower-income housing is available in Appendix C.

The Inventory was developed in a manner consistent with the City’s mandate to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH), pursuant to State law. Given the City’s inability to meet the 5th cycle RHNA for lower- and moderate-income households (see Appendix A), an emphasis was placed on locating sites appropriate for these income groups – particularly in higher resource areas. However, increasing access to existing high resource neighborhoods represents just one strategy to increase access to opportunity for lower-income households – the City is also committed to investing in “lower resource” neighbor-hoods to increase opportunity for the existing residents

### Chart 3-1: Housing Sites Inventory Development Process

<<FIGURE>>

[^p56-3]: Gov. Code, § 8890.50. subd. (b).
[^p56-4]: To quantify access to opportunity at the neighborhood level, State HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) convened to form the California Fair Housing Task Force to develop Opportunity Maps that visualize accessibility of low-income adults and children to resources within a jurisdiction. High Resource areas are those that offer low-income adults and children the best access to a high-quality education, economic advancement, and good physical and mental health.

<!-- page 57 -->
of those neighborhoods – described further in Appendix D and the Housing Action Plan. Many Oakland residents want to remain in the neighborhoods that they call home, and may not want to move to “higher-resource” areas which tend to be predominantly white and higher-income. Many existing ethnic enclaves offer resources like culturally-specific grocery stores, churches, language services, or other key access points that could be difficult to find elsewhere. Thus, efforts to increase access to exclusive neighborhoods must also be coupled with investment, cultural preservation, and anti-displacement efforts in lower-income neighborhoods and Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs). In parallel with housing development, the City must invest in lower resource neighborhoods with a focus on improving opportunity and outcomes for existing residents—especially historically marginalized BIPOC communities—including investments in equitable access to transit, public facilities, food access, and other amenities.

The State and California Fair Housing Task Force use a series of Opportunity maps developed by the Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) and HCD to define areas of low to high opportunity using a set methodology. These maps, described more fully in Appendix D, indicate that a significant portion of Oakland is considered low resource or high segregation and poverty. As a result, while the RHNA is met for each income category based on pre-established housing sites in the Inventory, lower-income capacity in “moderate” to “highest” resource neighborhoods remained relatively low. With the exception of Rockridge BART, which has historically not been available for lower income housing, many of these areas are, in fact, in close proximity to Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) lines and are suitable to develop at the densities typically required for lower-income projects. For example, much of the Downtown area—which permits some of the highest densities in the city—is considered low to moderate resource.

Most residential capacity at all income levels is located in the low resource and high segregation and poverty areas, largely due to the fact that over 60.0 percent of land in Oakland is considered lower re-source or high segregation and poverty per TCAC’s Opportunity Scores. The high and highest resource neighborhoods carry a relatively small portion of the total unit allocation – influenced by environmental constraints present in the Oakland Hills including fault zone hazards, high fire risks, and active pipeline projects. About 70.1 percent of Oak-land’s highest resource areas are within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), as are about 25.7 percent of the city’s high resource areas. Flooding also represents a risk in these areas (.6 percent in highest resource; 6.8 percent in high resource), as do earthquake fault zones (5.0 percent in highest re-source; 2.2 percent in high resource) – see Appendix C for additional information. It should also be not-ed that ADU projections, which estimate significant numbers of units affordable to lower- and moder-ate-income households, are not included in these estimates. As these units are typically provided in low-er-density and higher resource neighborhoods, they will further increase the proportion of lower-income housing available in these neighborhoods.

Many of these higher resourced neighborhoods currently reflect a historic pattern of exclusionary zoning; to address this, the City is taking action to upzone these areas to further increase housing production ca-pacity and unlock additional opportunities for affordable and “missing middle” housing in high-resource neighborhoods. These reforms would also affirmatively further fair housing by opening up exclusionary neighborhoods, and reducing the exposure to air pollution, toxic and other environmental hazards in environmental justice communities. See Appendix J for more information on these rezoning actions, and Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan for other actions that support affirmatively furthering fair housing. The location of all sites contained in the Inventory compared to TCAC opportunity areas are provided in **Figure 3-2** on the following page.

<!-- page 58 -->
# Figure 3-2: Housing Sites Access to Opportunity, 2022

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 59 -->
Increased provision of affordable housing in existing higher resource neighborhoods is a State priority to ensure that the City meets its requirements to affirmatively further fair housing. Therefore, the City undertook the additional effort to locate suitable supplemental sites appropriate for lower-income development in higher resource neighborhoods beyond the preliminary sites inventory – which already met the RHNA in each income category. As discussed in Appendix C, the preliminary sites inventory consisted of active pipeline projects, projects with expressed developer interest, and other City- and community-identified underutilized sites without known environmental constraints and near amenities like transit. To identify supplemental sites, the City started with the entire universe of parcels in Oak-land, and filtered out sites based on objective physical constraints and opportunity metrics. More in-formation on these constraints and metrics can be found in Appendix C.

From this list of sites filtered by physical suitability characteristics, other important decision factors were applied, including: sites within moderate to highest resource TCAC Opportunity Areas, within Priority Development Areas (PDAs), within a half-mile of a BART station, and within a “transit-rich” area as defined by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).[^p59-5] After completing this exercise, an additional 70 potential sites were identified – generally in the North Oakland/Adams Point, Eastlake/Fruitvale, Glenview/Redwood Heights, North Oakland Hills, and Downtown areas. Among these, 19 parcels were identified as supplemental sites that would further AFFH objectives. Feasibility of future residential development on these additional sites were “ground-truthed” by City staff based on underutilization, local knowledge of the sites, and aerial images of the current state of the property. Figure C-7 in Appendix C maps the locations of these supplemental “AFFH sites.”

An affirmative effort was made to locate affordable housing in higher resource neighborhoods to reduce patterns of exclusion and segregation, and the City remains committed to increasing opportunity in neighborhoods that have experienced historic disinvestment. Providing opportunity for lower-income households must be a multipronged approach – the provision of affordable housing in areas that are already higher resourced must be coupled with continued investments in place-based strategies for historically marginalized neighborhoods. As outlined in Appendix D, the production of affordable housing and other strategies that enhance opportunity and housing security where lower-income residents already live—including gentrifying neighborhoods that face significant displacement pressures—must complement strategies to locate additional affordable housing in existing high-opportunity areas.

These actions, as outlined in the Housing Action Plan (Chapter 4) will ensure that lower-income housing does not become concentrated in neighborhoods without active efforts to provide the needed place-based strategies to let historic Oakland neighborhoods thrive. Further, rezoning actions included in the Housing Action Plan will increase the number of sites viable for lower-income housing in high resource neighborhoods; however, since the City is able to meet the RHNA under existing zoning and due to the difficultly associated with projecting the affordability and capacity of sites newly made available for housing during the planning period, sites resulting from these actions are not considered in the sites inventory. Further, the City remains committed to enacting strong tenant protections and anti-displacement strategies to ensure that the same market forces that promote market rate development in gentrifying neighborhoods do not lead to the displacement of residents who call that neighborhood home.

[^p59-5]: A transit-rich area is defined by MTC as one in which 50 percent of the area is within one half-mile of the following: an existing rail station or ferry terminal (with bus or rail service); a bus stop with peak service frequency of 15 minutes or less; and a planned rail station or planned ferry terminal (with bus or rail service) in the most recently adopted fiscally-constrained Regional Transportation Plan.

<!-- page 60 -->
# 04 HOUSING ACTION PLAN

### 4.1 Goals, Policies, and Actions

<!-- page 61 -->
# 4. Housing Action Plan

## 4.1 Goals, Policies, and Actions

The 2023-2031 Housing Element identifies a foundational framework of five overarching goals to comprehensively address the housing crisis and needs of Oaklanders and to affirmatively further fair housing.

*   Reduce racial segregation and disparities in housing opportunities and outcomes
*   Replace segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns
*   Transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, foster and maintain compliance with civil rights, and affirmatively further fair housing.

The five goals are:

**Goal 1: Protect Oakland Residents from Displacement and Prevent Homelessness**

**Goal 2: Preserve and Improve Existing Housing Stock**

**Goal 3: Close the Gap Between Affordable and Market-Rate Housing Production by Expanding Affordable Housing Opportunities**

**Goal 4: Address Homelessness and Expand Resources for the Unhoused**

**Goal 5: Promote Neighborhood Stability and Health**

While these five goals provide an overall framework for addressing the multifaceted housing crisis, the policies and actions described in this chapter specify the means for implementing those goals. Actions include both programs currently in operation as well as **new actions** needed to address the city's housing needs.

In addition, the City seeks to combat entrenched patterns of segregation by ensuring its laws, programs, and activities affirmatively further fair housing. This means taking specific actions targeted at overcoming patterns of segregation, fostering inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity and housing, and closing the gap between market-rate & affordable housing by prioritizing preservation and development of housing for those of the greatest need, including Black & Brown households. Each goal below includes a statement of how the programs and actions supporting that goal will help affirmatively further fair housing including but not limited to the promotion of equal access to housing for low-income households. An assessment of patterns of segregation in Oakland can be found in Appendix D Assessment of Fair Housing.

In order to provide more immediate housing solutions and stability for existing tenants and unsheltered residents, the City’s Housing and Community Development Department (Oakland HCD) has established a balanced approach to investing its available resources, with 25 percent of available resources to rehabilitation/preservation of existing deed-restricted affordable housing,

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 62 -->
<<FIGURE>>

25 percent to acquisition and conversion of unsubsidized affordable housing opportunities, and 50 percent dedicated to the new construction of affordable housing with a required homeless set-aside. These funding priorities are outlined in HCD’s Strategic Action Plan (2021-2023), found here: https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/HCD.final.21-21Strategic-Plan.pdf.

The City’s Notices of Funding Availability (NOFA) and Request for Proposal (RFP) processes are key for how the City supports many of the goals outlined below. NOFAs and RFPs released by the HCD are competitive application processes for awarding City of Oakland funds for the development of affordable housing. Currently, HCD has three NOFA programs: 1. Acquisition and Conversion to Affordable Housing (ACAH), 2. New Construction of Multifamily Housing, and 3. Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Preservation of Multifamily Affordable Housing. When funding is available, NOFA are released under the three programs to issue funds for affordable housing projects, which are then reviewed for feasibility and scored based on criteria in each NOFA. Based on ranking, projects are recommended for funding to the Oakland City Council. NOFA scoring is guided by the values centered on advancing racial equity and to prioritize assisting housing projects where the tenants are at risk of displacement and that target assistance towards extremely low income households. In recent years, the City has also implemented its Homekey Program, which uses State Homekey funds to expand housing for people experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness. The City chooses Homekey partners via an RFP process seeking proposals for the rapid acquisition and operation of homeless housing.

## Goal 1. Protect Oakland Residents from Displacement and Prevent Homelessness

The San Francisco Bay Area is decades into an extreme housing crisis, and Oakland is at the center of that crisis. Housing production, and particularly affordable housing production, has not kept pace with the region’s economic growth. Because Oakland’s rental and housing market has traditionally been less expensive than other Bay Area cities, Oakland residents experience disproportionately high displacement pressure. As a result, many Oakland residents cannot afford to buy or rent a home within their own neighborhood.[^p62-1] As households displaced from more expensive Bay Area communities search for more affordable housing options in Oakland and higher-income households continue to move into the city, Oakland’s existing residents continue to bear the brunt of the Bay Area’s housing crisis.[^p62-2] Community investment, including building new housing, is crucial for all Oakland neighborhoods to prevent

***

[^p62-1]: Policy Link, “A Roadmap Toward Equity: Housing Solutions for Oakland, California.” 2015.
[^p62-2]: Urban Displacement Project, “Mapping Displacement, Gentrification, and Exclusion in the San Francisco Bay Area.” 2018. Available at https://www.urbandisplacement.org/maps/sf-bay-area-gentrification-and-displacement/.

<!-- page 63 -->
displacement.[^p63-3] With demand outpacing the limited housing supply, competition for finite units and the resulting rising rents creates displacement pressure on low-income residents. Research by the Changing Cities Research Lab at Stanford University and the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco on credit score data shows that lower income residents who move from historically Black neighborhoods tend to move to neighborhoods with lower housing values and health scores, suggesting movement under constrained circumstances; over time, fewer of these low-income movers stayed within Oakland or moved into Oakland as affordable options declined. Rising rents are a factor in increasing rates of homelessness. According to the 2022 Alameda County Point in Time Count, 25 percent of unsheltered Oakland residents report that rent increases were a primary cause of homelessness, in addition to job loss (22 percent) and other money issues (13 percent).

Oakland is committed to enabling renters and owners to stay in their homes and communities, eliminating all involuntary moves out of the city. Goals and policies that are part of a comprehensive protection strategy are designed to prevent displacement and homelessness, and to ensure that low-income renters and homeowners have supports they need to stay in their homes and communities as increased neighborhood investment occurs.

### HOW THIS GOAL AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERS FAIR HOUSING

To meet the City’s equity goals and mandate to affirmatively further fair housing, this goal of protecting Oakland residents from displacement and preventing homelessness —including the policies and actions contained within—will advance the City’s commitment to reducing racial and economic disparities across Oakland. This goal seeks to protect Oakland renters and owners from displacement pressures and prevent homelessness, both of which disproportionately impact Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities throughout Oakland. For example, enhanced tenant protections will crack down on tenant-based racial discrimination in the housing market. This will be particularly important as the eviction moratorium established during the COVID-19 pandemic eventually comes to an end and as further pressure is exerted on the residential rental market.

Rent stabilization and just cause protections also ensure that as more amenities are added to a neighborhood (and it becomes higher resource), the existing residents from diverse backgrounds are able to stay. As noted in Appendix B,

<<FIGURE>>

[^p63-3]: Office of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, “Displacement of Lower-Income Families in Urban Areas Report.” May 2018. Available at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/DisplacementReport.pdf.

<!-- page 64 -->
Housing Needs Assessment, 59.3% of Oakland households—96,242 households—are renters, and renters are more likely to be lower income than homeowners. While many Oakland neighborhoods include a mix of renter-occupied and owner-occupied units, owner-occupied units tend to be congregated in the Oakland Hills and parts of North Oakland, while significantly more housing units are renter-occupied in West Oakland, Downtown, and East Oakland. The City’s 2018 Oakland Equity Indicators Report also identified African-Americans, Indigenous, Latinx, and communities where English is a second language as communities that are disproportionately impacted by the housing crisis. Moreover, as shown in Table B-27, racial and ethnic disparities in tenure exist in Oakland. Vulnerable populations and residents of historically disinvested neighborhoods—including areas designated as Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) or identified as an EJ Community through the Environmental Justice Element—should be able to remain in their homes and enjoy the results of improved amenities and increased services. In the long-term, this will enhance access to opportunity for historically marginalized and disadvantaged communities. By pursuing live/work preferences for Oakland residents and taking actions to assist tenants at risk of eviction, Oakland helps tenants avoid displacement or concentration in disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Using an equity approach, the City works with funded providers to ensure that these services and resources are prioritized for the most vulnerable populations. Vulnerable populations are identified through sources such as Oakland’s Stanford research partnership, the Urban Displacement Project, Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty, and federally identified Opportunity Zones, and will additionally include environmental justice communities identified through the Environmental Justice Element.

In addition, the City conducts extensive outreach to vulnerable populations and those at highest risk of displacement, targeting specific communities and geographies including Black and African Americans, and Spanish-, Cantonese-, and Mandarin-speakers to improve access for non-English speakers—to ensure tenants are aware of their rights and the resources the City makes available. The outreach materials are also offered in multiple languages in accordance with its language access policy and informs property owners and tenants of their rights and obligations through targeted mailings, informational postcards, and other print materials. Outreach through the City’s Rent Adjustment Program includes distribution of educational and informational materials at community events throughout the city and in neighborhoods such as the following zip codes in East Oakland (94603, 94605, and 94621) and West Oakland (94607), workshops and townhalls on tenant rights, rent control and evictions and rental laws for tenants and property owners, and drop-in counseling services (on-site or virtual). Between FY 2018-2022, the Rent Adjustment Program conducted 47 community workshops and townhalls (an average of 12 per fiscal year), 36 community outreach events (an average of 9 per fiscal year) and 17,076 counseling sessions (an average of 356 per month, per fiscal year).

Through more robust data collection efforts, the City will also be able to better identify and correct barriers to opportunity. These efforts include the creation of a rental registry and other displacement measure tracking. More accurate data will also help the City to better target its existing and future housing resources, including through targeting toward identified vulnerable populations, for maximum impact. The implementation of the rental registry will also significantly augment the outreach efforts to the Oakland rental community.

<!-- page 65 -->
## POLICY 1.1. TENANT PROTECTIONS AND ANTI-DISPLACEMENT

### Action 1.1.1: Continue to Implement the Rent Adjustment Ordinance.

The Oakland Rent Adjustment Ordinance (Chapter 8.22, Article I of the Oakland Municipal Code) limits rent increases on covered units (most units built before 1983) based on a formula tied to increases in the Consumer Price Index. In 2022, the City Council adopted an amendment to change the formula used to calculate the annual allowable rent increase to 60 percent of the change in CPI, or 3 percent, whichever is lower. The Rent Adjustment Program (RAP), a division of Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development, will continue to enforce the Rent Adjustment Ordinance.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development

**Potential Funding Source:** Annual Rent Adjustment Fee

**Timeframe:** Revisions to formula to calculate allowable rent increase completed in 2022. Implementation ongoing, 2023-2031.

**Objective:** All tenant rights and protections under applicable City law will be enforced.

### Action 1.1.2: Enforce Just Cause for Eviction measures.

Just Cause for Eviction protections are enforced by the Rent Adjustment Program (RAP) and are contained within Chapter 8.22, Article II of the Oakland Municipal Code. In 2022, the City Council voted to place on the November 2022 ballot an expansion of the Just Cause for Eviction ordinance. In particular, the ballot measures asks: Shall the Measure amending the Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance to: (1) prohibit no-fault evictions of children and educators during the school year; (2) extend eviction protections to tenants in recreational vehicles (RVs), tiny homes on wheels, and newly constructed units except during the first 10 years after issuance of the certificate of occupancy; (3) remove failure to sign a new lease as grounds for eviction; and (4) make other clarifying amendments, be adopted? The City will continue to enforce just cause measures, undertake efforts to ensure the public is aware of revisions if enacted by the voters, and expand tenant protections as feasible—including identifying additional limitations to just causes.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development

**Potential Funding Source:** Annual Rent Adjustment Fee

**Timeframe:** Ongoing, 2023-2031

**Objective:** All tenant rights and protections under applicable City and State law will be enforced.

### Action 1.1.3: Enforce and Strengthen Ellis Act protections.

The Ellis Act is a statewide law that permits property owners to terminate tenancy when withdrawing residential units from the rental market. Although the City cannot prohibit Ellis Act evictions, it has adopted the Ellis Act Ordinance (Chapter 8.22, Article III of the Oakland Municipal Code) to set specific requirements that must be followed when removing a property to discourage violations of the Act and prevent the displacement of renters. This includes filing withdrawal notices with the Oakland Rent Adjustment Program, and the provision of relocation assistance. Recent efforts to reform or repeal the Ellis Act at the State level have gained significant traction but have not to date been successful. The City has supported those efforts—for example, see City Resolution No. 88571 C.M.S. in support of Assembly Bill 854 (Lee) that would have prohibited a rental housing owner from removing a building from the market pursuant to the Ellis Act unless all owners of the property have held their ownership interest for at least five years. The City continues to hold that reform is necessary to reduce speculator abuse and protect tenants. The City will join neighboring Bay

<!-- page 66 -->
Area cities to advocate for statewide reform to the Ellis Act to stabilize rental housing.

Furthermore, the City’s requirements when removing a property through the Ellis Act Ordinance are bolstered by protections under the City’s Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance (see Action 1.1.2 above) and Relocation Ordinance (Action 1.1.4 below). The City’s newly implemented rental registry (2022) will also help the City monitor Ellis Act-related eviction cases.

The City will continue to enforce the Ellis Act Ordinance and, based on any changes allowed by statewide reform, explore ways to strengthen renter protections—including proactive enforcement of eviction protections—in case of an Ellis Act eviction where feasible.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development

**Potential Funding Source:** Annual Rent Adjustment Fee

**Timeframe:** Ellis Act Ordinance Protections are ongoing, 2023-2031; staff will continue to process Ellis findings, which have averaged 25 annually over the past four years, and will continuously seek ways to improve efforts to inform owners and tenants of their rights and obligations under the Ellis Act through robust outreach and counseling. Furthermore, the rental registry will be required as of July 1, 2023 and monitored thereafter. Lastly, the City will engage its legislative lobbyists annually and submit a support letter to the State annually to continue Statewide advocacy efforts.

**Objective:** All tenant rights and protections under applicable City and State law will be enforced, and the City will continue to seek ways to improve tenant protections under the related ordinances.

### Action 1.1.4: Implement tenant relocation measures.

On January 16, 2018, the City of Oakland passed the Uniform Residential Tenant Relocation Ordinance (Ord. No. 13468) to establish a uniform schedule of relocation payments which are now extended to tenants evicted when the owner or qualifying relative moves in and for other “no tenant fault” evictions. The Uniform Relocation Ordinance (Ord. No. 13468) requires owners to provide relocation payments to tenants displaced by code compliance activities, owner or relative move-ins, Ellis Act activity, and condominium conversions. The City will continue to implement and enforce the Ordinance, adjusting base payments for inflation annually on July 1st. Additional relocation payments shall be required for tenant households in rental units that include lower-income, elderly or disabled tenants, and/or minor children.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development

**Potential Funding Source:** Annual Rent Adjustment Fee

**Timeframe:** Ongoing, 2023-2031

**Objective:** All tenant rights and protections under applicable City and State law will be enforced.

### Action 1.1.5: Implement a right to counsel in Rent Adjustment Program proceedings.

The City will implement a tenant right to counsel in Rent Adjustment Program (RAP) proceedings, where qualified tenants who participate in RAP hearings have right to free legal representation within the funding availability restrictions. This includes partnering with nonprofit organizations to provide those services.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development

**Potential Funding Source:** Annual Rent Adjustment Fee

<!-- page 67 -->
**Timeframe:** In October, 2022 Council approved a service provider contract to provide legal representation during RAP proceedings beginning in providing representation services in Fall 2022.

**Objective:** Resources permitting, all tenants participating in RAP proceedings will have access to legal representation to prevent displacement by preventing unlawful rent increases. (see Action 1.1.6 below).

### Action 1.1.6: Enhance housing related legal services

As funding becomes available, the City will increase housing related legal services, including eviction defense services and legal counseling through community partners. Housing Related legal services will help address displacement risks, eviction defense, and housing instability through legal representation, consultation, and education.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development

**Potential Funding Source:** Local, State or federal sources as available, and Annual Rent Adjustment Fee

**Timeframe:** In July 2022 Council approved a direct grant to a consortium of nonprofit legal service providers to continue eviction protection and other legal services. Other tenant legal service contracts are administered through the Rent Adjustment Program. Staff will continue to seek funding to ensure services will be ongoing.

**Objective:** Resources permitting, all at risk tenants may seek free legal services from external partners to prevent evictions and housing instability.

### Action 1.1.7: Expand the City’s ability to enforce rent control to maintain affordability.

Rent control measures are outlined in Oakland’s Rent Adjustment Ordinance and enforced through the Rent Adjustment Program (RAP). Currently, residential rental units are covered by the Rent Adjustment Ordinance if they are within a building built prior to 1983 and there are two or more units in the building. In addition, the City’s new rental registry, approved in 2022, will require property owners to report rent and tenancy information to RAP on an annual basis. This new tool will allow the City to better monitor rent control and will help both tenants and owners understand whether their rents comply with Oakland’s Rent Adjustment Ordinance. The City will consider how to expand the number of units subject to rent control to maintain affordability.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development

**Potential Funding Source:** Annual Rent Adjustment Fee

**Timeframe:** Rent control measures are ongoing, 2023-2031. As of July, 1, 2023, the City’s rental registry will require owners of these units to report rent and tenancy information to RAP on an annual basis. With this new tool, staff will be able to better monitor rent control measures.

**Objective:** To the extent permitted by State law, Oakland will use the rental registry to ensure rent control laws are being followed, enabling better renter protections.

### Action 1.1.8: Monitor neighborhood displacement risk factors.

As the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to unfold and eviction moratoriums lift, there is an urgent need to monitor displacement pressures. The City will regularly monitor displacement risk factors—including rising housing costs, rapid demographic changes, neighborhood instability, climate risks, and trends around in- and out-migration across neighborhoods in Oakland—to understand local displacement risk. This data will be used to better target anti-displacement programs and prioritize neighborhoods with a high risk of displacement. This data will also be used to

<!-- page 68 -->
better understand the causes of displacement and help tailor City programs to meet existing housing needs. The City will carry out the bi-annual Resident Mini Pulse Survey on the state of housing security as part of these monitoring efforts.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development

**Potential Funding Source:** Annual Rent Adjustment fee

**Timeframe:** Ongoing, 2023-2031; conduct Resident Mini Pulse Survey on biannual basis.

**Objective:** The City of Oakland will include displacement-related statistics in a broader housing or community dashboard available on the City website.

### Action 1.1.9: Implement a rental housing registry.

A rental housing registry is a database of rental units within Oakland and will be used to track properties subject to rent control provisions, Just Cause for Eviction measures, and other property-specific policies and requirements. In June 2022, the Oakland City Council adopted Ordinance No. 13695 CMS to establish a rental registry in Oakland. The City will use data collected in the rental housing registry to monitor and understand neighborhood change at a more granular level, to better target anti-displacement policies and ensure that rent increases are compliant under the Rent Adjustment Ordinance.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development

**Potential Funding Source:** Annual Rent Adjustment Fee

**Timeframe:** Implement the rental registry by 2023, maintain it ongoing, 2023-2031

**Objective:** By 2023, the City will design and implement a rental housing registry. This registry will cover housing units subject to rent stabilization and/or just cause protections under City law.

### Action 1.1.10: City Enforcement of the Tenant Protection Ordinance (TPO).

The TPO (Chapter 8.22, Article V of the Oakland Municipal Code) recognizes tenants’ right to live in safe, dignified, harassment-free homes. The TPO deters and makes unlawful harassment by property owners and their agents, including property managers, recognizing that such harassment can frequently force tenants from their homes. The ordinance provides tenants strong legal recourse in the event of such prohibited harassment. On July 21, 2020, the City further amended the TPO to strengthen existing protections and include additional remedies. For example, the amendments established heightened penalties for violations against elderly, disabled, and/or catastrophically ill tenants. The amendments further expanded the ordinance’s application to non-profit-owned rental housing and rental units in newly constructed residential properties. City enforcement of the TPO can prevent and remedy violations against tenants, for example by deterring unscrupulous landlords from undertaking “self-help” evictions and securing building and/or citywide relief for tenants. City enforcement therefore is critical to ensuring that Oakland’s most marginalized tenants also receive the protections of the TPO.

In October 2020, the Oakland City Attorney launched the Housing Justice Initiative, a housing enforcement unit specifically dedicated to protecting marginalized Oakland tenants through the enforcement of the TPO and other similar or related local and State laws.

Through the Housing Justice Initiative and the work of the City Attorney’s existing Neighborhood Law Corps, the City will continue to expand its enforcement of the TPO.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland City Attorney

**Potential Funding Source:** Additional grant sources will be pursued.

**Timeframe:** Ongoing, 2023-2031

**Objective:** Tenants’ rights and protections

<!-- page 69 -->
under applicable City and State law will be enforced more systematically and on a larger scale over time, with a focus on actions that protect the most marginalized tenants and hold large-scale bad actors to account.

### Action 1.1.11: Enforce the tenant right to return and protections from coercive buyouts.

Currently, through the Tenant Move Out Ordinance (Chapter 8.22.700, Article VI of the Oakland Municipal Code), Oakland renters have protections from unfair or coercive buyout agreements. Further, State law (SB 330) requires that property developers provide the right to return to low-income renters when a property is demolished and redeveloped, and that the charged rent must be affordable. The City will continue providing awareness of State and local requirements and will enforce affordability requirements in new development projects. Further, pursuant to Action 2.2.5, the City will extend this right beyond the sunset date of SB 330.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development; Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** Legal fees associated with case parties involved

**Timeframe:** SB 330 rights will be extended by the end of 2024.

**Objective:** All tenant rights and protections under applicable City and State law will be enforced.

### Action 1.1.12: Provide a local preference in affordable housing projects.

Oakland Municipal Code [Chapter 15.63] grants preference in City-assisted affordable housing projects to (1) Oakland residents displaced due to City actions or no-fault evictions, (2) neighborhood residents, and (3) Oakland residents and workers. All three preferences are applied at initial occupancy, to the extent permitted by other funding sources. After initial occupancy, displaced households and Oakland residents and workers continue to receive priority preference for available units. Oakland’s Housing and Community Development Department recently updated its findings to support its preferences and ensure that its preferences may be permitted in County-assisted projects. The City will continue its efforts to streamline the process by which these preferences are applied, including through a regional housing portal and a more robust tracking system for displaced households.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development

**Potential Funding Source:** n/a

**Timeframe:** Ongoing, 2023-2031. While the ability of the City to require its projects to participate in a regional application portal depends in part on the readiness of such portals, the City currently attends regular meetings around the design of a regional portal. The City intends to identify a suitable application portal to partner with by the end of 2024.

**Objective:** The City will continue to apply local preferences in City-assisted affordable housing to the extent allowed by law and the constraints of other involved funding sources. The City will continue to identify ways to streamline the administration of its preferences, including through a regional housing portal and a more robust tracking system for displaced households.

### Action 1.1.13: Negotiate for appropriate community benefits during development agreement approvals for major entitlements and use of City land.

While negotiating development agreements with developers for large scale market-rate and non-residential projects on City land or development agreements requiring complex, multi-phase entitlements, the City will advocate for establishing an appropriate set of standardized community benefits to mitigate any displacement pressures

<!-- page 70 -->
that result from the development. This may include increased levels of required affordable housing units. The City will consult with community-based organizations and residents impacted by developments to evaluate the extent of community benefits required to properly mitigate displacement impacts.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Planning & Building Department, Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development; Economic and Workforce Development Department

**Potential Funding Source:** Permit fees

**Timeframe:** Ongoing, 2023-2031

**Objective:** Significantly reduce displacement pressures through negotiating appropriate community benefits during the development agreements process.

### Action 1.1.14: Protect Oakland residents from displacement and becoming homeless.

Keep Oakland Housed, the Shallow Subsidy Pilot (public-private partnerships), Oakland Housing Secure, and the federally funded Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) are programs that currently help prevent renters from becoming homeless through rental assistance, legal advice, housing counseling, and/or case management. Through these programs, a diverse and vibrant network of providers has been created that work together to provide individualized services to Oakland tenants.

The City will support and align City, Alameda County, and private partners (such as community-based and faith-based organizations that have roots in communities whose members are disproportionately at risk of homelessness) to strengthen their capacity to prevent displacement and respond effectively when people are experiencing a housing crisis. The City will also expand these types of programs and design new ones that identify, assist, and prioritize funding for those who are most at risk of becoming homeless. In addition, the City will continue to make information about tenant protection, anti-displacement, rental assistance, and homelessness services available on the City’s website and at City facilities and strive to improve public awareness of these programs. These efforts are especially key in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis and the eventual end of the eviction moratorium. Additional tenant protection actions are included in Actions 1.1.1-1.1.10.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Housing and Community Development Department

**Potential Funding Source:** Federal ERAP funds, private contributions, other local, State, and federal resources as available

**Timeframe:** Continue implementation of the ERAP program 2022-2023, and The City of Oakland to issue a Request for Proposals and award a contract to a homeless prevention program provider(s) by mid 2023.

**Objective:** The City of Oakland will continue to implement a homeless prevention program that includes emergency financial assistance, legal support and wrap around services. The program will be an extension of previous homeless prevention programs such as Keep Oakland Housed, Oakland Housing Secure, and the Emergency Rental Assistance Program.

# Goal 2. Preserve and Improve Existing Affordable Housing Stock

Oakland’s existing affordable housing stock is an important resource for the city’s lower- and moderate-income population. Housing preservation means retaining existing built affordable housing and extending its affordability for current and future tenants. Preventing the loss of valuable existing affordable housing units is a cost-effective way of maintaining this resource as well as keeping existing residents who may be more vulnerable to increasing cost pressures in their homes.

<!-- page 71 -->
<<FIGURE>>

Oakland has numerous preservation policies in place already, including rehabilitation programs for low-income homeowners, demolition and condo conversion restrictions, resale controls to preserve affordability, and regular inspections of City-assisted affordable housing stock. A primary task of City staff will be to enforce and maintain these policies over the coming cycle. In addition, the City has identified areas where it may seek to expand preservation strategies, such as through a proactive inspection program for non-restricted housing stock, environmental remediation programs, and policies to facilitate acquisition of properties by tenants and mission-driven nonprofits. These strategies are described below.

Preservation, improvement, and maintenance also have health and equity co-benefits—addressing housing habitability issues can help to narrow inequitable racial and ethnic gaps in substandard housing conditions and reduce the burden of maintenance challenges for lower-income homeowners. This goal includes policies and actions that conserve and improve existing housing stock.

## HOW THIS GOAL AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERS FAIR HOUSING

This goal sets forth several policies and actions that will advance fair housing in Oakland through actions that physically rehabilitate housing units, reduce displacement by deepening and/or extending affordability, and ensure Oakland residents are able to remain in their communities and enjoy new amenities and benefits. Physical rehabilitation of housing also improves the environmental determinants of health, thereby advancing the City’s Environmental Justice goals. As discussed in Appendices B and D, BIPOC residents of Oakland are disproportionately impacted by substandard housing issues. Actions contained within this goal will reduce the prevalence of these substandard housing issues citywide. Specifically, Action 2.1.3 Proactive Rental Inspections Program (PRIP) will target inspection of 96,500 rental units over the eight-year planning period that may suffer from deterioration due to age or lack of maintenance by the property owner using the following RHNA income category targets:

### Table 4-1: Proactive Rental Inspection: RHNA Category Targets

| VERY-LOW-INCOME | LOW-INCOME | MODERATE- INCOME | ABOVE-MODERATE-INCOME |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 47,768 | 13,221 | 8,395 | 27,116 |

<!-- page 72 -->
The PRIP implementation strategy is to focus on multi-family buildings with five or more units and properties built pre-1980 due to prevalence of lead paint. Focus will also be drawn to census tracts based on health disparity, social, economic and other demographic indicators from the American Community Survey data. Universal design strategies will also increase housing access for seniors and people with disabilities (Action 2.1.5).

Actions that preserve the affordability of existing homes play a key role in preventing displacement and allowing lower-income and BIPOC tenants to remain in place despite the displacement pressures in their neighborhoods. These actions range from resale controls to demolition and conversion protections. A Community Opportunity to Purchase/Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act, if adopted, would allow for tenants to access the wealth building and stability benefits of homeownership (Action 2.2.8). Historic preservation actions also preserve cultural institutions and history that would otherwise be at risk of loss due to gentrification (Action 2.1.4). Since 2014, Oakland has approved 56 Mills Act Contracts for the purposes of the repair and maintenance of historic properties , and anticipates a similar trend through the 6th cycle (Action 2.1.4).

Several actions under this Goal are aligned with the goals and policies of the Oakland 2030 Equitable Climate Action Plan (ECAP), the City’s greenhouse gas reduction plan. Under the ECAP, additional funding for energy efficiency programs like Action 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 will prioritize frontline communities – those that have been harmed by environmental injustice and who are likely to be hurt first and worst by the impacts of climate change. The ECAP defines frontline communities depending on the specific threat or public policy being considered, but in Oakland often includes those living in areas with the worst air and soil pollution, traffic congestion, and diesel particulate exposure, and least access to nature and healthy foods. This largely describes the flatlands and Interstate 880 corridor, which aligns closely with identified R/ECAPs and environmental justice communities. The ECAP also identifies placed-based strategies, for example applying Greenlining Institute’s Mobility Equity Framework and the Racial Equity Impact tool developed by Oakland’s Department of Race and Equity to policies and programs related to new mobility. As State funding becomes available, the City will seek to support 160 households with lead paint abatement and/or gas stove replacement (Action 2.1.1 and Action 2.1.2). Through Action 2.2.1, the City will ensure that 100 percent of City-assisted homeownership and rental units will remain permanently affordable. Finally, the City will allocate approximately 25 percent of available local funding towards Preservation and Rehabilitation NOFA, and more as funding becomes available (Action 2.2.2).

The City works with funded providers to ensure that services and resources are prioritized for the most vulnerable populations. Vulnerable populations are identified through sources such as Oakland’s Stanford research partnership, the Urban Displacement Project, Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty, and federally identified Opportunity Zones, and will additionally include environmental justice communities identified through the Environmental Justice Element.

In addition, the City conducts extensive outreach to vulnerable populations and those at highest risk of displacement, targeting specific communities and geographies including Black and African Americans, and Spanish-, Cantonese-, and Mandarin-speakers to improve access for non-English speakers—to ensure tenants are aware of their rights and the resources the City makes available. The outreach materials are also offered in multiple languages in accordance with its language access policy.

<!-- page 73 -->
## POLICY 2.1 EXISTING HOUSING STOCK IMPROVEMENT

### Action 2.1.1: Support home rehabilitation programs.

The City will expand housing rehabilitation assistance to very low- and low-income homeowners to address code violations, repair major building systems in danger of failure, abate lead-based paint hazards, conduct minor home repairs for seniors, and perform or fund emergency repairs. Per the Council-adopted target of 100 percent building electrification by 2040 (Equitable Climate Action Plan (ECAP) Action B-2) and energy resilience for all (ECAP Action A-2), the City will pursue resources to integrate holistic building electrification, onsite renewable energy, and energy storage into these programs where possible, and combining building electrification improvements with other improvements for health, safety, and livability. Per the ECAP, electrification refers to the replacement of methane (aka "natural") gas systems and appliances with efficient, effective, all-electric alternatives, such as heat pumps or induction cooking. Electrification is intended to be permanent: to meet the Council's 2040 target, buildings switching away from gas to efficient electric systems and appliances should not later add gas infrastructure or appliances. Some of the programs currently operated by the City of Oakland or its partners include:

* Home Maintenance & Improvement Program (HMIP) Deferred Loan Program
* Emergency Home Repair Program Loan Program
* Alameda County Minor Home Repair Grant Program
* Lead Hazard Control and Paint Program
* Access Improvement Program
* Oakland CalHome ADU/JADU Loan Program
* Bay Area Regional Energy Network's HomePlus Program and Home Energy Advisor
* TECH Clean California
* California Energy Smart Homes
* Low Income Weatherization Program

The City will engage local partners and fair housing experts to help promote awareness of, and broad participation in, these programs. The City will continue to implement, annually review, and revise, as needed, program guidelines for housing rehabilitation assistance. The City will target resources, as available, to expand opportunities throughout the community, including in lower-income and lower resource areas that will include Environmental Justice Communities that will be identified through the EJ screening process. The City will also strive to build community capacity and technical know-how by connecting homeowners with local labor to carry out home rehabilitation projects. This assistance will be particularly targeted to neighborhoods experiencing or at severe risk of displacement and gentrification. The City will also commit to explore additional funding sources for rehabilitation work beyond limited CDBG funds, which provides funding for many of Oakland HCD's homeowner rehabilitation programs.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development, Residential Lending Division

**Potential Funding Source:** Community Development Block Grants and potentially other funding sources as available

**Timeline:** The City of Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development will continue to accept applications for and serve residents through its established low-income homeowner rehab programs and facilitate access to other resources on an annual basis. The City will also pursue additional funding sources for rehabilitation work beyond limited CDBG funds, which provides funding for

<!-- page 74 -->
many of Oakland HCD's programs. The timing on pursuit of these additional funding sources depends on when such opportunities are available, as State funding streams for home rehabilitation/electrification are unpredictable or trade off with other Housing Element priorities (for example, the CalHome program could fund rehabilitation, but that would potentially mean applying for less money for down payment homebuyer assistance which has no other dedicated funding).

**Objective:** As funding is available, the City of Oakland will continue to fund and operate home rehabilitation programs. At current funding trends, this will allow for approximately 80 rehabilitation projects each year.

### Action 2.1.2: Promote healthy homes and lead-safe housing.

The City will continue, and seek resources to expand, implementation of the Lead-Safe Homes Program to assist low- and moderate-income homeowners with lead paint identification and remediation, prioritizing resources for disadvantaged communities with high rates of asthma. The City will also continue to partner with the Alameda County Community Development Agency’s Healthy Homes Department to provide education, lead-safety skills training, and on-site consultations for Oakland property owners and conduct lead poisoning prevention and asthma trigger interventions for Oakland residents. In accordance with Oakland’s 2030 Equitable Climate Action Plan, the City will encourage the transition away from natural gas appliances, which has been proven to increase development of asthma in children by 24 percent and which increases risks of fire and explosions. The City will seek resources to integrate electrification, lead abatement, and home rehabilitation activities in order to maximize public health and housing security benefits for frontline Oaklanders. The City will also seek resources and inter-agency partnerships to monitor public health impacts of new programing and requirements.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development, Residential Lending Division; Sustainability and Resilience Division, City Administrator’s Office

**Potential Funding Source:** Community Development Block Grants and potentially other funding sources as available

**Timeline:** Ongoing throughout the 2023-2031 period and beyond

**Objective:** As funding becomes available, the City of Oakland will implement programs to reduce health hazards from lead and natural gas appliances.

### Action 2.1.3: Conduct proactive rental inspections.

The City is adopting a proactive, data-driven housing inspection program for City Council's approval in early 2023 to improve housing habitability conditions among the City’s rental stock. Covered rental units will be inspected on a regular basis at designated intervals thereby reducing the likelihood of deterioration and escalation to substandard housing conditions by identifying and targeting exterior and interior code violation early on. The City will continue to monitor and inspect properties in response to a complaint driven process from the public on habitability and blight condition. The City will work with community partners to develop appropriate enforcement mechanisms, including tenant protection and anti-displacement mechanisms to ensure tenants are not displaced as a result of proactive inspections turning up housing habitability issues and/or raising rents due to the cost of fixing habitability issues. Further, the City will prioritize inspections in areas with older housing stock and health disparities and seek funding to streamline the inspection/ rehabilitation process by connecting property-owners to technical and financial assistance for safety and accessibility improvements at the time of inspection. Guidelines are being developed to identify issues that may qualify as delay of enforcement actions to provide property-owners

<!-- page 75 -->
with sufficient time to complete the needed repairs, thereby mitigating displacement of existing tenants and preserving affordability.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** Permit fees

**Timeline:** 2023

**Objective:** The City will develop a proactive rental inspections program to significantly improve housing safety and quality and address housing needs, particularly in areas with older housing stock and communities experiencing health disparities.

### Action 2.1.4: Support historic preservation and rehabilitation.

The City will support the preservation and rehabilitation of both the existing historic housing stock and adaptively reused non-residential structures through a variety of strategies, including continued implementation of Mills Act Contracts and the Oakland Community Buying Program. The City will support the preservation of historic, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources and their incorporation into project site planning where feasible. As described in Action 3.2.3, the City will also promote adaptive reuse to promote historic preservation.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge, permit fees

**Timeline:** Ongoing, 2023-2031

**Objective:** The City will continue to implement the Mills Act and the Oakland Community Buying Program to support to help support historic preservation.

### Action 2.1.5: Implement universal design strategies.

The City will initiate community engagement to understand the need for universal design strategies, including with seniors, people experiencing disabilities, and community-based organizations with insight and experience with accessibility issues. The City will consider the adoption of a Universal Design Ordinance, which would help close loopholes, ensure good faith compliance of Americans with Disability Act provisions, ensure that accommodations are built into new developments, and allow Oaklanders to age in place.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge, permit fees

**Timeline:** 2025-2027

**Objective:** The City will consider adopting a Universal Design Ordinance to address housing needs and improve housing conditions for seniors, people experiencing disabilities, and other communities with accessibility issues.

### Action 2.1.6: Increase funding for improved indoor air quality.

The City will seek State, Federal, and other funding sources to provide financial assistance to property owners and very low- and low-income homeowners to offset some of the cost of investing in better ventilation, air filtration systems (e.g., MERV filter systems), and efficient electrification to improve indoor air quality in existing single- and multifamily residential units, with a priority for homes in high air pollution areas such as near freeways. The City will adopt and implement an Existing Building Electrification Roadmap, using an equity-centered approach to transition all homes away from methane (aka "natural") gas systems by 2040. The Roadmap will specify policy strategies, necessary incentives and safety nets, and other steps to avoid increasing housing displacement or energy insecurity in the electrification transition.

**Responsible Party:** Sustainability and Resilience Division, City Administrator's Office

**Potential Funding Source:** State funding

<!-- page 76 -->
such as Technology and Equipment for Clean Heating Initiative, Building Initiative for Low-Emissions Development, and California utility repayment funding. Federal funding is available through the Inflation Reduction Act. Additional sources of funding could include CEQA mitigation funds, philanthropic sources, and other public-private partnerships.

**Timeline:** Identify funding by 2026; bring Existing Building Electrification Roadmap to Council for adoption by end of July 2023

**Objective:** Significantly improve indoor air quality and address housing need in existing single- and multifamily residential buildings.

## POLICY 2.2 PRESERVE THE AFFORDABILITY OF EXISTING HOMES

### Action 2.2.1: Continue to implement resale controls on assisted housing.

The City will continue to use financing agreements for both City-assisted ownership and rental development projects to ensure that units remain permanently affordable through covenants running with the land.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development

**Potential Funding Source:** HOME, HUD, CALHFA, County, misc. State/Federal housing programs, AHP private funds

**Timeframe:** Ongoing, 2023-2031

**Objectives:** 100 percent of City-assisted homeownership and rental units will have their affordability covenants effectively enforced.

<<FIGURE>>

### Action 2.2.2: Enforce, monitor, and preserve affordable housing covenants with an emphasis on “at-risk” units.

The City will proactively monitor and enforce affordable housing covenants and will conduct outreach to the owners of assisted units that are at risk of conversion to market-rate housing. The City will prioritize the preservation of units at some level of risk of converting in the next 10 years by actively working with and encouraging the owners of those properties to extend their covenants. Pursuant to law, the City will also engage in required noticing, tenant education, and coordinating with qualified entities.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development

**Potential Funding Source:** HOME, HUD, CALHFA, County, misc. State/Federal housing programs, AHP private funds

**Timeframe:** Program monitoring and enforcement of this program is ongoing, 2023-2031. Furthermore, the City has issued Preservation and Rehabilitation NOFAs on a periodic basis, per funding availability to capture existing affordable units at-risk of conversion to market-rate, and perform rehabilitation work on properties in exchange for extending the term of affordability restrictions. Recent NOFA under this program were released in 2017 ($9.5M) and 2019 ($11M), and the next NOFA release is anticipated in 2023. The City is aiming for approximately $10M in this round, but will likely bolster that amount with the 2022 Bond Measure funding for affordable housing and infrastructure approved by voters.).

**Objectives:** As funding becomes available, deed-restricted affordable housing units at risk of losing their affordability will be protected from a loss of affordability protections through extensions of regulatory agreements, and deepening of affordability levels when possible. Currently the City’s policy is to allocate approximately 25 percent of available local funding towards Preservation and Rehabilitation NOFA, and future funds will be allocated contingent upon availability.

<!-- page 77 -->
### Action 2.2.3: Enforce residential demolition and conversion restrictions for residential hotels.

Residential hotels, also referred to as single-room occupancy (SRO) units, provide an important source of naturally occurring, deeply affordable housing in City. As such, Oakland has enacted regulations to limit the demolition, conversion, and rehabilitation to charge higher rents of existing residential hotel units. The City has recently amended these regulations (Chapter 17.153 of the Oakland Planning Code) to strengthen protections for residential hotels and will continue to enforce these protections to preserve their affordability.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

**Timeframe:** Ongoing, 2023-2031

**Objectives:** Continue to enforce Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) regulations to preserve affordability and meet housing needs.

### Action 2.2.4: Limit condominium conversions.

The conversion of rental housing to condominiums provides a risk to the affordability of Oakland’s housing stock. The City recently amended its condominium conversion regulations to require replacement rental housing for the conversion of two or more housing units, to remove the provision allowing the generation of conversion rights when the units are offered as rental units for seven or more years, to acknowledge the applicability of the Oakland Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance and the Oakland Rent Adjustment Ordinance, and to afford greater rights and protections to existing tenants. The City will strictly enforce these recently adopted regulations to preserve Oakland’s rental housing supply.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** Permit fees

**Timeframe:** Ongoing, 2023-2031

**Objectives:** Continue to enforce condominium conversion regulations to preserve rental housing supply and prevent displacement.

### Action 2.2.5: Extend local replacement unit provisions.

State law (SB 330) mandates that “protected units” are replaced with comparably affordable units when a residential building is demolished and redeveloped. The City will codify and extend replacement provisions pursuant to State law beyond the established sunset date. The City will require that developers notify existing and prospective tenants of their tenant rights as provided both under SB 330 as well as Oakland’s Just Cause for Eviction Notice. The City will require developers to comply with applicable tenant right to refusal provisions. Further, the City will engage in strict monitoring and enforcement of the law to ensure replacement units are provided. This will include active outreach to developers to ensure they are aware of and comply with replacement unit provisions, and the maintenance of a displaced tenant database. The City will require that any demolition proposals include sufficient relocation assistance and right to return to the new replacement units.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Planning & Building Department; Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

**Timeframe:** Enforcement of SB 330 requirements: Ongoing, 2023-2031. Adoption of Requirements above SB 330: 2024.

**Objectives:** Codify and extend local replacement unit provisions to ensure compliance and prevent displacement.

<!-- page 78 -->
### Action 2.2.6: Reduce short-term home purchases/sales (i.e., “house flipping”) to ensure affordability and prevent displacement.

The practice of “house flipping,” —acquiring properties, making superficial improvements, and quickly reselling at a higher price—can cause housing costs to increase, leading to higher rates of displacement and increased exclusivity in higher resource neighborhoods. To curb the negative effects of speculation, the City will consider implementing an anti-speculation tax, which would apply a fee when a property is sold shortly after purchase. The City will conduct a market study to understand the potential impacts of such a tax and its appropriateness within Oakland. As discussed in Action 2.2.8, the City will also explore a possible Tenant Opportunity to Purchase/Community Opportunity to Purchase Act.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Department of Finance

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge for the study; self-funding, if implemented

**Timeframe:** 2026

**Objectives:** Study the root causes of unaffordability and displacement and consider possible taxes to prevent displacement and maintain affordability. Looking specifically at the cost to rehabilitate a home and incentivizing the market to maintain neighborhood level affordability through tax incentive or disincentive.

### Action 2.2.7: Provide additional subsidy for residential hotels.

The City will consider allowing owners of residential hotels that agree to restrict occupancy to lower-income residents to transfer development rights to create an endowed source of funding for an internal subsidy for such residents, or for maintenance/facility upgrades that do not increase rents.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

**Timeframe:** 2025-2027

**Objectives:** Preserve SROs and meet housing need.

### Action 2.2.8: Investigate a Tenant/Community Opportunity to Purchase Act.

A Tenant/Community Opportunity to Purchase Act, referred to as TOPA/COPA, gives tenants and nonprofit organizations the opportunity to purchase their home when it goes up for sale, thereby preserving that housing unit as affordable. TOPA/COPA policies are under development in multiple Bay Area cities, including Oakland, the neighboring City of Berkeley, East Palo Alto, and San Jose. The City will study the effectiveness of a TOPA/COPA model suited to local conditions, which may include equity-building mechanisms, funding needs and sources, racial equity impact considerations, or other approaches that may be appropriate to Oakland. Enactment of a TOPA/COPA policy would require City Council review and approval.

**Responsible Agency:** City Council; Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development

**Potential Funding Source:** Impact fees, General Fund, infrastructure bond funds, HOME, CDBG, and other local, State, and federal funding as available

**Timeline:** Investigate a TOPA/COPA policy and present findings to Oakland City Council for discussion by Fiscal Year 2025. If adopted, implementation will occur at maximum two years after the date of adoption.

**Objective:** Oakland will study by FY2025, and if appropriate, implement a TOPA/COPA policy by 2027 at the latest.

<!-- page 79 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# Goal 3. Close the Gap Between Affordable and Market-Rate Housing Production by Expanding Affordable Housing Opportunities

To address Oakland’s ongoing housing crisis, key strategies should focus on closing the gap between market-rate and affordable housing production by prioritizing the preservation of existing housing and developing high-quality and abundant affordable housing for those of the greatest need, including Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (BIPOC) households.

During the previous RHNA cycle, the City permitted more above-moderate-income housing than required by the RHNA, whereas the City only permitted one affordable housing unit for every eight above-moderate income units. This highlights the need for a concerted effort to increase production of homes that are affordable to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. While adding housing at every income level can help reduce market competition for existing homes, a primary driver in displacement and homelessness, Oakland also needs more deeply affordable housing. Oakland especially needs housing affordable to extremely-low-income residents and housing that remains permanently affordable. One of the key objectives in expanding affordable housing opportunities and producing more affordable housing is overcoming patterns of discrimination and opening up neighborhoods that have historically been exclusionary to communities of color and low-income residents, while simultaneously refocusing resources and protections towards historically disinvested neighborhoods (see Policy 2.2).

As stated above, the City fell short of meeting its lower- and moderate-income need, which has nearly doubled during the current 6th cycle RHNA. The shortfall is primarily a reflection of the lack of commensurate state and federal subsidies that would be necessary to achieve Oakland’s targets for low- and moderate-income households. Public funds for affordable housing would need to be expanded tenfold in order to meet these 6th Cycle RHNA targets. Other constraints are discussed in Appendix C. To meet the increased need for affordable housing, the City will identify new funding sources, expand existing programs, and introduce new strategies to close the gap between market-rate and affordable housing production, and further encourage high quality and abundant affordable housing development.

As California’s housing crisis continues into another decade, new and innovative models for the development and maintenance of permanently affordable housing are needed to overcome these

<!-- page 80 -->
obstacles and meet Oakland’s increased housing needs. This includes alternative housing models that have the benefit of being more affordable and can meet a wider range of community needs, incomes, and lifestyles, including single room occupancy (SRO) programs; efficiency units (where the kitchen/dining area is segmented off from a combination sleeping/living area); micro units (units usually less than ~250 square feet); and co-housing (private homes clustered around shared space). The City is encouraging these models: recent examples include Oakland’s 2018 Residential Hotels Ordinance, the “Nook” microunit project built in 2016, and completion of co-housing project Phoenix Commons in 2016. Recognizing the limited resources that staff already operate with, the City will welcome models that are community-based and are eligible for external funding. For the next eight years and beyond, the City will cultivate an atmosphere that encourages new approaches to meet Oakland’s affordable housing needs. The City will also encourage models that emphasize community ownership of land and housing to promote permanent affordability.

Oakland has very little vacant land available for development and is reliant primarily on reuse of existing sites for development. The vacant parcels that do exist, however, often provide significant opportunities for residential development. Furthermore, vacant residential and commercial buildings and units could provide potential sources of additional housing supply that are not currently available. As part of this goal, the City will enact a variety of strategies to incentivize active residential uses on vacant land and units.

Although housing is largely provided by the private and nonprofit sectors, the City has one major tool to influence development patterns and increase housing development of affordable housing and allow for other housing types: the Planning Code. To ensure that the Planning Code is responsive to housing policies and programs, the City will need specific zoning amendments that meet Oakland’s changing needs and remove identified constraints to residential development. The suite of amendments the City will undertake range from short- to long-term solutions, some of which will be carried out alongside the update of the Housing Element and others as part of the comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan that includes the Land Use and Transportation Element and will continue through 2025 after the Housing Element adoption.

The length and cost of the residential permitting process—which are ultimately reflected in a unit’s selling price—are also generally within the City’s control. An onerous and lengthy review process can be one of the most significant barriers to housing construction because some developers may decide that the cost of project review and its potential delays simply overcomes the revenue of new housing, particularly in the case of projects that are only marginally financially feasible and/or profitable. Recognizing that long permitting processes are a statewide issue, a slate of new legislation, including SB 35, SB 330, AB 2162, and SB 1483, has introduced new requirements that are intended to facilitate the production of affordable housing through a streamlined residential permitting process.

The City of Oakland currently operates both an online permit center and an in-person “one-stop” permit center with counter services staffed by the Departments of Planning and Building, Fire, and Transportation. However, there are opportunities to better steward small nonprofit and BIPOC developers, homeowners looking to add additional units, affordable housing developers, and other community partners through the residential permitting process.

This goal will encourage the production of affordable housing and guide development of a more diverse range of housing choices for households of all types, incomes, and special needs; and promote changes to City tools like its permitting procedures and zoning code to make it easier and faster to build affordable housing.

<!-- page 81 -->
### HOW THIS GOAL AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERS FAIR HOUSING

Though Oakland is one of California’s most diverse cities overall, there is significant racial segregation between the city’s neighborhoods. As a result of past practices such as mortgage redlining, disinvestment in neighborhoods of color, racially restrictive covenants on housing development, exclusionary zoning, destructive urban renewal, highway development and predatory lending in neighborhoods of color, many of Oakland’s BIPOC residents live in neighborhoods that lack access to quality amenities or upward mobility. As higher income people move to Oakland, low-income neighborhoods of color are also more susceptible to gentrification and continue to bear infrastructure burdens from the city’s increased housing supply. In contrast, some high-resource areas remain disproportionately white in their racial composition because they are zoned primarily for single-family homes, and the absence of lower cost housing types prevents BIPOC and lower-income families from moving to these neighborhoods. See Appendices B and D for additional detail on these patterns of segregation. The City must work towards breaking down barriers towards accessing high-opportunity neighborhoods for those who choose to live there, while simultaneously investing in “lower resource” neighborhoods. Increasing affordability and expanding the housing types permitted in high-opportunity neighborhoods will be key to ensuring that currently exclusive neighborhoods become inclusive.

Many of the actions included under Goal 3 are specifically intended to break down these existing segregation patterns and provide opportunities for a range of housing types within the city’s identified high-resource areas. Action 3.3.5, the Affordable Housing Overlay, seeks to directly address this by opening up opportunities for the development of affordable housing in existing single-family home neighborhoods. The Affordable Housing Overlay action’s efficacy will be buttressed by many other actions that seek to remove constraints on the production of housing, including Action 3.2.1 (missing middle housing), Action 3.4.1 (revision to development standards), Action 3.4.3 (elimination of CUP requirements for multifamily in RD and RM zones), Action 3.4.4 (revision to parking standards), Action 3.4.5 (revision to open space requirements), Action 3.4.8 (objective design standards), Action 3.6.3 (expand by right approvals), Action 3.6.4 (implementation of SB 35), and Action 3.7.6 (greater allowance for rooming and efficiency units). Together, the City anticipates that these programs can generate additional housing production in the range of 4,000-5,000 additional units in the current Housing Element cycle, at least 1,000 of which will be directly the result of the Affordable Housing Overlay, with a goal that the programs will increase the production of lower income units in high resource areas by at least 25% over historic trends.

During the outreach process, many community members expressed a desire to see Oakland be more inclusive and retain and strengthen its diversity with a wider array of housing choices. Community members sought more duplexes, fourplexes, cottage courts, and garden apartments throughout the city. These smaller, “missing middle” housing types tend to be more affordable by design—compared to single-family homes—and thus provide additional options for first-time homebuyers, single people, and moderate-income households. These housing types can also increase the housing stock in previously built-out neighborhoods, and as such are an important factor for Oakland to meet its moderate-income RHNA target. Accessory dwelling units – also known as ADUs, granny flats, secondary units, in-law units, and backyard cottages – are another important strategy to increase the supply of housing that is more affordable by design. ADUs offer an alternative for people who want to rent but do not want to live in larger apartment complexes. ADUs tend to be located in lower-density and higher resource neighborhoods that often contain few other rental options that are affordable. As described in Appendix C, the majority of ADUs in

<!-- page 82 -->
Oakland are estimated to have rents affordable to lower-income households. The community also expressed a desire to see increased housing typologies and affordable housing throughout the city, including existing working-class neighborhoods that are currently low-resource due to systemic racism and disinvestment. Efforts specifically aimed at increasing affordable housing production are included in Policy 3.3. The City of Oakland will also continue its existing leasing preference in affordable housing for households displaced as a result of City action or who live near the affordable housing development.

On March 16, 2021 , the City Council directed the Planning Bureau to explore criteria for allowing four units on all residential parcels citywide, including in areas that are zoned to only allow single-family homes—prior to the passage of SB 9. Zoning reform actions under this goal will expand on this direction and help to open up exclusionary neighborhoods. Other housing development reforms—like permit streamlining and ADU promotion—will also help expand housing options in traditionally exclusionary neighborhoods.

<<FIGURE>>

Further, certain segments of the population face greater challenges to finding decent, affordable housing due to special characteristics. Such characteristics may include one's employment and income, family characteristics, disability, or other conditions. Thus, some residents face greater housing cost burden, overcrowding, or other housing problems.

State Housing Element law defines “special needs” groups to include persons with disabilities (including developmental disabilities), the elderly, large households, female-headed households, homeless people, and farmworkers. Many households within these special needs groups also fall within the extremely-low-income category. The special needs of individuals within these groups are wide ranging: in addition to affordable and accessible housing opportunities in proximity to transportation and other services, individuals with disabilities or who are experiencing homelessness may need on-site support and services. Meanwhile, female-headed households benefit from on-site childcare, and universal design elements such as zero-step entrances and single floor living are important considerations for senior housing.

Special needs housing is an important component of Oakland’s commitment to just and fair treatment of all individuals. It is critical that housing conditions foster an environment where everyone can participate, prosper, and reach their full potential. Actions contained within this goal will expand funding sources for affordable housing, including bonus points for serving special needs populations, will together allow for the expansion of affordable opportunities for special needs populations in high-opportunity neighborhoods. Actions related to expanding affordable housing options that are accessible to extremely-low-income households are also contained under Policy 3.1. As State funding becomes available, the City intends to create over 400 extremely-low-income housing units through Policy 3.1 and acquire 100 sites for affordable homeownership in Policy 3.8.

<!-- page 83 -->
The City works with funded providers to ensure that services and resources are prioritized for the most vulnerable populations. Vulnerable populations are identified through sources such as Oakland’s Stanford research partnership, the Urban Displacement Project, Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty, and federally identified Opportunity Zones, and will additionally include environmental justice communities identified through the Environmental Justice Element. The City will also seek opportunities to expand the number of extremely-low-income housing units built in “high resource” neighborhoods identified by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. In addition, the City conducts extensive outreach to vulnerable populations and those at highest risk of displacement, targeting specific communities and geographies including Black and African Americans, and Spanish-, Cantonese-, and Mandarin-speakers to improve access for non-English speakers—to ensure tenants are aware of their rights and the resources the City makes available. The outreach materials are also offered in multiple languages in accordance with its language access policy.

### POLICY 3.1 FACILITATE PRODUCTION OF DEEPLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING

#### Action 3.1.1. Develop a project-based rental or operating subsidy program for extremely-low-income residents.

Create a capitalized operating subsidy program for extremely-low-income households. This will enable the creation of extremely-low-income housing, which is only possible with the provision of public operating subsidies to ensure financial stability for the property and appropriate support services for the residents.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development

**Timeline:** Program will be launched by December 2023

**Potential Funding Source:** State of California Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA), Homeless Housing Assistance & Prevention (HHAP), and any and all other resources that become available for this use.

**Objective:** This program will fund project-based rental or operating subsidy for at least 16 units of extremely-low-income housing per year, for a total of at least 56 extremely-low-income units by 2031.

#### Action 3.1.2: Align and target Oakland Housing Authority Section 8 Vouchers for permanent supportive housing and extremely-low-income units.

The Oakland Housing Authority will continue targeting vouchers to support the development of extremely-low-income Housing through the award of project-based vouchers and/or other Oakland Housing Authority funds.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Housing Authority

**Timeline:** Ongoing, 2023-2031

**Potential Funding Source:** Federal Section 8 vouchers, VASH vouchers, and/or other Oakland Housing Authority funds.

**Objective:** As vouchers or funds are available, at least 20 percent of units in assisted developments will be deed restricted as extremely-low-income.

### POLICY 3.2 CREATE A MORE DIVERSE MIX OF HOMES TO MEET COMMUNITY NEEDS

#### Action 3.2.1: Develop zoning standards to encourage missing middle and multi-unit housing types in currently single-family-dominated neighborhoods, including flats, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes/rowhouses, and ADUs.

<!-- page 84 -->
The City will review and amend the Planning Code and implement objective design standards to encourage missing middle-density housing typologies, including flats, duplexes, multiplexes (triplexes, and fourplexes), bungalow courts, rowhouses/townhomes, and ADUs. The City will work to reduce pre-development costs and expedite the planning approval process for missing middle housing types resulting from both new construction and the conversion of existing structures.

The City will develop zoning standards that allow for two, three, and four units on parcels in Detached Unit Residential (RD) Zones and additional multi-unit housing types in Mixed Housing Type Residential (RM) Zones. The City will also reduce the minimum lot size in Detached Unit Residential and Mixed Housing Type Residential lots to 2,000 square feet to remove constraints on lot splitting. The City will permit a variety of building types (attached, detached, bungalow courts) to maximize flexibility, neighborhood scale and potential opportunities for homeownership (split lots and condominiums) in parallel with Policy 3.4 and Policy 5.1. See Appendix J for a summary of missing middle zoning amendments.

Under Action 3.4.1, the City will revise development standards, including allowable building heights, densities, open space and setbacks requirements.

Under Action 3.4.8, the City will develop objective design standards at the neighborhood level to ensure that multi-unit neighborhood scale housing types designed in a manner that is compatible with the scale of existing residential housing forms in these zoning districts is permitted ministerially.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees, SB2 Grant for Objective Design Standards

**Timeframe:** June – July 2023

**Objective:** Significantly increase production of multi-unit housing types (including duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes, along with other multi-unit housing types) in current single-family-dominated neighborhoods to match housing need.

### Action 3.2.2: Promote and protect live/work housing and housing for artists.

The City will update development standards, building codes, and land use regulations to promote artist housing, including joint living and working quarters (JLWQs) in areas where appropriate under the General Plan. The City will encourage employers, trade groups, and arts and cultural districts to provide housing opportunities that are affordable to artists and similar professionals. The City will continue to allow the conversion of existing commercial nonresidential buildings to JLWQs in specific commercial/industrial locations while considering the impacts on nearby viable businesses. The City will support bringing existing, unpermitted JLWQ units in commercial and industrial buildings into compliance with Building Codes and the Planning Code in a way that mitigates displacement of existing tenants and preserves affordability.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees, 2415 fund of the City, SB2 Grant for Objective Design Standards

**Timeframe:** 2025

**Objective:** Significantly increase production and protection of live/work housing and housing for artists to match housing need.

### Action 3.2.3: Promote flexibility in adaptive reuse to increase the housing stock.

The City will encourage the reuse and rehabilitation of Oakland’s historic building stock to provide additional housing units, safeguard neighborhood character, and preserve the energy embodied in the building’s original construction. The City will

<!-- page 85 -->
amend land use regulations and development standards in the Planning Code to reduce constraints on adaptive reuse of commercial buildings for residential use, and help make clear how the Historic Building Code and Alternate Materials and Methods Request (AMMRs) can be used to facilitate the adaptive reuse of older commercial buildings. Reuse in environmentally sensitive areas—including in warehouses adjacent to industrial uses—will consider health and safety impacts prior to approval.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees, SB2 Grant for Objective Design Standards

**Timeframe:** 2025

**Objective:** Significantly increase reuse and rehabilitation of historic commercial buildings for residential use to match housing need.

### Action 3.2.4: Provide financial incentives for lower-income homeowners to legalize ADUs.

The City will implement its “ADU Loan Program” to provide deferred loans to low-income homeowners who want to legalize an ADU.

Responsible Party: Oakland Planning & Building Department; Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development

<<FIGURE>>

**Potential Funding Source:** Funding for an ADU incentive program would include $3 million already awarded from the State of California’s CalHome program for a pilot program, and the City would seek ongoing State funding for ADU development in the future.

**Timeframe:** The City’s ADU Loan Program opened in Fall 2022 and will offer loans into 2023. As additional funding becomes available, the City will provide additional funding opportunities. For more information on the City’s Accessory Dwelling Unit Loan Program (ADULP), see https://www.oaklandca.gov/adulp.

**Objective:** Using the ADU CalHome grant, the City anticipates supporting at least 25 low-income and/or senior households with the cost of legalizing at least 25 Accessory Dwelling Units. This is based on the 25 loans projected for the existing CalHome grant the City has received to help low-income homeowners build ADUs.

### Action 3.2.5: Reduce constraints to the development of ADUs.

On January 18, 2022, the City updated its zoning standards related to ADUs to be consistent with State law. The adopted local ordinance clarified and simplified existing requirements and offered additional allowances to encourage creation of ADUs that went beyond the minimum requirements of State law. These additional allowances include higher maximum heights allowing for two-story ADUs, reduced setbacks in some zones, larger maximum sizes for detached ADUs, and an introduced ADU amnesty from Planning Code requirements allowing homeowners with existing un-permitted ADUs to legalize them. Also, this zoning update removed setback requirements and allowed additional envelope expansion of existing structures to create livable-size ADUs on “small lots” where ADUs would not be feasible under previous requirements.

The City’s current Planning Code already meets the requirements for recently passed ADU state laws under SB 897 and AB 2221. City Staff will work to

<!-- page 86 -->
implement the new requirements for these laws through the City’s administrative approval process.

The City will continue to provide pre-approved ADU plans on its website to facilitate reduced applicant cost and expedited review for ADUs. The City will also provide increased staffing capacity for the “one-stop shop” to distribute information to property owners, contractors, and tenants. The City will budget a new staff position for an ADU Specialist whose assignments would include community outreach and education to teach property owners about ADU construction, financing, and landlord responsibilities. The City will also consider developing a database through which property owners can find and hire local workers to build ADUs. The City will comply with State law (including recently passed SB 897 and AB 2221) and Building Code requirements for ADUs, and also study how the implementation of the Building Code may constrain the legalization of unpermitted ADUs. Oakland’s Planning & Building Department will take the lead in implementing these efforts, with support as needed from Oakland’s Department of Housing and Community Development.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees, SB2 Grant for Objective Design Standards

**Timeframe:** January 2023 (Comply with 2022 State ADU law requirements); 2023-2024 (One-Stop Shop); by 2025 (Budget a new ADU Specialist position)

<<FIGURE>>

**Objective:** Significantly increase production of ADUs to match housing need.

### Action 3.2.6: Monitor Affordability of Permitted ADUs.

Based on a recent online survey conducted by the City as well as data provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments, the Appendix C Sites Inventory estimates that ADUs produced from 2023 to 2031 will have the following projected affordability levels: 35 percent affordable to very-low-income households, 35 percent affordable to low-income households, and 30 percent affordable to moderate-income households. Based on a total projected ADU production of 1,978 units through 2031, the City has estimated that ADU construction will result in the creation of 692 very-low-income units, 692 low-income units, and 593 moderate-income units.

To ensure that Oakland’s ADU production aligns with these projections, the City will send a survey to the property owners of ADUs that received a certificate of occupancy within the prior two-year period requesting information on household size and rents charged for these recently constructed ADUs. If the survey identifies a shortfall in the numerical affordability production projections, within six months of the survey report being published the City will provide to the Planning Commission a report summarizing the survey report and identifying additional actions that can be taken to either increase the production of affordable ADUs, and/or proposing other rezoning programs that will enable additional affordable housing production to fill any identified affordable housing production shortfall.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

**Timeframe:** First survey to be conducted first quarter of 2024. Results to be presented to Planning Commission by end of 2024. Any necessary reforms to ADU regulations and/

<!-- page 87 -->
or rezoning programs to be adopted in 2025. Second survey to be conducted in first quarter 2026.

**Objective:** To match affordability projection included in Table C-8 of Appendix C, produce on average 86.5 very-low-income ADUs, 86.5 low-income ADUs, and 74 moderate-income ADUs per year.

### Action 3.2.7: Proactive Short-Term Rental Enforcement.

With limited exceptions in single-family homes with a CUP for a traditional owner-run bed and breakfast, Oakland’s current planning regulations prohibit any rental of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), single-family home, duplex, apartment/condo, live/work unit, or other dwelling unit for less than 30 consecutive days. In addition, State laws that govern ADUs do not allow for any ADU to be rented as a short-term rental of less than 30 consecutive days. The City’s code compliance division reviews zoning code violations on a complaint-driven basis, which has not sufficiently deterred property owners from operating short-term rentals that do not comply with planning regulations. Additionally, code compliance often lacks sufficient evidence to clearly document that an ADU or other dwelling unit is operating as a short-term rental.

In response, the City will pursue additional data collection tools that will allow the City to access information showing addresses of units listed on short-term rental platforms. Upon securing this data, the City will engage in proactive enforcement against property owners who are operating short term rentals in ADUs and in other dwelling units throughout the City.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** Violation Fees, permit fees, transient occupancy tax collection

**Timeframe:** Secure additional data collection tools and begin proactive enforcement in 2023.

Complaint-based enforcement is ongoing and would continue, supplemented by the additional data collection tools.

**Objective:** Reduce the number of unauthorized short-term rentals in Oakland by having bi-yearly data scrapes of short-term rental platforms and automatic mailing notifications to owners in violation.

## POLICY 3.3 EXPAND RESOURCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AFFORDABLE HOMES

### Action 3.3.1: Sale or ground-lease of City-owned property for affordable housing.

Consistent with the California Surplus Lands Act (SLA) and the Oakland Municipal Code, the City will continue to release land designated as surplus for development of affordable housing and other uses. The City will continue to release one to two surplus sites per year for permanent affordable housing development projects, noticing them via a Notice of Availability (NOA) to local Bay Area affordable housing developers, as well as to all California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) housing sponsors, consistent with the SLA. All surplus sites are tracked on the City’s website and NOAs are available on the website as well. All surplus sites disposed of pursuant to the SLA will include a minimum of 25 percent affordable units and in many cases will include up to 100 percent affordable units. If the SLA process does not conclude in an affordable housing development for a particular site, the City will issue Request for Proposals (RFP) for its designated surplus properties. If the RFP process results in an agreement with an entity that develops 10 or more residential units on the property, the City will require the entity to provide at least 15 percent of the developed units at an affordable housing cost or affordable rent to specified income groups, as required by Government Code Section 54220-54234 of the SLA. The City will consider depositing up to 100 percent of net proceeds from such sales or leases to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The

<!-- page 88 -->
Planning Bureau provides priority processing for affordable projects that are located on surplus sites. The City will also continue to seek to utilize surplus sites – as well as other City-owned or City-leased properties – for emergency housing programs (e.g., safe RV parking and community cabins) and other community-serving uses prior to disposition under the SLA. Across City-owned sites, in addition to completing EIR for rezoning by July 2023, the City will facilitate resolution with selected developers of any impediments to receiving entitlements and building permits to ensure that the project can commence construction no later than four years after site disposition and prior to January 2029.

This public lands program should include, but not be limited to:

• Annual outreach and marketing of these sites to developers, especially non-profit developers;

• Coordination across agencies, including the Mayor’s office and/or the City Administrator’s office;

• Continue negotiations and completion of any necessary rezoning efforts on identified publicly owned sites that will accommodate the RHNA;

• Facilitation and streamlining of any approvals and subsequent entitlements for proposed projects on publicly identified sites;

• Development and implementation of site-specific incentives including but not limited to financial assistance, streamlined approvals, and reduced fees, to encourage and facilitate affordable housing development on publicly owned sites.

The City will target 2,051 affordable units (as per Appendix C, Table C16b: City-Owned Sites) in the RHNA planning period, and in 2029, revisit and pursue alternative strategies as appropriate.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Economic & Workforce Development Department; Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development, Oakland Planning and Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** City subsidy

**Timeline:** The City will issue Notices of Availability and/or Requests for Proposals consistent with the SLA on at least one to two City-owned surplus sites each year for permanent affordable housing with preference for ELI or homeless households. Complete EIR for rezoning by July 2023, facilitate entitlements and building permits within four years of disposition. Conduct an evaluation in 2029 and take subsequent action to accommodate the RHNA, if necessary, within one year.

**Objective:** Issue Notices of Availability and/or Requests for Proposals consistent with the SLA on at least one to two City-owned surplus sites each year, and advance affordable housing projects underway to completion. Notices will be posted on the City’s website and distributed directly to developers, including nonprofit housing providers. Target 2,051 affordable units in the RHNA planning period, and in 2029, revisit and pursue alternative strategies as appropriate.

### Action 3.3.2: Expansion of Section 8 vouchers.

The City will continue to participate in the HUD-operated Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers program, and the City will continue to coordinate with the Oakland Housing Authority to advocate for additional funding from the federal government for more Section 8 rental assistance for very-low-income renters by documenting the need for additional housing vouchers and contacting decision-makers at HUD as appropriate. The City will also advocate for additional funding at the federal level as opportunities such as the American Recovery Act become available. Further, the City will work with nonprofit and community-based partners to educate property owners throughout the city about housing choice vouchers to encourage

<!-- page 89 -->
greater participation and to increase locational choices for voucher holders (see Action 5.2.8). In 2022, Oakland secured 515 emergency housing vouchers as part of its advocacy to expand the number of housing vouchers for Oakland residents.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Mayor’s Office, Oakland Housing Authority, Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development

**Potential Funding Source:** HUD Section 8 vouchers

**Timeline:** Ongoing, 2023-2031. As part of its landlord education efforts, the Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development will promote voucher acceptance. The Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development hosts multiple landlord education workshops each year that can serve as an opportunity for this promotion. The Mayor’s Office will lead federal advocacy during budget discussions with the federal government on an annual basis.

**Objective:** The City of Oakland Housing Authority will increase the number of vouchers being used in proportion with any future federal expansion of Section 8 or similar programs.

### Action 3.3.3: City of Oakland Emergency Rental Assistance Program.

As funding allows, the City will build on the success of the Keep Oakland Housed program (a public-private partnership) and the Federal Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) to offer homeless prevention services to those most at risk of experiencing housing instability or homelessness including rental assistance grants to distressed

<<FIGURE>>

tenants, free legal consultation, eviction defense, case management, and employment and financial counseling and other services to increase housing stability and prevention of homelessness. The City will work with community partners to provide these direct services and to advance racial equity by removing barriers to long-term housing for Black, veteran, formerly incarcerated, and other Oakland residents most likely to experience homelessness.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Housing and Community Development Department

**Potential Funding Source:** Federal ERAP funds, private contributions, other local, State, and federal resources as available

**Timeframe:** The City of Oakland allocated over $42 million of Federal and State ERAP funding for emergency rental assistance between 2020-2022 and, if resources are available, will allocate additional ERAP funds to an existing waitlist in 2023. Of the approximately 3,500 Oakland households served by the ERAP program, over 85 percent earned less than 30 percent AMI. The City of Oakland will also issue a Request for Proposals and award a contract of approximately $2.3 million to a collaborative of homelessness prevention program providers by mid-2023.

**Objective:** The City of Oakland will continue to implement a homelessness prevention program that includes emergency financial assistance, legal support and wrap around services. The program will be an extension of previous homeless prevention programs such as Keep Oakland Housed, Oakland Housing Secure, and the Emergency Rental Assistance Program with a focus on advancing racial equity by removing barriers to long-term housing for Black, veteran, formerly incarcerated, and other Oakland residents most likely to experience homelessness.

<!-- page 90 -->
### Action 3.3.4: Development of permanent housing affordable to extremely-low-income (ELI) households on public land.

The City will continue to work with development partners including Community Land Trusts, co-ops and emerging developers for possible partnerships involving City land as mentioned in Action 3.5.1 and other community partners on publicly owned sites that may be designated as surplus property. To support Action 3.3.1, the City will assist nonprofit and local developer partners to access public funding and financing to construct and increase the supply of permanently affordable rental units that are designated for extremely-low-income households. In addition, the City will ensure that permanently affordable housing for extremely-low-income households is prioritized where services and needs are accessible by transit or walking. The City will prioritize affordable housing developments that dedicate at least 20 percent of units for extremely-low-income (ELI) or homeless households in accordance with current policies. The Planning Bureau provides priority processing for affordable projects located on surplus sites. The City will review City-owned sites to identify, and, where appropriate, address land use conflicts that would prevent affordable housing development.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Economic & Workforce Development Department; Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development; Oakland Human Services Department

**Potential Funding Source:** City subsidy

**Timeline:** The City will continue to release future NOFAs contingent upon funding and staff availability. The City will issue Notices of Availability and/or Requests for Proposals consistent with the SLA on at least one to two City-owned surplus sites each year for permanent affordable housing with preference for ELI or homeless households. Complete rezoning by July 2023.

**Objective:** The City will continue to release future NOFAs contingent upon funding and staff availability. City will issue Notices of Availability and/or Requests for Proposals consistent with the SLA on at least one to two City-owned surplus sites each year, and advance affordable housing projects underway to completion. NOFAs, Notices of Availability and/or Requests for Proposals will be posted on the City’s website and distributed directly to developers, including nonprofit housing providers and community partners.

### Action 3.3.5: Implement an affordable housing overlay.

The City will create an Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) to streamline the approval of affordable housing by right. Proposed features of this overlay include ministerial approval of 100 percent affordable housing projects, increased height and density allowances, waiver of parking requirements, and reduction of zoning barriers. The City will broadly apply this overlay, except for limitations on designated historic resources as well as areas in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). The City will also study the possibility of extending the streamlined approval provisions of the affordable housing overlay to mixed income projects that qualify for the super density bonus and/or other strategies to augment the City’s density bonus program, as well as the potential for select areas within the VHFHSZ for the overlay to apply. The City will allow SROs and Rooming Houses by right in areas subject to the prospective affordable housing overlay. See Appendix J for a summary of the AHO.

100 percent affordable projects within the AHO zone would be subject to a ministerial approval process. A proposed project would be exempt from CEQA and not appealable. This would provide greater certainty to affordable housing developers that if the project is within the AHO zone and meets the objective design standards and zoning criteria listed in the Planning Code, the project will be approved and not held up through an appeal process.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

<!-- page 91 -->
**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

**Timeline:** June - July 2023

**Objective:** Enable development of additional affordable housing throughout the City, including in higher resource areas.

### Action 3.3.6: Access to low-cost financing for development.

The City currently awards local funding that affordable housing developers leverage to obtain financing for their projects. As funding allows, the City will continue to award funds to affordable housing developers on favorable terms—including simple low interest rate, payment of principal and interest due from excess cash flow from operations after payment of operating costs, senior debt, reserves and developer fee, and a 55-year loan term. The City will also continue to work with affordable developers to set loan terms in a way that will help maximize their ability to leverage funding from banks and other lending agencies. Further, the City will also continue to coordinate with developers to help ensure that they qualify for additional funding from county, State, and federal sources.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development

**Potential Funding Source:** Development impact fees, local infrastructure bond funds,

<<FIGURE>>

HOME funds, and other local, State, and federal funds as available

**Timeline:** Ongoing, 2023-2031

**Objective:** Allocate all budgeted local funding sources (approximately $12 million annually starting in 2023) to support the construction, acquisition, and/or preservation of deed restricted affordable housing units each year. With $12 million in local funding forecasted in 2023, at least 80 units could be created or preserved; of these, at least 16 would be set-aside for extremely low-income residents; the creation of extremely low-income units will be constrained by the availability of operating subsidy (see Action 3.1.1). This will result in a total of at least 640 low-income units over the Housing Element period, including 128 extremely-low-income units, which would increase if more local funds are identified or secured such as a new local bond measure dedicated to funding affordable housing.

### Action 3.3.7: Study the targeted implementation of an inclusionary housing requirement.

The City currently relies on development impact fees to provide local funding for affordable housing. A study is underway as part of the five-year impact fee update to assess the benefits of impact fees versus inclusionary affordable housing requirements. The study will consider the number of units likely to be produced through impact fees versus inclusionary affordable housing requirements and their likely affordability levels; and whether targeted inclusionary housing requirements may increase the provision of affordable housing units in higher-resource neighborhoods.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Planning & Building Department; Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

**Timeline:** By mid-2024, complete a study on

<!-- page 92 -->
targeted inclusionary housing requirements and present to Council.

**Objective:** Ensure implementation of affordable housing impact fees and/or inclusionary housing requirements maximizes production of affordable housing in all areas of the city.

### Action 3.3.8: Right-sized development fees on market-rate developments.

The City levies a number of development impact fees, including for affordable housing, to ensure that new market-rate development pays its fair share toward funding affordable housing, transportation improvements, and capital facilities. The City will regularly monitor its impact fees and ensure that appropriate amounts are set on an annual basis. Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, the City will conduct a comprehensive analysis and make findings every five years for each impact fee along with review of whether to increase fees and if the option of building affordable housing units on-site percentage is set appropriately.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Planning & Building Department; Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development; Oakland Public Works Department; Department of Transportation (DOT)

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge, permit fees, and Impact Fees

**Timeline:** Ongoing, 2023-2031; initiate next five-year update in 2026

**Objective:** Continue to monitor and adjust impact fees.

### Action 3.3.9: Adjusting or waiving City fees and payment timing for affordable housing developments.

Affordable housing developers have pointed to the impact of City fees and the timing of fee payment, including impact fees, building permits, and public art requirements, as constraints to development. The City currently requires for Affordable Housing Impact Fees only one-half of the amount of impact fees to be paid before permit issuance and the remaining half to be paid before the issuance of Certificate Of Occupancy (COO), while the Transportation and Capital Improvement Impact Fees are paid in full before building permit issuance. The City also defers other fees such as public art and school tax. The City will explore additional ways to increase flexibility in payment timing and potential fee reductions and/or waivers to reduce the burden imposed by the collection of City fees and requirements.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Planning & Building Department; City Administrator's Office; Oakland Department of Finance; City Attorney's Office

**Potential Funding Source:** Permit fees, and General Fund for any reduction of fees

**Timeline:** Review and update where possible Impact Fee and other payment timing as well as fees charged by mid-2024.

**Objective:** Explore methods to reduce cost burden of City fees and payment timing to significantly increase affordable housing development.

### Action 3.3.10: Citywide Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD).

On November 1, 2022, the Oakland City Council enacted a resolution expressing the City's interest in establishing one or more Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFD) to fund affordable housing that affirms the City's commitment to furthering fair housing and infrastructure improvements. The resolution directed the City Administrator to study proposals for the creation and implementation of an EIFD exclusively for East Oakland, exclusively for West Oakland, and a combined East and West Oakland EIFD. Upon completion of this study, the City Administrator is to return to Council with reports and recommendations. The City will consider implementing the EIFD to increase available local funding for affordable housing.

<!-- page 93 -->
An EIFD is a special taxing district that directs a portion of future property tax growth towards infrastructure expenses, including affordable housing. The Draft Downtown Oakland Specific Plan is also recommending the creation of an EIFD in the downtown area to support the construction of onsite and offsite affordable housing as part of future development in the downtown.

**Responsible Agency:** City Administrator’s Office; Oakland Department of Finance

**Potential Funding Source:** An EIFD would be a cost-recovering program for any implementation costs.

**Timeline:** By end of 2024, complete studying the implementation of one or more EIFDs and determine proposed EIFD boundaries.

**Objective:** Implement one or more EIFDs to significantly increase affordable housing development and fund infrastructure improvements to match need, if feasible and financially appropriate.

### Action 3.3.11: Support innovations by design.

The City will support and encourage innovations in construction technology to build more housing in less time, more affordably, and with fewer resources by supporting non-traditional construction methods (such as modular and other offsite construction methods). The City will meet with stakeholders periodically to discuss emerging innovations and gather more information to understand and accommodate barriers.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

<<FIGURE>>

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

**Timeline:** 2023

**Objective:** Significantly increase production of housing using construction innovations to match housing need.

### Action 3.3.12: Continue the Acquisition and Conversion to Affordable Housing (ACAH) Program.

The ACAH Program provides loans to eligible borrowers for acquisition- and rehabilitation-related costs associated with protecting and preserving long term affordable housing. The ACAH Program, formerly known as the Site Acquisition Program, was formalized through the passing and issuance of local Measure KK bond funds but continues under other funding sources even as Measure KK funds have all been allocated. With the passage of Bond Measure U, it is expected that funds from this new funding source will continue to support the acquisition and conversion to affordable housing of existing units. The City will continue to issue NOFAs as funding is available and work with borrowers—including local community land trusts—to create new affordable housing units and preserve existing ones. The City will also continue to explore additional funding sources to sustain the ACAH program.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development

**Potential Funding Source:** Development impact fees, local infrastructure bond funds, HOME funds, and other local, State, and federal funds as available

**Timeline:** The ACAH Program has issued 3 Notices of Funding Availability (NOFA) since the program's inception: in 2017, 2019, and 2020, issuing approximately $45 million to affordable housing developers through the 3 NOFAs. The Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development will continue to release future NOFAs contingent upon funding and staff availability. The next ACAH NOFA release is anticipated in December 2022, and pending

<!-- page 94 -->
City Council approval, staff expect to begin reviewing the next round of ACAH NOFA applications in 2023.

**Objective:** Provide loans to eligible borrowers for acquisition- and rehabilitation-related costs associated with protecting and preserving long term affordable housing throughout the City of Oakland. Currently the City's policy is to allocate approximately 25 percent of available local funding towards continuing the ACAH program, and future funds will be allocated contingent upon availability.

### Action 3.3.13: Expand availability of predevelopment funding and low-cost debt products for affordable housing development.

The City will continue to allocate funding to support predevelopment funding for affordable housing projects using its existing local sources, to help relieve the costs associated with the entitlement process especially for emerging and BIPOC affordable developers. The City will also identify and secure low-cost debt products for affordable housing development. To this end, the City has applied to HUD for Section 108 authority to leverage its CDBG allocation to provide low interest debt for affordable housing. Because Section 108 are hard loans that require repayment, the repayments could be revolved to support ongoing pipeline. The City will use a data-informed approach to target its resources towards both high-opportunity and historically marginalized/redlined areas. The city will also target resources to support the growth of emerging and BIPOC affordable developers.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development

**Potential Funding Source:** Development impact fees, local infrastructure bond funds, HOME and Section 108 funds, and other local, State, and federal funds as available

**Timeline:** The City applied to HUD for Section 108 authority in 2022 and will seek to use these funds starting in 2023, pending HUD approval.

**Objective:** As suitable funding and projects become available, predevelopment funding and low-cost debt products will be made available for affordable housing development.

### Action 3.3.14: Evaluate the creation of a leveraged acquisition fund or debt/equity funds for small sites to support site acquisitions for affordable housing.

Affordable housing developers indicated during outreach that competing with market-rate developers for sites posed a barrier on their ability to acquire sites for development. The City typically provides gap financing commitments during predevelopment, with funds provided at construction finance closing; acquisition is an eligible cost for reimbursement by the City's funding. While directly funding acquisition presents an earlier, riskier, and less efficient investment of the City's limited funds, in recognition of this critical need the City will consider the implementation of a leveraged acquisition fund to allow for faster and more efficient acquisition transactions. The City will also study the creation of debt and/or equity funds to support small site housing projects. If feasible and funding is available, this new fund may be similar in nature to the City and County of San Francisco's Small Sites Program, which relies on non-governmental funding for acquisition and rehabilitation, that is later taken out by City funds. The City will also assess the feasibility of raising the Council authorization threshold for site acquisition to enable the faster purchase of sites.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development

**Potential Funding Source:** Development impact fees, local infrastructure bond funds, HOME funds, and other local, State, and federal funds as available to leverage philanthropic and other outside resources.

**Timeline:** Conversations with Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) and other funders have been ongoing since 2021,

<!-- page 95 -->
but any fund will require a significant stream of new City subsidy to support takeout of acquisition loans. The City will further explore this item in 2023, pending the passage of Measure U.

**Objective:** By the end of the Housing Element Cycle, the City will be able to report on the practicality of a leveraged acquisition fund, as well as the feasibility and appropriateness of a small sites fund.

### Action 3.3.15: Continue and expand density bonus incentives.

The City will continue to implement Chapter 17.107, Density Bonus and Incentive Procedure, which was updated and adopted by the City Council on April 19, 2022. The Density Bonus Ordinance offers developers density bonuses in exchange for the provision of affordable housing and provides:

*   Greater certainty to project applicants about the City’s implementation of the State Density Bonus Law, density bonuses, and incentives for affordable housing;
*   Clarifying and accessible language that aligns the ordinance with the City’s existing density bonus application intake and regulatory agreement requirements, including clear timelines and a list of all required information;
*   Offers an opportunity to streamline the production of affordable housing; and
*   Ensures affordability of both rental and homeownership units and prevents potential displacement of existing tenants.
*   Goes beyond State Density Bonus Law to allow moderate affordable rental units to take advantage of the density bonus program in addition to moderate for sale units.

To ensure that the Chapter 17.107 remains compliant with state law, and to solicit additional ideas for incentives and expansion of the density bonus program, the City will review the density bonus program mid-cycle, bring necessary amendments to conform to state law, and solicit feedback from Planning Commission and City Council on additional incentives that could be included in the local density bonus program.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

**Timeline:** In 2025, bring forward informational report to Planning Commission and City Council on effectiveness of City’s density bonus program and in 2026 return with proposed amendments to ensure conformity with state law and incorporated any recommended policy changes.

**Objective:** Significantly expand the City’s density bonus program and increase production of density bonus projects to match housing need.

### Action 3.3.16: Analyze the Real Estate Transfer Tax structure and its current effect on the Affordable Housing subsidy and the effect on the General Purpose Fund.

The real estate transfer tax, also called a Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT), is due when a home is sold or gifted. The City will study the impact that the RPTT has on the affordable housing subsidy and the effect on the General Purpose Fund. In the study, the City will explore revisions to the RPTT including:

*   Expanding the current progressive tax;
*   The impact of reducing or waiving the tax for affordable housing; and/or
*   Using a portion of the revised tax rate as a dedicated funding stream for affordable housing. This could provide annual revenues at levels significantly higher than current Impact Fee revenue.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Department of Finance

<!-- page 96 -->
**Potential Funding Source:** General Fund Surcharge for any applicable studies

**Timeline:** Conduct the analysis and provide a recommendation to the City Council and City Administration by Fiscal Year 2023-2024

**Objective:** Complete an analysis by Fiscal Year 2023-2024.

### Action 3.3.17: Support low-income, grassroots, and BIPOC affordable housing developers.

The City will continue to work with low-income, grassroots, and BIPOC affordable housing developers to identify barriers that prevent BIPOC and small nonprofit developers from accessing City funding and navigating the permitting process. The city will continue to develop solutions to ensure that the permitting process is transparent, affordable, and accessible for these Emerging Developers, defined by Oakland HCD as “a developer who has less than five (5) years of experience as a developer and/or less than five completed projects.” The City has secured a Breakthrough Grant from the Partnership for the Bay’s Future that will dedicate a full time fellow to facilitate this work of identifying and breaking down barriers for BIPOC and emerging developers to develop affordable housing in Oakland.

**Responsible Agency:** City Administration; Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development; Oakland Planning & Building Department

<<FIGURE>>

**Potential Funding Source:** San Francisco Foundation, General Plan Surcharge, and permit fees

**Timeline:** The City’s Breakthrough Grant Fellow is currently researching and implementing strategies to address this action item from 2022 to 2024.

**Objective:** The proportion of City funding distributed for affordable housing development to low-income, grassroots and BIPOC affordable housing developers will significantly increase by 2031.

### Action 3.3.18: Implement affordable housing investments contained in Measure U

Measure KK, a bond measure passed in 2016, has provided a significant source of funding for anti-displacement and affordable housing preservation projects. The City has allocated nearly all remaining Measure KK bond funds for resident-led and community land trust-supported preservation projects and homeless acquisition projects.

The City successfully secured voter approval in November 2022 to authorize issuance of $850 million in General Obligation Bonds to fund and prioritize affordable housing preservation projects among other purposes. This Affordable Housing and Infrastructure Bond Measure (Measure U) will allocate $350 million towards affordable housing preservation projects. The City is currently conducting a robust community and stakeholder engagement process from January through March to inform the priorities of the Measure U investment in affordable housing, resulting in a bond spending plan that staff will likely seek Council approval with the biennial budget in June 2023. To this end, the City is relying on the input from stakeholders to navigate the tensions of affordable housing, such as depth of affordability vs. more affordable units, homeownership vs. rental, acquisition/conversion vs. new construction, and more. The results of the engagement will guide the investment strategy and resulting impact in affordable units expected from Measure U.

<!-- page 97 -->
**Responsible Party:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development;

**Potential Funding Source:** Measure U Bond Funds

**Timeframe:** As described in Action 3.3.12 and other actions related to the expenditure of affordable housing bond funds, expend the proceeds of Measure U

**Objectives:** Measure U secured authorization for $850 million in General Obligation Bonds with $350 million set-aside for affordable housing. For reference, for the 2016 Infrastructure Bond (Measure KK) where $600 million of General Obligation Bonds were authorized, $100 million was set-aside specifically for affordable housing and anti-displacement projects and supported the new construction of over 700 units, the preservation of 420 units, and the acquisition and conversion of over 400 units. This leverage of subsidy achieved under Measure KK may not be replicable as KK was layered onto projects that also secured County A1 bond funds, which are now also fully allocated. Measure U is estimated to result in approximately 2,300 units if applying City average subsidy investment of $150,000 per affordable unit. As discussed above, the projection will rely on the Measure U stakeholder engagement process, which may result in a different mix of projects from existing programs. To provide further context, under current City Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) process, new construction projects that set-aside more than the program minimum (currently 20 percent) of units for extremely-low-income residents will be prioritized. The City will also likely make substantial funding allocations to the Acquisition and Conversion to Affordable Housing (ACAH) and Preservation NOFAs to acquire and convert additional market rate units to affordable housing, and also preserve the City’s existing affordable housing portfolio, extending affordability restrictions, and investing in the rehabilitation of older properties where needed. Lastly the City hopes to invest Measure U funds in innovative housing models that overcome hurdles to affordable housing production, such as rapid construction strategies.

### Action 3.3.19: Sites Inventory, Pipeline Projects, and Fair Housing Accomplishments Tracking Program

As part of a mid-cycle evaluation, the City will establish a system to coordinate tracking units with Development Services staff who process permitting, to ensure that as projects are developed, there is adequate capacity available citywide to meet the City’s RHNA targets and no net loss requirements. The City will also assess the effectiveness of its AFFH programs (including Action 3.3.6), including sites that develop in higher resource areas , displacement strategies and place-based strategies toward community revitalization.

In addition, in 2027, the City will audit all pipeline projects credited in the inventory and, if necessary, identify additional capacity or rezone additional sites and maintain adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA by income group.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

**Timeline:** Audit pipeline projects as part of mid-cycle (2027) review and, if necessary, rezone additional sites by the end of 2027.

**Objective:** Identify and monitor adequate sites available for development, and increase the baseline of affordable units in high-resource areas.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 98 -->
## POLICY 3.4. REFORM ZONING AND LAND USE TO ADDRESS COMMUNITY PRIORITIES

### Action 3.4.1: Revise development standards, including allowable building heights, densities, open space and setback requirements.

The City will allow additional building heights and densities in certain corridors and districts. These changes include:

*   **Zoning for diverse housing types:** As discussed in Action 3.2.1, the City will develop revised zoning standards for a diversity of housing types in lower density neighborhoods, including but not limited to duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes in zoning districts such as the RD Detached Unit Residential, RM Mixed Housing Type Residential, and RU-1 and RU-2 Urban Residential Zones. Zoning changes will include revised standards for building heights, densities, open space, lot coverage, and setbacks. The City will also reduce minimum lot sizes to facilitate the subdivision of existing lots. The City will permit a variety of building types (attached, detached, bungalow courts) to maximize flexibility and potential opportunities for home ownership (split lots and condominiums). For front setback requirements, the City will allow for exceptions if meeting the front setback physically prohibits development of four units or two units on lots that meet the minimum square footage for that density.

*   **Elimination of Conditional Use Permits for Density:** Under Action 3.4.3, the City will also eliminate all conditionally permitted densities throughout Planning Code to permit multi-unit buildings according to objective criteria such as by building type and development size, without subjecting multi-unit residential projects to CUPs.

*   **Objective Design Standards:** Under Action 3.4.8, the City will also develop objective design standards at the neighborhood level to ensure that such missing-middle housing is designed in a manner that is compatible with existing residential housing forms in these zoning districts.

*   **Increased Heights and Densities along Corridors:** The current building height map and permitted densities along key corridors such as International, Foothill, College, Claremont, and MacArthur Boulevards does not always allow residential projects to meet their full potential. Consistent with the housing sites map, the City will undertake zoning map revisions to allow increased heights and densities. The City will also increase heights and densities on interior residential streets within close walking distance of key corridors.

*   **Increased Heights and Densities in Transit-proximate areas:** Alongside efforts to increase missing-middle housing (see Action 3.2.1), the City will increase allowed height and density in areas in close proximity to high-capacity transit, including areas near Rockridge BART and International Boulevard BRT Stations.

*   **Increased Heights and Densities in Resource-rich areas:** Oakland’s high resource neighborhoods are typically lower-density and have historically been exclusive – both economically and racially. Allowing higher density multi-unit buildings in these areas that are rich in services will help increase the competitiveness of affordable housing projects for State funding, as well as the feasibility of developing significant numbers of housing units within these neighborhoods. Zoning changes will include permitting residential densities above 30 dwelling units per acre by right in designated areas for affordable housing projects and height increases along College and Claremont Avenue. This will help further fair housing objectives by increasing the availability of affordable housing, in high resource areas.

<!-- page 99 -->
*   **Utilizing Senate Bill 10 Provisions:** Under Senate Bill 10 (Weiner) provisions, the City will identify parcels located in transit-rich areas and/or in Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) to allow up to ten units of residential density and increased heights, and provide additional opportunity for infill housing within high-resource areas.

*   See Appendix J for the City’s proposed rezoning changes to increase housing production capacity and unlock additional opportunities for affordable and “missing middle” housing in high-resource neighborhoods and affirmatively further fair housing by opening up exclusionary neighborhoods such as Rockridge, Trestle Glen, and Crocker Highlands.

    **Responsible Agency:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

    **Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

    **Timeline:** June-July 2023

    **Objective:** Reduce constraints to development to significantly increase production of housing to match housing need. Create additional opportunities for development along transit-rich areas and in urban infill sites to significantly increase production of housing to match housing need and to affirmatively further fair housing.

<<FIGURE>>

### Action 3.4.2: Study the Relationship Between Zoning and Racial Segregation as Part of the Phase 2 General Plan Update.

The City is updating the 2023-2031 Housing Element as part of a comprehensive update to the General Plan. The General Plan Update (GPU) is undertaken in two phases in order to meet deadlines mandated by State law. Phase 1 focuses on updates to the Housing and Safety Elements, as well as preparation of a Racial Equity Impact Analysis, Zoning Code and Map update, and creation of a new Environmental Justice (EJ) Element. Subsequently, Phase 2 will include the update of the Land Use and Transportation (LUTE) Element; Open Space, Conservation and Recreation (OSCAR) Element; Noise Element, and the creation of a new Infrastructure and Facilities Element which are slated to be completed by the end of 2025.

As part of the LUTE update, the City will study the impact of historic and contemporary zoning restrictions, especially single-family zoning, on ongoing patterns of racial segregation. Existing data on historic zoning patterns highlights the racial disparities in homeownership and rental patterns. The study will also analyze potential impacts of larger market rate development projects in neighborhoods undergoing displacement or vulnerable to displacement. The City will utilize this study to direct zoning changes in the LUTE as part of Phase 2 of the GPU as well as adding standard conditions of approval to projects.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

**Timeline:** Study complete by mid-2025

**Objective:** Through this study, inform zoning and land use designation changes to promote inclusive, equitable and diverse housing patterns.

<!-- page 100 -->
### Action 3.4.3: Revise Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requirements.

Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) are currently required for multi-unit buildings in the RD-2 and RM Zones, which can act as a constraint on development – especially for affordable housing. The City will revise regulations to permit multi-unit buildings according to objective criteria such as by building type and development size, without subjecting multi-unit residential projects to CUPs. Under Action 3.4.8, the City will create objective design standards and amend the Planning Code design review procedures to allow for streamlined, ministerial approval. The City will also actively promote and support use of SB 35 to streamline 100 percent affordable housing developments. These revised standards will be implemented alongside changes to Oakland’s RD, RM, and RU zones as described in Action 3.2.1.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

**Timeline:** 2023

**Objective:** Reduce constraints to development to significantly increase production of housing to match housing need.

### Action 3.4.4: Revise citywide parking standards.

Parking requirements are a major cost driver in residential development, and often conflict with sustainable development goals that seek to reduce dependence on automobile use. As such, the City recently eliminated residential parking minimums in the downtown area. Continued revisions of Oakland’s parking standards, such as elimination of parking minimums within ½ mile of major transit stop and reduction of minimum parking standards in other areas as well as lower parking maximums in downtown and new parking maximums near BART stations will be undertaken through a comprehensive review of existing residential parking standards and the identification of appropriate new standards to match long-term development and environmental goals. Additionally, for mixed-use development projects (commercial on ground floor and residential uses above), the City will revise parking requirements so that additional residential development on these sites is not constrained by any lack of conformance with commercial parking regulations. No parking will be required for Rooming Houses/SROs throughout the city with the exception of the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) (See Appendix J for a summary of Zoning changes as well as strategies regarding parking included in Oakland Equitable Climate Action Plan: Transportation and Land Use Action 1.)

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

**Timeline:** June - July 2023

July 2023

Revise citywide parking standards for all housing types and zones, including but not limited to housing inventory sites, downtown and corridors.

Implement January 1, 2023 the elimination of minimum parking requirements for residential developments within ½ mile of major transit stop to conform with state law and update Planning code by July 2023.

**Objective:** Reduce constraints to development to significantly increase production of housing to match housing.

<!-- page 101 -->
### Action 3.4.5: Revise open space requirements.

Both affordable and market-rate developers have pointed to the relatively high open space standards in Oakland as a constraint to development, especially for higher-density projects. In this context, “open space standard” refers to the city requirement for new housing to feature courtyards, patios, balconies, and other open areas in the development. As noted in Appendix F, Housing Constraints, Oakland’s open space requirements vary substantially across zoning districts, but in some cases are more than double the open space requirements seen in comparator jurisdictions. To meet these requirements, each one square foot of private usable open space is considered equivalent to two square feet of required group usable open space and may be so substituted.

To reduce this development constraint, the City will review the open space requirements in zoning designations where minimum usable open space requirements currently exceed 60 square feet of private open space/120 square feet of common open space per unit and revise common and private open space standards for multi-family developments to increase the feasibility of residential projects.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

**Timeline:** June - July 2023

Revise common and private open space standards for residential developments, and allow flexibility on its onsite location and configuration

**Objective:** Significantly reduce existing open space requirements to remove constraints on development and increase production of housing to match housing need.

### Action 3.4.6: Correct zoning district boundaries that cut through parcels.

Oakland’s Zoning Map includes many zoning district boundaries that cut through individual parcels – meaning that the same parcel is subject to multiple development standards, which can act as a development constraint. In updating the Zoning Map, the City will correct instances of this occurrence and ensure that zoning district boundaries that affect allowed height and density follow parcel boundaries to the maximum extent feasible to remove inconsistencies and ambiguities.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

**Timeline:** 2023 – 2025

**Objective:** Reduce constraints to development to significantly increase production of housing to match housing need.

### Action 3.4.7: Capture the diversity of existing built fabric in zoning.

Oakland has a diverse historic urban fabric, some of which no longer conforms to the current Planning Code. To capture and continue this diversity and remove ambiguities, the City will reduce minimum lot sizes and setbacks to facilitate the creation of small-lot developments, as well as legitimize the many existing small-lot neighborhood patterns in West Oakland and other neighborhoods. The City will conduct a comprehensive review of the Planning Code to identify where current development standards have created non-conformities for older built facilities and amend development standards to reduce or eliminate them where appropriate. The City will also provide flexibility in the objective standards to retain and promote the City’s vernacular built environment.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

<!-- page 102 -->
**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

**Timeline:** 2023 – 2026

**Objective:** Reduce constraints on development to significantly increase production of housing to match housing need.

### Action 3.4.8: Implement objective design standards.

The City currently requires design review for nearly all residential development, which can significantly lengthen the time required for project approval. To reduce the permitting timeline, the City has initiated a process to develop objective design standards to streamline the approval of residential, mixed-use, and commercial building types, with a particular focus on much-needed affordable housing projects in transit-rich areas. Objective design standards are being developed for historic buildings and districts as well. As opposed to “design guidelines,” objective design standards will not be subject to interpretation, and will result in faster, more predictable approvals of high-quality development that respects Oakland’s history and benefits the local community. Housing development projects will have the ability to utilize the objective design standards that will not require evaluation under the regular design review criteria provided under Planning Code Section 17.136.050, including the existing criteria that the project will “enhance desirable neighborhood characteristics.” Project applicants may also choose to instead utilize the regular design review criteria and process in order to have greater flexibility and creativity in design criteria.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge, permit fees, and SB2 Grant for Objective Design Standards

**Timeline:** The City will adopt objective design standards that will be available to all housing development projects by 2024

**Objective:** Reduce constraints to development to significantly increase production of housing to match housing need.

### Action 3.4.9: Implement new ADU standards that streamline approvals and address unpermitted units.

In January 2022, the City updated its ADU regulations to comply with changes in State law. To address unpermitted units, the new ADU regulations go beyond minimum compliance with State law and establish an expansive legalization process for unpermitted ADUs addressing not only any existing non-compliance issues with the Building Code but the Planning Code as well. The City has also initiated a program to allow pre-approved construction documents for ADUs that creates a more streamlined approval pathway for many homeowners The City will continue to implement this legalization and streamlining of ADU permitting processes. The City will study options to alleviate the burden of the building code on the legalization of unpermitted ADUs.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

**Timeline:** 2023 and Ongoing

**Objective:** Reduce constraints to development to significantly increase production of ADUs to help address housing need.

### Action 3.4.10: Implement a Housing Sites Overlay Zone to permit sites included in the Housing Sites Inventory to develop with affordable housing by right

Pursuant to State law, the City is required to permit vacant sites included in two consecutive prior RHNA cycles and non-vacant sites included in at least one prior RHNA to develop with owner-occupied and rental multifamily uses by right for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower-income households.

<!-- page 103 -->
This means that the City cannot require any form of discretionary review or approval for such projects.

The City will create a Housing Sites Overlay Zone to permit sites identified in the 4th and 5th RHNA cycles as part of the Housing Element’s Housing Sites Inventory (identified in Table C-26 in a separate Excel file) to build 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower-income households to be subject to by-right approval. In addition, the City will also look at ways to incentivize developers to build affordable housing on newly included sites identified through the 6th RHNA cycle in the Housing Sites Overlay. All parcels within the Housing Sites Overlay Zone (whether they were in the 4th or 5th cycles or new in the 6th RHNA cycle) if redeveloped will be required to be developed as a majority-residential use. A 100% non-residential use will not be allowed in this overlay. In addition, minimum densities proportional to the realistic capacity on any given site in the inventory will be required. If current development standards prevent maximum densities (plus state density bonus law) from being achieved on any given site in the inventory, the City will revise development standards to ensure that maximum densities can be achieved.

This action is intended facilitate housing opportunities in Oakland and to bring attention to those sites that the City intends for housing to be built pursuant to State requirements.

This means that the City cannot require any form of discretionary review or approval for such projects. A proposed project would also not be subject to CEQA and would not be appealable. This would provide greater certainty to projects building at least 20% affordable units that if the project is within the Housing Sites Overlay Zone and meets the objective design standards and zoning criteria listed in the Planning Code, the project will be approved and not held up through an appeal process.

See Appendix J for a summary of the Housing Sites Overlay Zone.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

**Timeline:** June - July 2023

**Objective:** Reduce constraints to development to significantly increase production of housing to match housing need.

### Action 3.4.11: Promote educator and/or student housing on public land by reviewing the zoning and General Plan designations of Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) and Peralta Community College District-owned sites for consistency with housing.

Several school districts and community college districts in California have successfully built affordable housing for educators and/or students on their property. In some cases, this housing was built on district offices and other non-instructional sites. In other cases, housing was carefully co-located with an active school campus. The State has also recently invested hundreds of millions towards student housing on community college property. The City will review OUSD- and Peralta-owned sites to identify, and when practical correct, land use conflicts that would prevent affordable housing development.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

**Timeline:** 2025 with the adoption of the Land Use and Transportation Element

**Objective:** Reduce constraints to development to allow for at least one educator and/or student housing project during the sixth cycle RHNA period.

<!-- page 104 -->
## POLICY 3.5. EXPLORE INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE HOUSING MODELS

### Action 3.5.1: Support community land trusts and other shared equity models.

The City has worked with a variety of community land trusts, including East Bay Permanent Real Estate Cooperative, Sogorea Te’, Oakland Community Land Trust, Bay Area Community Land Trust and the Northern California Land Trust to provide affordable housing (including ownership housing). Most significantly, the City created the Acquisition and Conversion to Affordable Housing (ACAH) Program, which has provided funds through Bond Measure KK to community land trusts to acquire and preserve affordable housing units (see Action 3.3.10). Starting in 2019, the ACAH Program was bifurcated into two subprograms to establish a set-aside for community land trusts and limited equity housing cooperatives after Council passed the 2019-21 Budget, which allocated $12 million to the Preservation of Affordable Housing Fund (PAHF). The City will continue to offer the ACAH Program and support community land trusts and limited equity housing cooperatives using additional funding sources. The City is also working with a technical assistance provider to determine best practices for land trust ownership units and cooperative units and will implement these practices going forward. Financial or technical assistance may become available from the Bay Area Housing Finance Agency (BAHFA) or possible State programs. The City will prioritize lower-income residents and residents at risk of displacement while supporting shared equity models.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development

**Potential Funding Source:** Impact fees, General Fund Surcharge, infrastructure bond funds, HOME, Measure U Bond Funds, CDBG, and other local, State, and federal funding as available

**Timeline:** Funds will be made available to equity affordability models through the City’s annual affordable housing NOFAs on an annual or bi-annual basis (2023-2031). The next ACAH NOFA release is anticipated in December 2022.

**Objective:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development will continue to make funds available to shared equity affordability models as per current practice.

### Action 3.5.2: Support housing cooperatives, co-living, and cohousing models.

Formal and informal housing cooperatives, co-living and cohousing models in Oakland have traditionally provided an alternative form of affordable housing, including ownership housing. To further support these initiatives, the City will conduct outreach with community-based organizations and other community partners to identify ways the City can support these models, especially for lower-income residents. The City will prioritize lower-income residents and residents at risk of displacement when supporting these alternative housing models. The City will study how the Planning Code and building occupancy standards affect the viability of these models. The Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development will also continue to support cooperatives and community land trusts through its Acquisition and Conversion to Affordable Housing program.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development, Oakland Planning and Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** Impact fees, General Fund Surcharge, Measure U bond funds, HOME, CDBG, and other local, State, and federal funding as available

**Timeline:** Since 2019, the Acquisition and Conversion to Affordable Housing (ACAH) program has included set-asides for coops and community land trusts, based on input received from community stakeholders. $12 million was allocated through the 2019-2021 budget, and the

<!-- page 105 -->
City will continue to implement a significant set-aside in future ACAH NOFAs, which are expected to be issued at least every other year through the 2023-2031 Housing Element cycle depending on staffing capacity and funding availability. The next ACAH NOFA is anticipated to be released in December 2022 (see Action 3.3.10). Planning Code amendments permitting rooming house facilities/SROs will be completed by June – July 2023 under Action 3.7.6. In 2024-2025 the City will study the Planning Code and building occupancy standards as well as part of the update to the Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) and Planning Code

**Objective:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development will continue to make funds available to housing cooperatives as per current practice. The City will also include cooperatives, co-living and cohousing models in its study of the Planning Code and building occupancy standards.

### Action 3.5.3: Advocate for statewide legislation on social housing.

The City of Oakland recognizes that the statewide housing crisis requires statewide solutions. As such, the City will advocate for social housing legislation under consideration in the State legislature, known as the California Social Housing Act or AB 2053. The Act would establish a California Housing Authority (CHA) to produce and preserve social housing – publicly-owned and mixed-income developments that maintain homes as permanently affordable. In addition, the City will track and advocate for statewide efforts to repeal Article 34 of the State Constitution that directly inhibits the ability of local jurisdictions to meet RHNA goals.

<<FIGURE>>

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development

**Potential Funding Source:** City legislative advocacy will be funded through the existing general fund-supported contract for State legislative representation services.

**Timeline:** Ongoing, 2023-2031; the City will continue advocacy for social housing and Article 34 repeal legislation until it is adopted.

**Objective:** The State of California will successfully adopt social housing legislation and repeal Article 34.

### Action 3.5.4: Monitor and consider adopting shallow subsidy programs for lower-income households.

The City will continue to evaluate the merits of shallow-subsidy acquisition and development models to assist in the construction or preservation of housing for lower-income households, potentially in partnership with other regional agencies including Alameda County and the Bay Area Housing Finance Authority. However, such a program typically involves acquisition of rent-stabilized housing stock, which often enjoy strong protections under Oakland’s Rent Adjustment Program. Recent changes to the Rent Adjustment Program Ordinance may provide equal or greater benefit to target households as a shallow subsidy affordable housing program. For this reason, it would make sense to evaluate the impact of these changes before further considering the adoption of a program.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development

**Potential Funding Source:** The model could be financed by de minimis appropriations of general fund revenue, with additional ongoing subsidies in the form of property tax abatements.

**Timeline:** By December 2025, the Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development will conduct an analysis of the added benefits a project-based shallow

<!-- page 106 -->
subsidy program may bring, compared to the benefits associated with existing rent stabilization measures.

**Objective:** Use property tax abatements to preserve, improve, or increase the supply of housing available to lower-income households

### Action: 3.5.5: Study Feasibility of Single-Stair Residential Buildings.

Building regulations serve to establish minimum safety standards in construction. Historically, fire and life safety strategies have focused on standards that ensure building occupants are able to safely evacuate a building during an emergency. Modern strategies focus more on containing fires where they occur through sprinkler systems, fire alarms, pressurized stairwells, fire-treated lumber, and similar strategies.

The California Building Code Section 1629 currently requires buildings to provide a minimum of two stairways in buildings exceeding 3 stories or 36 feet, and California Building Code Section 1006.2.1 generally requires two means of egress where the design occupant load exceeds values specified in an accompanying table. In contrast, the City of Seattle allows for building up to six stories to include only one stairway for egress, and many European residential buildings are constructed as tall as ten stories with single-stair access. A single-stair, or vertical shared access, building construction allows for greater flexibility in design, more efficient layouts, and potentially reduced costs. Currently, there are gaps in available data regarding the impact of these building code requirements on increasing construction cost and the safety benefits of requiring a second egress in combination with fire containment strategies.

The City of Oakland cannot unilaterally relax these California Building Code stairway and egress code requirements; change would be required at the state level. Nonetheless, to catalyze discussion on the issue and prepare for implementing future reforms, the City will study current stairway and egress requirements, including consideration of what cost savings could be incurred through revision of the second egress requirement and review of any potential fire safety concerns.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Planning & Building Department; Oakland Fire Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees.

**Timeline:** The City will present a report on the topic of existing second egress requirements and the impact of potential reforms to the Oakland Community and Economic Development Committee of City Council by the end of 2024.

**Objective:** Create additional information on single-stair reform that could assist in promoting statewide changes to the California Building Code second egress requirements.

## POLICY 3.6. STREAMLINE THE APPROVAL OF NEW HOUSING

### Action 3.6.1: Streamline the City permitting process, especially for low-income and nonprofit builders.

The City will work with developers and housing stakeholders, particularly low-income and nonprofit builders, to review current processes and fees to identify actions to reduce costs and streamline the planning approval and building permit processes for small infill development. These actions could involve developing simplified CEQA compliance through qualified exemptions, implementing objective design standards as described in Action 3.4.8, and/or increasing staffing at the Planning and Building Bureaus to reduce permit processing time. The City will regularly review and update its website to improve navigation and make information such as fee schedules, application forms, zoning ordinances, and other information available on the City’s website, along with other educational information to facilitate the permit process.

<!-- page 107 -->
**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

**Timeline:** 2023 – 2025 and ongoing

**Objective:** Significantly increase production of housing projects, specifically by low-income and nonprofit builders, to match housing need.

### Action 3.6.2: Provide increased flexibility in development standards.

The City will provide increased flexibility in development standards, with a focus on smaller infill residential projects, to ensure that these projects can qualify for streamlined permitting without need for variances. The City will also consider increasing staff-level authority, with clear guidelines, to grant minor exceptions without the need for a variance, which can also reduce project timelines and costs. Alongside the efforts described in Actions 3.2.1, this flexibility will increase the capacity of the Planning Bureau to permit a variety of units, more expediently, creating more residential units in traditionally lower-density neighborhoods.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

**Timeline:** 2023 – 2025 and ongoing

**Objective:** Significantly increase production of housing projects, specifically by low-income and nonprofit builders, to match housing need.

### Action 3.6.3: Expand by-right approvals and implement entitlement reform for affordable housing.

Through the implementation of objective design standards as described in Action 3.4.8, the City will create a ministerial review pathway for qualifying developments based on project size, type, affordability level, and location. Discretionary design review will still be required for some types of projects and where certain adjustments are requested. As part of the entitlement reform process, the City will consider fee subsidies and/or payment deferrals to better accommodate affordable housing projects and increase the financial feasibility of affordable projects (see Action 3.3.9). The City will work with community partners and affordable housing developers to identify and implement appropriate entitlement reform actions.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Planning & Building Department; Oakland Department of Finance

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

**Timeline:** 2023 – 2025 and ongoing

**Objective:** Significantly increase production of housing projects, specifically by low-income and nonprofit builders, to match housing need.

### Action 3.6.4: Continue SB 35 streamlining and encourage projects to use it.

SB 35 created a streamlined and ministerial approval process for housing projects that meet siting and construction criteria including being located in communities that have failed to meet their RHNA. The City of Oakland was among the 225 jurisdictions that made insufficient progress towards meeting the RHNA for low- and very-low-income housing at the time of the State’s most recent determination in 2021 and is therefore subject to the streamlining provisions for proposed development in which 50 percent or more of the units will be affordable. The City provides an SB 35 streamlining checklist to facilitate the development of affordable housing, and will actively promote use of SB 35 streamlining for 100 percent affordable projects.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

**Timeline:** 2023 and ongoing

<!-- page 108 -->
**Objective:** Significantly increase production of housing projects, specifically by low-income and nonprofit builders, to match housing need.

**Action 3.6.5: Continue one-stop and online permitting services.**

Through the Online Permit Center (Accela Citizen Access), property owners are able to apply for and follow the status of their permits online. The City also operates an in-person One-Stop Permit Center, where the counter services of the Planning & Building Department, Oakland Fire Department, and Department of Transportation have been combined in one location to expedite the permitting process. The City will continue to offer both online and in-person permitting services to reduce permitting timelines. The City will also coordinate with affordable housing developers to understand and correct the gaps in these services.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

**Timeline:** 2023 – 2031

**Objective:** Significantly increase production of housing projects, specifically by low-income and nonprofit builders, to match housing need.

### POLICY 3.7. EXPAND OPTIONS FOR SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING

**Action 3.7.1: Incentivize the development of senior housing and provide financial assistance to developers of housing for seniors and persons with special needs.**

The City will continue to encourage a wide variety of senior housing opportunities, particularly for lower-income seniors with special needs, through the provision of financial assistance and regulatory incentives as specified in the Planning Code. The City will continue to award points in its consideration of housing funding to projects that serve special needs populations, including seniors and homeless individuals. The City will explore options to expand the amount of financial assistance available to developers of housing for seniors and persons with special needs and will commit to transparent reporting of how special needs units are assisted. Special needs populations may include, but are not limited to, formerly incarcerated individuals, former foster youth, and persons with developmental disabilities.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development; Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** Development impact fees, HOME, local infrastructure bond funds, and other local, State, and federal funding as available

**Timeline:** Ongoing 2023-2031; By December 2023, the City will complete an analysis of how the clients served by its funded affordable housing compare to the demographics of Oakland residents, including an analysis of age.

**Objective:** The City will continue to provide bonus scoring points for special needs populations as found in current practices.

**Action 3.7.2: Provide housing for persons with HIV/AIDS.**

The City will continue to provide housing and associated supportive services for persons with HIV/AIDS through a combination of development of new housing, project-based assistance in existing affordable housing developments; and tenant-based assistance to allow households to find their own housing in the private market. The City will enhance outcomes via housing first model under the Alameda County EveryOne Home Plan.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development

**Potential Funding Source:** Development impact fees, HOME, HOPWA, local

<!-- page 109 -->
infrastructure bond funds, and other local, State, and federal funding as available

**Timeline:** Ongoing, 2023-2031

**Objective:** The City will continue to provide bonus scoring points for special needs populations as found in current practices.

### Action 3.7.3: Accessible units in new housing developments.

The City of Oakland’s Housing Development Services division will uphold and align with State and Federal funding requirements for accessibility standards, which for most new construction projects requires at least double requirements under ADA and State building codes.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development

**Potential Funding Source:** Development impact fees, HOME, local infrastructure bond funds, and other local, State, and federal funding as available

**Timeline:** Ongoing, 2023-2031

**Objective:** The City will continue to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act, among other local, state, and federal laws to ensure accessible units are included in new housing developments.

### Action 3.7.4: Implement the sponsor-based Housing Assistance Program.

The City will continue to work with the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) to assist households that otherwise might not qualify for or be successful in the traditional Public Housing and/or Section 8 programs by partnering with agencies to provide service-enriched housing options that increase housing choice for special needs populations. The City will explore options to find more landlords willing to participate in the program.

OHA has its own community and social services arm, the Family and Community Partnerships Department (FCP). FCP educates and assists residents including search assistance and also works closely with owners during the leasing process to remove barriers and identify needed resources. OHA offers an array of Owner Benefits such as vacancy loss, an owner leasing bonus, and repair cost assistance. OHA’s operations include two dedicated Owner Services teams and ongoing owner focused activities such as our Owner online Portal, educational webinars and emails, electronic forms options and outreach events such as our Owner Appreciation Day.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Human Services Department; Oakland Housing Authority

**Potential Funding Source:** Development impact fees, HOME, local infrastructure bond funds, and other local, State, and federal funding as available

**Timeline:** Between 2023-2031, the City and OHA will promote and encourage OHA landlords to participate in this program through ongoing activities and annual events.

**Objective:** The City will continue to work with the Oakland Housing Authority to support households successfully finding housing.

### Action 3.7.5: Encourage a range of unit sizes for affordable housing that matches local household needs and family sizes.

The City will regularly review household size data from affordable housing application portals and waitlists to ensure that affordable housing production is aligned with community needs. City affordable housing funding priorities will be adjusted as needed to be aligned with demand across the spectrum of unit sizes and housing types. This may include large units suitable for multi-generational families, studios and efficiency units for individuals, and projects with common areas appropriate to seniors, families, or other demographic groups.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development;

<!-- page 110 -->
Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** Development impact fees, HOME, local infrastructure bond funds, and other local, State, and federal funding as available

**Timeline:** The City will monitor available data from affordable housing application portals to comprehensively evaluate the unit size needs of Oakland residents and adjust NOFA scoring accordingly, to prioritize allocating City funds to projects by 2024. Furthermore, the City will aim to regularly evaluate local household needs prior to NOFA releases. This will be prioritized, but not limited to, the new construction NOFA released approximately every other year to ensure affordable housing production is aligned with community needs.

**Objective:** The City will adjust scoring points as needed to encourage housing typologies that reflect local household needs.

### Action 3.7.6: Expand areas where rooming units and efficiency units are permitted by right.

The Oakland Planning Code currently provides for rooming units/SROs to be developed at twice the residential density otherwise allowed for regular dwelling units in Neighborhood Center, Community Commercial, Central Business District, Housing and Business Mix, and Transit-Oriented Development Commercial Zones, as well as within the special districts for implementation of the Broadway Valdez, Lake Merritt, and Coliseum Specific Plans. Recent Planning Code amendments similarly allow for efficiency units to be built at twice the density of more typically sized residential dwelling units. The City will expand these provisions to additional zoning districts, including in zones covered by the proposed affordable housing overlay. As stated in Action 3.5.2, the City will also revise the Planning Code to permit rooming house facility types more similarly to multifamily residential facilities. These smaller, more modest units are more likely to be a source of naturally occurring affordable housing over the long term, while also allowing new development to align with current demographic trends towards smaller household sizes.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

**Timeline:** June – July 2023

**Objective:** Enable increased production of rooming units and efficiency units.

### Action 3.7.7: Amend Planning Code to comply with the Employee Housing Act.

Farm and agricultural employee housing is a type of employee housing under the Employee Housing Act, California Health and Safety Code Sections 17000 et seq. Section 17021.5 of the Employee Housing Act requires that any employee housing providing accommodations for six or fewer employees shall be deemed a single-family structure with a residential land use designation, and not be subject to any conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other zoning clearance that is not required of a family dwelling of the same type in the same zone. Section 17021.6 of the Employee Housing Act requires employee housing consisting of no more than 36 beds in a group quarters or 12 units designed for use by a single family or household to be deemed an agricultural land use. The City will amend the Oakland Planning Code to modify the definitions of Limited Agricultural Activities, Extensive Agricultural Activities, and One-Family Dwelling Residential Facilities to comply with the Employee Housing Act.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

**Timeline:** June-July 2023

**Objective:** Ensure compliance with the Employee Housing Act.

<!-- page 111 -->
### Action 3.7.8: Expand areas where Residential Care Facilities are permitted by right.

The Oakland Planning Code currently permits residential care facilities in residential and nonresidential zones if located in single family dwellings. Conditional Use Permits are required for residential care facilities if they are located in any other residential facility type and/or when located on the ground floor of a street fronting building in certain commercial zones. The City will amend the Planning Code to expand where residential care facilities are permitted by right. In addition, the City will continue existing zoning practices, or amend the Planning Code as necessary, to ensure that both residential care facilities of seven or more and unlicensed care facilities (facilities that are not required to be licensed by the State), are allowed in all zones allowing residential uses and permitted similar to other residential uses of the same form in the zone. The City will amend the Planning Code to ensure residential care facilities are not subject to review criteria that the proposal will not detract from the character desired for the area. The amendments will include all residential facility types and those located on the ground floor of a street fronting building. In addition, the City will amend the Planning Code to allow residential care facilities for foster family homes and the elderly within 300 feet of another residential care facility, since the State calls out this exemption in the overconcentration restriction in California Health and Safety Code Section 1520.5.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

**Timeline:** June-July 2023

**Objective:** Enable expansion of residential care facilities by right and allow the exemption of facilities for foster family homes and the elderly in the overconcentration restriction provided in California Health and Safety Code Section 1520.5.

## POLICY 3.8. CONVERT VACANT LAND AND UNITS TO HOUSING

### Action 3.8.1: Continue to implement the Vacant Property Tax (VPT).

On November 6, 2018, Oakland voters approved Measure W, the Oakland VPT. The VPT Act establishes an annual tax of $3,000 to $6,000 on vacant property. A property is considered “vacant” if it is “in use less than fifty days in a calendar year,” and not subject to any of 10 exemptions. The City will continue to implement the VPT to encourage active uses on vacant land and regularly monitor the effectiveness of the program. The City will analyze expansion of exemptions to the VPT to reduce the impacts of unintended hardships on nonprofit and affordable housing developers, discussed under Action 3.8.3. As directed by Council, funding from this measure may be spent on homeless services, affordable housing, and illegal dumping cleanup.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Department of Finance; Department of Human Services; Oakland Planning & Building Department, Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development

**Potential Funding Source:** Self-funding through the vacant property tax

**Timeline:** End of 2023 (Analysis of exemptions will be complete)

**Objective:** Through the vacant parcel tax, seek a 10 percent reduction in vacant parcels by the end of the Housing Element period.

### Action 3.8.2: Encourage the conversion of vacant ground floor commercial space to residential uses in appropriate locations.

Traditional brick-and-mortar commercial and retail businesses have continued to transition to an Internet-based model, which has been further accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, a significant number of ground-floor commercial and retail spaces in Oakland remain vacant.

<!-- page 112 -->
<<FIGURE>>

The City will explore opportunities to promote the conversion of vacant ground floor spaces in certain areas to live/work or other residential use, as may be appropriate in the local context. The City will also explore other opportunities to promote the conversion of vacant office or commercial space to housing, in alignment with the recently passed AB 2011 and SB 6.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

**Timeline:** 2023 - 2026

**Objective:** Expand the areas where residential space is an allowable ground-floor use.

### Action 3.8.3: Tax vacant residential rental units.

Although housing demand in Oakland remains extremely high, the City experiences a higher vacancy rate than both Alameda County and the Bay Area overall. This results from a variety of factors but may ultimately lead to higher housing costs. Oakland currently has in place vacancy tax on parcels and several types of housing units – including condos, duplexes, and townhome units under separate ownership. The City will consider extending the current vacancy tax to all residential units to encourage active use of residential units and expand the available housing supply.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Department of Finance

**Potential Funding Source:** General Fund

**Timeline:** Consider by the end of 2026 whether the vacant parcel tax ought to be revised or expanded

**Objective:** Increase the housing stock by ensuring existing units are made available to rent.

### Action 3.8.4: Continue the Oakland Community Buying Program and support scattered site acquisition efforts.

The City continues to administer the Community Buying Program, a collaboration since 2012 between PBD, HCD, Revenue, and others with the goal to repurpose blighted tax-defaulted parcels and turn them into affordable housing for low income renters or moderate income Oakland homebuyers. In 2017 the City used the 3.8.5 Tax-Default Pilot Program process to purchase the initial 26 parcels. The program which in the past

<!-- page 113 -->
has been funded by State. that were expanded the housing supply through programs like the Oaktown Roots Affordable Homes pilot program and local community land trusts, like the Oakland Community Land Trust and the Bay Area Community Land Trust. These programs also help promote long-term affordable homeownership, which will also promote the objectives of Policy 5.1. Through the Oaktown Roots Affordable Homes pilot program, which commenced in 2017, 18 vacant parcels were developed into homes resulting in 17 families achieving homeownership, with one additional family scheduled to join them in 2023. Five ownership parcels and two rental parcels remained undeveloped and are scheduled for feasibility analysis survey and then reassignment. The City is conducting a robust community and stakeholder engagement process leading up to the bond spending plan for Measure U, as well as a legal analysis on what Measure U funds can support (including the Community Buying Program). As well, the City has secured a Breakthrough Grant Fellow as discussed in Actions 3.3.17 and 3.8.5 that would repurpose blighted tax defaulted parcels for these policy goals of affordable production and contracting equity for emerging and BIPOC-led developers.

**Responsible Agency:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development; Oakland Department of Finance

**Potential Funding Source:** Development impact fees, HOME, local infrastructure bond, and other local, State, and federal funding as available

<<FIGURE>>

**Timeline:** Ongoing, 2023-2031

**Objective:** As additional funding is available, continue to convert vacant parcels to affordable housing.

### Action 3.8.5. Partner with Alameda County Tax Collector to redevelop tax defaulted properties.

Partner with the Alameda County Tax Collector to identify tax-defaulted property suitable for development or preservation as affordable housing. Through use of the Chapter 8 tax sale program, make this property available to affordable housing providers, community land trusts, and related organizations, either by encouraging nonprofits to directly acquire through Chapter 8, or by pulling properties from auction to administer through a City program. Oakland Housing & Community Development has secured a full-time fellow through the Breakthrough Grant Program to focus on creating an emerging developer program (Action 3.3.17), and exploring how tax-defaulted properties, among other development and funding opportunities, could be leveraged as an entry point for emerging developers.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development, Oakland Economic and Workforce Development Department

**Funding:** Contributory value of the land, impact fees, HOME, other local, State, and federal funds as available

**Timeline:** Ongoing, 2023-2031. Breakthrough Grant fellow completes BIPOC and emerging developer program development in 2023, and will analyze tax-defaulted property program opportunities by end of his term in 2024.

**Objective:** As funding, partners, and suitable parcels become available, tax defaulted properties will become available as affordable housing.

<!-- page 114 -->
## Goal 4. Address Homelessness and Expand Services for the Unhoused

The City of Oakland is facing an unprecedented humanitarian crisis of residents who are experiencing homelessness. As the United Nations notes in its mandate on the right to adequate housing, the right to adequate housing is more than having a roof over one’s head, it is the right to live in safety and dignity in a decent home; HUD Secretary Fudge has declared that “housing is a human right.” Goals, policies, and actions in this Housing Action Plan recognize housing as a human right. and that permanent housing is the solution to homelessness. Policies and actions proposed as part of Goal 3 seek to expand affordable housing options. Goal 4 seeks to address homelessness through strategies that enable coordination across the spectrum, from homelessness prevention to transitional housing/shelter and services to permanent supportive and deeply affordable housing with resources for long-term support.

### HOW THIS GOAL AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERS FAIR HOUSING

Homelessness disproportionately impacts Oakland’s BIPOC residents, particularly the city’s Black residents. Further, special needs households—including extremely-low-income households—tend to be at greater risk of experiencing homelessness. Addressing homelessness and providing high quality services to the unhoused is also a racial equity issue and must be part of the City’s efforts to affirmatively further fair housing. By expanding access to quality homelessness services across Oakland, and seeking to expand transitional housing options in a citywide manner, the City will work to avoid an overconcentration in homelessness and homelessness-related services in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Further, by expanding economic opportunities for the unhoused, Oakland will help those currently unhoused access housing opportunities in a variety of Oakland neighborhoods. This goal, and the policies and actions that implement it, will address fair housing issues as they relate to homelessness in Oakland.

As stated in Action 4.1.3, the City’s goal is to serve 100 curbside sites by FY 2024-2025 and add four City outreach staff. In addition, the City will continue to support six projects that have been awarded through past rounds of Homekey and allocate at least 25 percent of its Round 3 matching funds to projects serving Transition Aged Youth (TAY) clients, through a separate scoring pool for TAY-serving project (Action 4.3.1).

Using an equity approach, the City works with funded providers to ensure that these services and resources are prioritized for the most vulnerable populations. Vulnerable populations are identified through sources such as Oakland’s Stanford research partnership, the Urban Displacement Project, Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty, and federally identified Opportunity Zones, and will additionally include environmental justice communities identified through the Environmental Justice Element. In addition, the City conducts extensive outreach to vulnerable populations and those at highest risk of displacement, targeting specific communities and geographies including Black and African Americans, and Spanish-, Cantonese-, and Mandarin-speakers to improve access for non-English speakers. Finally, the City will revise the Oakland Planning Code to permit by right, without discretionary review, emergency shelters citywide when located on properties owned by churches, temples, synagogues, and other similar institutions approved for Community Assembly Civic Activities and also remove any minimum automobile parking requirements for emergency shelters (Action 4.3.6).

<!-- page 115 -->
## POLICY 4.1 EXPANSION OF HOMELESS SERVICES

### Action 4.1.1: Expand, improve, and maintain crisis response beds.

Since 2018, the City has expanded its supply of emergency interim housing (community cabins, shelter beds, Safe RV parking) by over 1,000 beds/spaces. This increase is almost entirely funded by one-time funds. The City will use local, county, State, and federal funding to maintain these new resources and to improve the effectiveness of these beds in moving people to permanent housing (for example, by adding rapid rehousing exit resources). In addition, the City will continue to expand the interim housing sites and other forms of housing for people experiencing homelessness in the City. The City will ensure that such housing options include supportive services such as rapid rehousing assistance, housing navigation, and access to resources via Coordinated Entry. The City will seek to partner with Alameda County to provide mental health and substance use services in interim sites and will partner with mainstream workforce programs to support on site job training programs. The City will coordinate efficient provision of services and resources from private, nonprofit, local, Alameda County, and State organizations

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Human Services Department

**Potential Funding Source:** Measure Q, ESG, State Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention Funding, various HUD funding sources, CalAIM (through County)

**Timeframe:** Expand on the availability of outreach and social services to increase connections to emergency, interim, and long term housing supports by 2031

**Objectives:** 1. Increase the number of people who are experiencing homelessness in Oakland who are sheltered; and 2. Invest in and improve the quality of interim housing programs so that more people exit to permanent housing and more people exit to permanent housing more quickly.

### Action 4.1.2: Expand, improve, and maintain crisis response beds, especially for unsheltered communities of color.

Increasing the number of crisis response beds helps to address the disproportionate rates of unsheltered homelessness among communities of color, especially among African American households. Creating additional facilities in many parts of the city will assist households experiencing homelessness to remain in their communities will reduce the number of African American households who are displaced from Oakland. The City will track data to ensure that African American households are using emergency crisis response beds and exiting to permanent housing at rates that are proportional to their representation in the homeless population. The Centering Racial Equity in Homeless Response System Design (Berkeley, Oakland, Alameda County Continuum of Care published in 2021) outlines suggested investment for scaling to solutions for unsheltered communities of color utilizing recent Point in Time count data.

**Responsible Party:** Homelessness Division, Office of the City Administrator; Oakland Human Services Department

**Potential Funding Source:** Local, State, and federal funding, as available

**Timeframe:** The City of Oakland will continue to develop a data informed strategy for increasing equitable investments in homelessness systems to serve people of color by 2031.

**Objectives:** Increase and stabilize people while providing opportunities to improve income they need to avoid entering or returning to homelessness.

<!-- page 116 -->
<<FIGURE>>

#### Action 4.1.3: Expand health and hygiene facilities and services, and improve access to bathrooms and showers.

Starting in FY 20-21, this intervention has greatly expanded to serve a minimum of 60 curbside sites with porta-potties, handwashing stations, and garbage pick-up. Oakland’s Human Services Department has created two new outreach staff positions whose primary role is to support the participating encampments with maintaining the services, cleanliness, and compliance with the Encampment Management Policy. These City staff also support designated site leadership at each encampment site. The site leaders ensure that the porta-potties are used appropriately, and keep the units clean in between the official servicing. City staff provide the site leaders with cleaning supplies and stipends for their work. Per Council directive, the goal is to increase to 100 sites and four City outreach staff.

**Responsible Party:** Homeless Division, Office of the City Administrator; Oakland Human Services Department

**Potential Funding Source:** State Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention Funding, City General Fund

**Timeframe:** FY 2022-2023 – FY 2024-2025

**Objectives:** More people experiencing unsheltered homelessness have access to services which promote health and dignity.

#### Action 4.1.4: Provide needed support and income to people who have been homeless so they can avoid returning to homelessness.

Recognizing that a lack of access to living wage jobs is a significant driver of homelessness in Oakland, the City will work with the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD), higher educational institutions, related nonprofit agencies, business and other partners to create low barrier work opportunities for people who are currently unsheltered. These programs will offer support for development of work-related skills, provide services to address employment barriers specifically targeted to the needs of unhoused residents and increase the co-location and collaboration between providers of homeless assistance and employment programs and services. In addition, the City will work to match small business owners who want to address homelessness with job seekers who are homeless or formerly homeless.

Strategies to include:

• Low barrier work opportunities, for people rentering the workforce

• Add employment specialist positions in core homeless services/prevention services programs

• Flexible funding pool to support career track training and employment programs

• Benefits advocacy to obtain SSI or other income for which they are eligible

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Human Services Department; Economic and Workforce Development Department; Homelessness Division, Office of the City Administrator

**Potential Funding Source:** Local, State, and federal funding, as available

**Timeframe:** Increase and expand support for systems navigation, social services, and employment by 2031. Continue development and implementation of low barrier work

<!-- page 117 -->
opportunity programs in partnership with OUSD and other partners by end of 2026. Develop and implement programs to match small business owners with job seekers who are homeless or formerly homeless by end of 2026.

**Objectives:** Reduction in the number of households which return to homelessness in the two years after obtaining housing.

### POLICY 4.2 ENCAMPMENT MANAGEMENT AND SHELTER OFFER POLICIES

#### Action 4.2.1: Enhance operations of the City’s 2020 Encampment Management Policy.

The City of Oakland adopted the 2020 Encampment Management Policy. The purpose of this policy is to protect and serve all Oaklanders, sheltered and unsheltered, and to manage the adverse impacts of homeless encampments by balancing the interests of all residents, focusing encampments actions on mitigating negative outcomes as they pertain to public safety, public health, and equity outcomes. The City will continue implementing the Encampment Management Policy during the 2023-2031 Housing Element period. The City of Oakland will also continue to scale the appropriate level of public works related services to address debris, garbage and illegal dumping associated with encampments. The City will continue to improve and expand on the development and implementation of Emergency Shelter and crisis response beds in an effort at address and abate conditions at homeless encampments in Oakland. The Encampment Policy will continue to be predicated by an offer of shelter as outlined in City of Oakland Resolution 88077.

**Responsible Party:** Homelessness Division, Office of the City Administrator

**Potential Funding Source:** Local, State, and federal funding, as available

**Timeframe:** The City of Oakland will continue improving the implementation of the Encampment Management Policy throughout the duration of this Housing Element Period, 2023-2031.

**Objectives:** The Encampment Management Policy is intended to connect unsheltered individuals to human services, emergency shelter and long term permanent supportive housing, while executing comprehensive operations focused on managing health and safety conditions of public spaces. The goal is to provide regular and adequate trash collection from encampments, close areas where encampments are not permitted, and ensure that porta-potties and hand-washing stations are serviced regularly as needed and that encampments receive regular deep cleanings so that our unhoused residents are not living in conditions that threaten health and/or safety until fully abated.

The policy sets forth the following objectives:

· Designate high-sensitivity areas, where unmanaged encampments are presumed to cause unreasonably high levels of health and safety impacts due to the nature of the location;

· Designate low-sensitivity areas, where enforcement will not be prioritized;

· Make findings that will prompt Encampment Management Team intervention; and

· Provide guidance on addressing unreasonable health and safety risks, promoting voluntary compliance, and strategies to address non-compliance.

#### Action 4.2.2: Lead strategic homelessness response operations and homeless services from the Homelessness Division, Office of the City Administrator.

Homelessness intersects with multiple departments and agencies, all of which fall under the City Administrator’s purview. Leading

<!-- page 118 -->
from the Office of the City Administrator, the Homelessness Division serves as the primary liaison between the City Administrator’s Office and internal and external agencies, along with other City departments, regarding the City’s homelessness response and provides inter- and intra-agency coordination focusing on the City’s management of its unsheltered population. This division directs the program and operational decision-making in division activities; encampment management response teams and task forces; organizes, manages, and directs the review and implementation of the City’s major projects. The division serves to implement best practices, strategic planning in the City’s Homeless System, and serve as a connection to local, state, and federal partners.

**Responsible Party:** Homelessness Division, Office of the City Administrator

**Potential Funding Source:** Local, State, and federal funding, as available

**Timeframe:** Design, review, implement and evaluate a strategic planning process in response to homeless services and interventions during 2023—2031

**Objectives:** Lead the implementation, expansion, and strategic coordination of Homeless Response Operations and Service Delivery across City of Oakland departments, and external public and private partners, organizations, and agencies.

### Action 4.2.3: Strengthen interdepartmental Encampment Management Team.

The Encampment Management Team (EMT) is an interdepartmental working group tasked with implementing and administering this policy, consisting of representatives from Oakland’s Public Works Department, Human Services Department, Oakland Policy Department, Oakland Fire Department, the City Administrator’s Office (CAO), and other consulted departments as necessary (e.g., the Mayor’s Office, the City Attorney’s Office, Parks and Recreation). The EMT is facilitated by the CAO via the Homelessness Administrator.

<<FIGURE>>

**Responsible Party:** Homelessness Division, Office of the City Administrator

**Potential Funding Source:** Local, State, and federal funding, as available

**Timeframe:** Ongoing, 2023-2031

**Objectives:** 1. The EMT aims to execute duties assigned to their respective departments for the completion of interventions (Health and Safety) prescribed in the 2020 Encampment Management Policy (Health and Hygiene, Deep Cleanings, Partial Closure, and Closure); 2. To channel unsheltered individuals in every encampment to human services, emergency shelter and long term permanent supportive housing; 3. To effectuate the completion of the Encampment Management Policy interventions, each department may promulgate additional specific procedures necessary to effectuate the roles described in this policy under development specific Standard Operating Procedures.

<!-- page 119 -->
### Action 4.2.4: Increase the oversight of homelessness strategies, investments, outcomes, and encampment operations with Commission on Homelessness.

The City will increase opportunities for leadership and input from people experiencing homelessness in the design, implementation, and evaluation of encampment management and homeless services. The City of Oakland has formed a Commission on Homelessness that will provide robust opportunity for people with lived experience to inform and contribute to solutions related to individuals experiencing homelessness reaching maximum self-sufficiency. The City will also seek to build trust between law enforcement, social workers, and homeless individuals/families and promote mentorship opportunities for formerly homeless individuals and people recovering from addiction. Further, the City will refine encampment management policies and strategies using qualitative and quantitative data to assess the experience of encampment for BIPOC residents and will implement culturally specific and anti-racist strategies to better meet the short-term needs of BIPOC unsheltered residents.

**Responsible Party:** Homelessness Division, Office of the City Administrator

**Potential Funding Source:** Local, State, and federal funding, as available

**Timeframe:** Improve and develop mechanisms for individuals with lived experience to provide input to the Commission on Homelessness by 2024. Develop, implement and evaluate opportunities for individuals with lived experience to better interact with law enforcement by 2026. Identify and implement best practices that center race and equity in the strategic response to homelessness by 2031.

**Objectives:** Review and make recommendations of existing and new proposals funding homelessness services funded by City of Oakland Measures Q and W.

<<FIGURE>>

### Action 4.2.5: Expand co-governance and partnerships with unsheltered residents in the design and delivery of homelessness services.

In FY 21-22 the City opened its first co-governed program site. Co-governance is an intervention model where unsheltered residents come to an agreement about how they will live together in a community setting of an encampment. This includes, but is not limited to, selecting site leadership, determining eligibility for participation, developing community expectations for behaviors and for staffing/running the site, holding each other accountable for the agreed upon expectations, and maintaining the health and safety of the community residents. A backbone agency (nonprofit/community-based agency) works alongside residents to support the residents in the design, leadership and operations of the site. The backbone agency is the contracting entity with the City/funder and holds ultimate accountability for ensuring the safety and security of the site. The City, in partnership with unsheltered residents, will continue to refine this model and to expand this model as new sites open.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Human Services Department; Homelessness Division, Office of the City Administrator

**Potential Funding Source:** Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention funds, City General Fund

**Timeframe:** FY 2022-2023 – FY 2024-2025

<!-- page 120 -->
**Objectives:** Increase the number of interim housing sites which have people experiencing homelessness as partners in site design and operations.

## POLICY 4.3 PROMOTE PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE AND DEEPLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR UNHOUSED COMMUNITIES

### Action 4.3.1: Finance the construction and maintenance of permanent supportive and deeply affordable housing for homeless households to expand the supply of deeply affordable and supportive housing for Oakland’s most vulnerable residents.

The City will secure and advocate for additional funding for building and operation of permanent supportive and deeply affordable housing for homeless households using a combination of State and federal sources, such as the State Homekey program, the federal HOME-ARP program, and funding from the local Oakland Housing Authority. The City will continue incorporating a preference for City-assisted affordable housing projects that include at least 20 percent of units for vulnerable populations, including but not limited to homeless individuals and families living at or below 30 percent of AMI with additional points awarded in the competitive funding process for projects with units targeting 20 percent of AMI. In addition, the City will increase this homeless set-aside with the issuance of future City funds, awarded through its Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) programs should operating funding resource availability support the increase. The City will work with residents, service providers, and property owners to ensure adequate and transparent long-term plans for maintenance and service provision within new and existing permanent supportive housing.

The City will also continue pursuing the strategic acquisition of hotel, motel, and dorm facilities by and with nonprofit partners to house unsheltered residents. The City will further work to coordinate Oakland Housing Authority’s award process with the City’s affordable housing NOFA process and Homekey opportunities. The City will also work with the State and other partners to explore opportunities to expand the supply of extremely-low-income housing for residents that do not require supportive services. These efforts align with the City’s HOME-ARP plan that targets HOME-ARP resources to support HUD Qualifying Populations, which include individuals and families who are: experiencing homelessness, at risk of becoming homeless, fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking or human trafficking, at greatest risk of housing instability, and/or needing supportive services or assistance would prevent homelessness.

For example, in September 2022 the City issued a Request for Proposals in advance of for Round 3 State Homekey program funding, and has allocated a total of $35,285,154 from the previous two rounds in local contribution to capital and operating expenses to this program. Through Council approval and in the RFP, the City intends to allocate at least 25 percent of its Round 3 matching funds to projects serving Transition Aged Youth (TAY) clients, through a separate scoring pool for TAY-serving projects.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 121 -->
The City is also making a city-owned site, the Clara/Edes parcel, available for Homekey applications. Through Homekey, the City of Oakland partners with experienced housing organizations and service providers to develop and expand housing for people experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness. The City will continue to support six projects that have been awarded through past rounds of Homekey. These projects have added 285 units of affordable housing for people experiencing homelessness since 2020 to 2022. The City is currently conducting a robust stakeholder engagement process to guide the priorities for Measure U program investments, as discussed under Action 3.3.18. The results of that engagement process will inform the projected impact of housing units produced under Measure U; based on an average City subsidy investment of $150,000 per affordable unit, Measure U is estimated to yield approximately 2,300 units of affordable housing. However, the cost per unit may vary depending on the outcomes from stakeholder engagement, and depending on program and project type – as demonstrated by the diversity of the City’s Homekey portfolio, as well as its new construction and preservation pipelines.

To achieve the objective of converting non-residential uses to 80 units through two hotel acquisitions, the city has committed assistance in the amount of $17.2 million as part of a legally enforceable agreement. The units will be available at an affordable rent to very low-income households and will meet all requirements pursuant to Government Code 65583.1, subdivision (c)(2)(D) as noted in recorded regulatory agreements for the properties. The City will continue to meet all requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65583.1, including reporting requirements pursuant to subdivision (c) (7).

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Human Services Department; Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development; Homelessness Division, Office of the City Administrator; Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** Housing Trust Fund, HOME-ARP, State Homeless Housing Assistance and Prevention Funds, California Housing and Community Development Department Homekey Funds and City Match Funding (Totaling $7.5 million for capital funds and $9.7 million for operating expenses committed to date)

**Timeframe:** As funding is available the City will continue to apply for competitive state and federal funding throughout this Housing Element period. The City will continue to identify ways to expand and finance the ideal matrix deeply affordable housing, permanent supportive housing, below market-rate housing, and strategic acquisitions of hotel, motel and dorm facilities by 2031.

The City is planning to release a New Construction NOFA targeting the production of additional permanent supportive housing (PSH) units in 2023. For example, the 2021-22 New Construction NOFA funded 324 units, 121 of which are designated homeless units.

The City released the Round 3 Homekey Request for Proposals in 2022 in order to identify projects prior to the State releasing the Homekey Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) which is expected to be released in Spring 2023. The City will continue to participate in Homekey, if and when future rounds are funded through the State budget.

Regulatory Agreements for Project Homekey sites established in August 2022 extend through August 2077. The City will continue to inspect these units to ensure they remain decent, safe, and sanitary for occupancy.

**Objectives:** Secure funding to significantly increase construction and maintenance of permanent supportive and deeply affordable housing to match need for unhoused communities.

To ensure sites credited through the Alternate Adequate Sites process adhere to Government Code 65583.1, subd. (c).

<!-- page 122 -->
### Action 4.3.2: Streamline approval for modular developments to provide quality shelter quickly to address the scale of the crisis.

The City will utilize statewide streamlining opportunities, such as categorical CEQA exemptions and Program EIRs, and revise the Planning Code to minimize the need for discretionary review with a ministerial option for projects that utilize objective design standards for approval. The City will also identify and eliminate roadblocks in the review of building permit applications to expedite and increase the production of modular developments and other quick-build shelter solutions on private land in Oakland. The City will also work with other public agencies, including Caltrans, to facilitate and streamline more flexible shelter solutions on public land. The City will ensure that smaller units used as permanent housing units are in compliance with the Building Code to mitigate fire and other public safety hazards.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees, SB2 Grant for Objective Design Standards

**Timeframe:** Planning Code changes in 2023; ongoing, 2023-2031

**Objectives:** Significantly increase production of modular developments and other quick-build shelter solutions to match need for unhoused communities.

### Action 4.3.3: Remove regulatory constraints to the development of transitional housing and supportive housing.

The City will amend the Planning Code to ensure that transitional housing and supportive housing projects are permitted equivalent to similar permanent residential uses in the appropriate zone.

The City will amend the Planning Code to remove minimum parking requirements for transitional housing. For supportive housing, minimum parking

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

requirements will only apply to employee parking for onsite services, and no minimum parking requirements will apply to the residential units.

The City currently processes supportive housing streamlined projects utilizing Assembly Bill 2162 (2021)/Government Code Section 65651 using the City’s multipurpose basic application but has received few applications utilizing this procedure. The first such application was received during the drafting of this Housing Element. To provide greater clarity and encourage the use of this streamlining provision, the City will codify the by right requirements of Government Code Section 65651

<!-- page 123 -->
<<FIGURE>>

into the Oakland Planning Code, and will modify the basic application to identify streamlining under this provision.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan

**Timeframe:** Planning Code changes in 2023

**Objectives:** Reduce barriers to the development of transitional and supportive housing.

### Action 4.3.4: Ensure that the authority provided by the City’s Shelter Crisis Ordinance and Declaration of a Local Emergency regarding Homelessness remains in place until public health and safety concerns no longer persist.

California Government Code Section 8698.4 allows the City Council to declare a shelter crisis when a significant number of persons are without the ability to obtain shelter, resulting in a threat to their health and safety. Upon a declaration of a shelter crisis, the city may allow persons unable to obtain housing to occupy designated public facilities, including facilities leased by the city, during the duration of the crisis. Further, upon a declaration of a shelter crisis, the City may apply reasonable local standards and procedures for the design, site development, and operation of homeless shelters and emergency housing that the City adopts by an ordinance reviewed and approved by State HCD, and provisions of any housing, health, habitability, planning and zoning, or safety standards, procedures or laws, as applied to public facilities, may be suspended.

On January 5, 2016, and subsequently on October 6, 2017 and September 30, 2021, the Oakland City Council adopted ordinances (No. 13348, 13456, and 13662 respectively) declaring a shelter crisis in the City of Oakland. These ordinances were adopted pursuant to the authority provided under state law beginning at California Government Code Section 8698. As these conditions continue to persist, the City Council has regularly renewed its declaration of a local public health emergency about the homelessness crisis at each of its regular Council meetings. On May 21, 2019, after review and approval by State HCD, the City Council additional adopted an Ordinance for Emergency Building Standards Amendments to the 2016 California Building Standards Code that incorporated emergency building standards for emergency housing buildings and facilities, including health and safety standards for recreational vehicles, emergency sleeping cabins, membrane structures, and other emergency housing on property owned or leased by the City of Oakland. Statewide building standards

<!-- page 124 -->
for emergency housing were incorporated into the 2019 California Building Code and the 2019 California Residential Code and on December 10, 2019 the City Council passed Ordinance No. 13576 adopting these emergencies housing provisions, including the local amendments previously approved by State HCD. Finally, on June 4, 2019, the City Council adopted an ordinance amending the Oakland Planning Code Section 17.07.060.A to allow Emergency Shelter Residential Activities and Emergency Housing Facilities on property designated by the City Administrator and owned or leased by the City.

The City will ensure that the authority provided under the City’s Shelter Crisis Ordinance and declaration of a local emergency regarding homelessness remains in place until public health and safety concerns no longer persist. The City will review public health and safety conditions prior to the expiration of the emergency ordinance declaring a shelter crisis, a two-year ordinance, and will continue to review conditions every two years to ensure no gap in the authority provided through the emergency declaration of a shelter crisis. The City will also ensure that subsequent amendments of the building code, a process that occurs every three years as the state building code and residential code is revised, will retain these emergency provisions as authorized under State law.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland City Council; Oakland City Administrator; Oakland Planning & Building Department.

**Potential Funding Source:** General Fund

**Timeframe:** Ongoing

**Objectives:** Provide additional options for temporary shelter for all persons without the ability to obtain shelter until public health and safety concerns no longer persist.

### Action 4.3.5: Provide development standards for Low Barrier Navigation Centers.

Low Barrier Navigation Centers, pursuant to AB 101, are required to be permitted by right and without any discretionary approval. A Low Barrier Navigation Center is a “Housing First,” low barrier, temporary, service-enriched shelter that helps homeless individuals and families to quickly obtain permanent housing. The City will amend the Planning Code to include a definition for “low barrier navigation centers” and ensure that such centers are permitted by right, pursuant to State law.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge

**Timeframe:** Planning Code changes in June-July 2023

**Objectives:** Reduce barriers to the development of housing for persons experiencing homelessness.

### Action 4.3.6: Expand opportunities for the permitting of Emergency Shelters.

The City will revise the Oakland Planning Code to permit by right, without discretionary review, emergency shelters citywide when located on properties owned by churches, temples, synagogues, and other similar institutions approved for Community Assembly Civic Activities. The City will remove any minimum automobile parking requirements for emergency shelters. In other zones where emergency shelters are currently permitted only upon issuance of a major conditional use permit, the City will revise the Oakland Planning Code to require only a minor conditional use permit, which is processed by Planning Department staff and appealable only to the Planning Commission.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan surcharge

**Timeframe:** Planning Code changes in June-July 2023

**Objectives:** Reduce barriers to the development of housing for persons experiencing homelessness.

<!-- page 125 -->
# Goal 5. Promote Neighborhood Stability and Health

All Oakland residents deserve to live, work, play, and thrive in safe, affordable, healthy, and welcoming communities. In Oakland, this geography of opportunity and health-supporting neighborhoods has been inequitable, with low-income communities and communities of color more likely to live in neighborhoods overburdened by pollution, disinvestment, and other social and environmental injustices. Goals, policies, and actions in the Housing Action Plan can address environmental justice by protecting residential areas from harmful pollution impacts. As the City prioritizes investments, infrastructure, building upon existing community assets, and resources to achieve environmental justice in disinvested areas, the Housing Action Plan seeks to ensure that existing residents can stay in their communities and benefit from these increased resources through opportunities for homeownership (see also Goals 1 and 3).

1. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the building sector through the promotion of sustainable design principles, energy efficiency, decarbonization/electrification, and smart growth principles in residential developments.

2. Encourage higher-density, infill, and mixed-use development near transit to reduce reliance on automobiles.

3. Promote adaptation strategies to improve neighborhood and community resilience to climate change in collaboration with local and regional partners.

4. Leverage State and federal resources to assist with the remediation of environmental constraints on potential housing sites.

5. Ensure any addition of housing to neighborhoods at risk of wildfires is accompanied by infrastructure improvements to mitigate the evacuation needs for new residents.

6. Promote an equitable distribution of housing, including affordable housing, throughout the community, while providing opportunities to those that want to remain in existing neighborhood.

7. Ensure that programs support development of both rental and ownership opportunities for affordable and middle-income housing.

Homeownership confers a range of benefits – including greater certainty over housing costs, opportunity to stay in one’s chosen neighborhood, the ability to make changes to the living environment, privacy, and the ability to build financial equity. In addition to tangible individual benefits, homeownership also brings substantial social benefits such as a stronger sense of place and belonging, improved community health and safety, and civic participation.

### HOW THIS GOAL AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERS FAIR HOUSING

Oakland has historically experienced patterns of significant inequities – between the hills and the flatlands, west and east, and across race and income. Rising housing costs and displacement pressures continue to disproportionately burden the city’s Black population and other people of color, even as historically Black neighborhoods continue to see disinvestment and relatively high rates of poverty – see Appendix D for further context. The City has made great strides to correct these patterns of discrimination—including through the establishment of the Department of Race and Equity to advance racial equity in 2016—but needs to expand its efforts to eliminate racial disparities and discriminatory housing practices. The City will take steps to correct historic and ongoing patterns of discrimination to create a fair and just city through the simultaneous actions of opening up exclusionary neighborhoods (see Policy 3.4) and focusing resources, funds, tenant protections, and support of existing communities in disinvested neighborhoods and ethnic enclaves (see Goals 1, 2, and 3).

<!-- page 126 -->
Oakland has some of the lowest rates of homeownership among major Bay Area cities, rivaled only by San Francisco. About 60 percent of Oaklanders are renters, and with continuously rising home prices, affordable homeownership remains out of reach for most Oaklanders. This is especially true for the city’s working and middle classes, as traditionally blue-collar neighborhoods have become increasingly expensive in recent years. Homeownership is distributed unevenly by race and ethnicity – while most white households own their homes, the majority of BIPOC households are renters. American Indian or Alaska Native (70.8 percent), Hispanic or Latinx (69.4 percent), and Black or African American (67.8 percent) households are especially likely to be renters. A key driver behind these disparities is the legacy of the foreclosure crisis during the Great Recession. During the foreclosure crisis, 1 in 14 Oakland homeowners lost their homes. These foreclosures were highly concentrated in East and West Oakland. See Appendices B and D for more information.

This goal aims to expand opportunities for homeownership, particularly for low-income communities and communities of color. Along with efforts in Goal 1 and Goal 2, increased affordable and middle-income homeownership opportunities will reduce displacement pressures and keep Oaklanders in their homes. Expanding homeownership opportunities will protect both individual families and the social fabric of Oakland’s neighborhoods. First-time homebuyer programs can also expand access to historically exclusionary neighborhoods by giving prospective homeowners the resources and tools they need to secure a home in neighborhoods that meet their needs. Community land trusts and other models of maintaining permanently affordable housing, as outlined in Policy 3.5, also provide opportunities to increase rates of affordable homeownership.

In addition to safe, affordable, high-quality housing for all people, a key determinant of equity is a healthy built and natural environment for all people. Such an environment should include a mix of land uses that support jobs, housing, amenities and services, trees and forest canopy, and clean air, water, soil, and sediment. In Oakland, low-income communities and communities of color are more likely to suffer from environmental injustices such as disproportionate exposure to air pollution, toxics and hazardous facilities and substances, contaminated water, and other environmental hazards. These disparities are due to a history of systemic racism and social injustices that influence where these communities live. As the impacts of climate change become more severe, these communities are most likely to be impacted first and hardest. As the City adds more housing stock over the course of this Housing Element period, it is imperative that new development sustains a healthy environment by working to “reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities” and is prepared for the heightened impacts of climate change, especially protecting those who are most at risk. As part of this goal, efforts to align affordable housing development with transit—such as through the State’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program—and expand access to high opportunity neighborhoods and good jobs are integral to furthering environmental justice through housing. The City will prioritize improvements in low resource and traditionally underserved areas as stated in Action 5.2.9 and will continue to give points in its competitive New Construction funding processes to projects in areas which help advance desegregation and are located in neighborhoods with strong educational quality (Action 5.2.8). As stated in Action 5.2.9, the City will continue to explore a variety of funding sources, continue the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process, and use an equity lens to invest in priority communities and identify projects that address disparities in health and safety, existing conditions, economy, environment, improvement and collaboration. The City will prioritize investment, incentives, and other programs in environmental justice communities in order to

<!-- page 127 -->
improve community assets that enhance quality of life and address Environmental Justice issues.

As noted in Action 5.2.1, the City will prioritize support for homeowners to retrofit their homes to protect inhabitants from wildfire smoke in communities with disproportionate exposure to air pollution and substandard housing.

Using an equity approach, the City works with funded providers to ensure that these services and resources are prioritized for the most vulnerable populations. Vulnerable populations are identified through sources such as Oakland's Stanford research partnership, the Urban Displacement Project, Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty, and federally identified Opportunity Zones, and will additionally include environmental justice communities identified through the Environmental Justice Element. Examples of targeting funding resources include Action 5.2.3 (study options to provide financing for the remediation of environmentally contaminated sites, with priority for affordable projects) and Action 5.2.4 (Secure funding from the State’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program), which both seek to utilize funding programs that are specifically targeted toward R/ECAP and designated EJ communities. The State Equitable Community Revitalization Grant program specifically prioritized funds toward properties in historically vulnerable and disadvantaged communities, while the AHSC program utilizes funds collected through proceeds of the State’s Cap and Trade program and reserved for EJ communities.

In addition, the City conducts extensive geographically targeted and community-specific outreach to vulnerable populations and those at highest risk of displacement, as well as Black and African American communities, and Spanish-, Cantonese-, and Mandarin-speakers to improve access for non-English speakers. The outreach materials are also offered in multiple languages in accordance with the City’s language access policy.

## POLICY 5.1 SUSTAIN AFFORDABLE FIRST-TIME HOMEOWNERSHIP INCENTIVES

### Action 5.1.1: Provide first-time homebuyer programs.

When funding is available, the City has historically provided several first-time homebuyer programs – including the First Time Homebuyer Mortgage Assistance Program (MAP), and the CalHome Program. As funding becomes available—either through State or program-related income—the City will resume these programs. The City also provides first-time homebuyer workshops and promotes workshops hosted by a HUD-approved counseling agency. Although City-sponsored classes are currently suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the absence of funding, the City continues to provide information for other local classes. As we emerge from pandemic restrictions, the City will resume providing in-person workshops in 2023. Finally, the City maintains a list of city-assisted deed-restricted below market rate (BMR) homes for sale to assist potential buyers. The City collects data through public records and the first-time homebuyer programs to assess homebuyers’ needs and to identify gaps in the programs.. Further, as part of Action 5.3.3, the City will engage in targeted outreach in partnership with community-based organizations and fair housing services providers to reach the most impacted communities – including Black and Latinx households.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development – Housing Development Services

**Potential Funding Source:** State Housing Fund Grants (HCD), program income, city-sourced funds.

**Timeframe:** The City applied for the last several CalHome program NOFAs to secure funding for down payment assistance but was denied. The City will continue to review NOFAs and strategically apply for this assistance when

<!-- page 128 -->
substantiated. The City is already using repayments from previous CalHome and other loan programs to support mortgage assistance.

**Objectives:** If the City of Oakland receives CalHome and other homeownership funding at historic rates, the City expects to support a total of 160 low- and moderate-income households with home purchases over the Housing Element cycle.

### Action 5.1.2: Expand access to low-cost financing for home purchase.

Through the first-time homebuyer programs described in Action 5.1.1, the City was able to issue 121 loans totaling approximately $6.8 million during the previous planning period. With appropriate funding, these low-cost financing options have been very effective in promoting affordable homeownership. The City will continue to seek funding for these programs and to refer homebuyers to resources related to other county, State, or federal level funding – including through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA), Golden State Finance Authority (GSFA), Federal Home Loan Bank's (FHLB) WISH Program, Alameda County AC Boost, and Alameda County Mortgage Credit Certificate.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development

**Potential Funding Source:** State Housing Fund Grants (HCD)

**Timeframe:** Ongoing as funding is available, 2023-2031; Annual reporting on first time homebuyer program data

**Objectives:** If the City of Oakland receives CalHome grants and other homeownership funding at historic rates, the City expects to support a total of 160 low- and moderate-income households with home purchases over the next Housing Element cycle.

### Action 5.1.3: Provide paths to homeownership for Section 8 voucher holders.

Oakland HCD has traditionally worked with Section 8 voucher holders as part of the first-time homebuyer programs. Furthermore, the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) offers the Homeownership Program to eligible residents – which permits participants to apply their housing subsidy towards a monthly mortgage payment. As funding and capacity permits, the OHA will continue to offer this program and expand eligibility criteria as feasible. Oakland HCD will also continue to work with voucher holders through first time homebuyer programs. OHA will collect data on residents who make use of the Homeownership Program to understand program participants and existing gaps.

**Responsible Party:** OHA; Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development

**Potential Funding Source:** HUD, State Housing Fund Grants (HCD)

**Timeframe:** Ongoing as funding is available, 2023-2031; Annual reporting on OHA’s Homeownership Program

**Objectives:** If funded at historic levels, the City expects to provide 30 low-income Section 8 voucher holders with down payment assistance.

## POLICY 5.2. PROMOTE RESILIENT AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

### Action 5.2.1: Protect against smoke and wildfire.

As wildfires become more frequent, it is increasingly important to ensure safe and healthy indoor air quality. The City will require new development follow requirements for indoor air filtration, including the installation of MERV filters, as specified in the California Building Code, and will support property owners in retrofitting their homes to protect inhabitants from wildfire smoke. The City will prioritize retrofits in communities with disproportionate

<!-- page 129 -->
exposure to air pollution and substandard housing. To reduce the impacts of secondhand smoke, the City will explore amendments to the smoking pollution control ordinance to create smoke-free environments within multifamily housing properties. Further, the City will encourage the addition of clean air centers and resilience spaces within residential areas that can provide emergency services in the event of a wildfire.

**Responsible Party:** Sustainability and Resilience Division, City Administrator’s Office; Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

**Timeframe:** Ongoing, 2023 - 2031

**Objectives:** Significantly improve access to better indoor air quality to protect against smoke and wildfire through methods such as requiring installation of MERV filters in new developments and identifying additional clean air centers and resilience spaces within residential areas.

### Action 5.2.2: Promote infill, transit-oriented development (TOD), and mixed-use development.

Expand and allow community-serving uses such as retail, restaurants, and personal services within areas that are primarily residential, and increase opportunities to add multi-family housing in commercial areas that are well-served by transit. Encourage sustainable transportation choices and improve pedestrian activity with new housing development, by reducing vehicular parking requirements and eliminating parking minimums for residential development within ½ mile of major transit stop (see Action 3.4.4) in new development and/or requiring transit, cyclist, and pedestrian access design features. Work with Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) to rezone and facilitate development of high-density multifamily and mixed-use housing on BART-owned sites within the City, per AB 2923. Ensure that new transit-oriented development is accompanied by tenant protection policies described in Policy 1.1. Further, the City will support and encourage the development of affordable housing near transit and amenities through its NOFA process, which prioritizes City funding awards to affordable housing projects with better transit access, and by co-applying to State programs such as AHSC and IIG (see Action 5.2.4).

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

**Timeframe:** 2023 – 2025 and Ongoing

**Objectives:** Significantly increase infill, transit-oriented development and mixed-use development to meet housing need.

### Action 5.2.3: Study options to provide financing for the remediation of environmentally contaminated sites, with priority for affordable projects.

The City will study options to provide financial assistance to property owners for the remediation of environmentally contaminated sites, such as former gas stations or auto mechanic shops, which are being developed for housing. Funding priority will go to sites with proposed affordable housing projects.

**Responsible Party:** Sustainability and Resilience Division, City Administrator’s Office; Oakland Planning & Building Department; Economic and Workforce Development Department

**Potential Funding Source:** State of California’s Equitable Community Revitalization Grant Program, United States Environmental Protection Agency Brownfields Grants program

**Timeframe:** Ongoing, 2023-2031 as funding is available

**Objectives:** As grant and loan funding sources are secured, Oakland will support through

<!-- page 130 -->
technical assistance and financing of characterization and/or remediation of environmentally contaminated sites.

### Action 5.2.4: Secure funding from the State’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program.

The AHSC program, administered by the Strategic Growth Council and implemented by HCD, distributes Statewide Cap-and-Trade funding for affordable housing developments (new construction or renovation) and sustainable transportation infrastructure projects. Successfully implemented, the AHSC program transforms California cities into places where residents can get everywhere they want to go without having to drive. The City of Oakland will apply directly or support partners such as nonprofit and for-profit housing developers, transportation and transit agencies, and joint powers authorities to apply for AHSC grant funding.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development; DOT; Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

**Timeframe:** The City of Oakland has historically had projects applied to each AHSC round, and expects to have 3-5 projects for the 2023 AHSC NOFA (Round 7). As a jobs and transit center of the region, the City will continue to submit highly qualified projects to this important state funding source each time the source is available in order to secure additional funding for affordable housing in transit-rich service and job centers.

**Objectives:** Significantly increase affordable housing development through application for AHSC funding to meet housing need.

### Action 5.2.5: Encourage earthquake-resilient housing.

As funding becomes available, the City will continue to operate loan programs to help property owners afford the cost of seismic safety programs. In the past, these loan programs have particularly focused on soft story retrofit projects. The City will also continue to implement the City’s soft story retrofit ordinance, which requires vulnerable apartment buildings to retrofit soft story areas at risk of collapse.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development; Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, CalOES Prepare California Match program, other sources as available.

**Timeframe:** Ongoing, 2023 - 2031

**Objectives:** Successfully retrofit all vulnerable soft-story residential buildings at risk of collapse.

### Action 5.2.6: Encourage climate-resilient housing.

Consistent with the City’s Equitable Climate Action Plan (ECAP) and Ordinance 13632 CMS, all newly constructed buildings in Oakland are prohibited from utilizing methane gas, also referred to as natural gas, or connecting to natural gas infrastructure. The City will continue to support property owners in building electrification, energy efficiency and resilience, and seismic safety retrofits, prioritizing funding in frontline and disadvantaged communities. The City will work with organizations such as the U.S. Green Building Council to recognize exemplary net-zero energy projects with sustainable and resilient design, including passive design and energy- and water-efficient systems. The City will continue to require all projects that meet the Green Building Ordinance for Private Development thresholds comply with green building standards, exceeding CALGreen Standards, and will encourage and promote green features such as durable low-embodied carbon materials, green and cool roofs, grey-water systems, electric vehicle charging stations, and others such features during the permitting and entitlements process. The City will continue to

<!-- page 131 -->
require green building certification under Build It Green’s GreenPoint Rated or LEED Certification systems and give preference to projects scoring higher in the Green Point Checklist, or which meet or exceed LEED Gold level, in the affordable housing NOFA scoring process which determines which projects are awarded City funds. The City can promote and expand existing programs to provide education and incentives to property owners and residents who implement water conservation, energy conservation, waste reduction, and resilient landscaping measures. The City will ensure that new housing development within areas subject to flooding associated with sea level rise encourage placement of life safety, mechanical, and electrical systems above flood elevations (i.e., second story or higher). The City will also encourage the addition of community spaces within residential areas that can provide emergency services in the event of a natural disaster or power outage. Recognizing the likely increase over time in power outages due to the impacts of the climate crisis, the City will work across City departments and with relevant agencies such as East Bay Community Energy, to increase community energy resilience such as through deploying or incentivizing onsite energy storage, and supporting the development of neighborhood resilience resources that include clean backup power.

**Responsible Party:** Sustainability and Resilience Division, City Administrator’s Office; Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

**Timeframe:** Ongoing, 2023 - 2031

**Objectives:** Significantly increase construction of climate-resilient housing to meet housing need.

### Action 5.2.7: Consider adoption of a disaster reconstruction overlay zone.

The City will consider the adoption of a disaster reconstruction overlay zone to streamline reconstruction following a natural disaster. Such a zone would establish ministerial approvals and streamlined permitting for the reconstruction of homes after a natural disaster, similar to reconstruction zoning created in Santa Rosa following the Santa Rosa Wildfire. This could accelerate reconstruction, require rebuilt homes to adhere to the latest earthquake and fire safety standards, and reduce the impacts of disasters on housing affordability in Oakland.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** State and federal grants, as available

**Timeframe:** 2023 - 2027

**Objectives:** Provide greater flexibility to meet housing need in response to potential disasters.

### Action 5.2.8. Encourage new affordable housing in higher resource neighborhoods.

Affordable housing units, including both publicly assisted housing and housing choice vouchers, tend to be concentrated in low resource and high segregation and poverty areas. Higher resource neighborhoods have failed to provide their share of affordable units through low-density zoning that has largely prevented development at the scale necessary for affordability.

To expand where affordable housing units are located, including both publicly assisted housing

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 132 -->
and housing choice vouchers, the City will encourage further affordable development in higher resource neighborhoods through allowing for higher densities and streamlined approval for affordable projects. In its annual competitions for the award of housing development funds, the City will continue to give points in its competitive New Construction funding processes to projects in areas which help advance desegregation and are located in neighborhoods with strong educational quality. Further efforts may include working with affordable developers to identify appropriate sites in high resource neighborhoods and providing direct outreach and resources to Section 8 voucher holders and landlords to find appropriate housing in higher resource areas (see also Action 3.3.2). Actions 3.2.1 and 3.4.1 will also help increase the availability of housing within higher resource neighborhoods.

As noted below, this is not intended to supplant affordable housing investment in lower resource/ high poverty and segregation areas, because these are also areas where residents are often subject to displacement pressures, as well as areas with rich access to transit, service and job centers. However, affordable housing opportunities should be made available throughout the City.

Expanding equitable housing opportunities in higher resource areas will also require Oakland to take on a new challenge: find ways to expand affordable housing opportunities in wildfire-prone Hills neighborhoods. The City will therefore analyze the current evacuation capacity of Hills neighborhoods, assesses infrastructure options to expand that evacuation capacity, and study options to pair affordable housing development in the Hills with corresponding safety-related infrastructure investments. This effort will align with the upcoming changes to the City’s Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE), which is also being revised as part of the City’s broader General Plan update.

However, while increasing affordable development in higher-resource neighborhoods is a State priority, it only represents one strategy towards increasing opportunity for historically disadvantaged residents. Many Oakland residents want to remain in the neighborhoods that they call home, and may not want to move to “higher-resource” areas which tend to be predominantly white and higher-income. Many existing ethnic enclaves offer resources like culturally specific grocery stores, churches, language services, or other key access points that could be difficult to find elsewhere. These neighborhoods are also often rich in transit and service resources tailored to community needs. Thus, efforts to increase access to exclusive neighborhoods must also be coupled with investment, cultural preservation, and anti-displacement efforts in Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) as outlined in Action 5.2.9. These efforts are also described in Goal 1 and Goal 2. Oakland HCD’s New Construction Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) scoring criteria has recently been modified to balance scoring for higher-resource areas and high performing schools (for family housing) with the goal of increasing investment in areas of the City that have suffered from economic and infrastructural disinvestment, as well as prioritizing affordable housing in areas where low-income residents are especially vulnerable to displacement pressures. Under the current scoring for the allocation of tax-exempt bonds, only high-opportunity areas of Oakland are competitive for funding.

Failing the success of efforts to refine the definition of “high resource” areas to include those rich in transit, job and service accessibility, the City may need to consider adjusting its priorities to focus more investments towards high-opportunity areas in order to continue to be competitive for state funding. However, the City remains concerned about the adverse impacts this would have on the City’s anti-gentrification and anti-displacement work, and feels strongly that affordable housing resources are desperately needed in neighborhoods where low income residents are vulnerable to displacement. Lastly, the State relies on TCAC Opportunity Area Maps that designates much of Oakland as “low resource” or “high segregation and

<!-- page 133 -->
poverty.” The City strenuously disagrees with these designations that do not recognize the critical role in housing production, jobs creation, and transit connection that Oakland plays for the region. Further, it lags behind the rapid market changes and displacement pressures experienced across the City’s transit-, job-, and amenity-rich neighborhoods; this action pursues a more balanced and nuanced investment of resources to support housing across its neighborhoods.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development; Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge, permit fees, impact fees, other local, State, and federal funding sources as available

**Timeframe:** Geographic equity is currently incorporated as a scoring element in all NOFAs to prioritize awarding City funds towards projects that support this goal; and will continue to be a focus moving forward. New construction NOFAs will be released approximately every other year.

**Objectives:** The ratio of affordable housing units per acre shall increase by 10 percent more in neighborhoods categorized as “High” or “Highest” opportunity by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) than the increase in the ratio of affordable housing units per acre in all other neighborhoods .

### Action 5.2.9: Prioritize improvements to meet the needs of low-resourced and disproportionately burdened communities.

As part of Phase 1 of the GPU, the EJ Element will include policies and actions that will promote equitable access to public facilities, healthy food, safe and sanitary homes, and physical activity; reduce barriers to inclusive engagement and participation in the public decision-making process; and prioritize improvements and programs that address the needs of low-resourced and disproportionately burdened communities in Oakland. These investments will be focused in communities designated through the EJ screening process.

The City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Fiscal Year 2023-2025 guides the City’s long-term, strategic decisions regarding the construction, repair and replacement of the City’s assets including libraries, public safety facilities, sewers, recreation centers and parks, transportation and street improvements. The CIP process approved by Oakland City Council in 2018 uses an equity lens to invest in priority communities and identify projects that address disparities in health and safety, existing conditions, economy, environment, improvement and collaboration. The CIP process also includes inclusive engagement focusing on priority neighborhoods. Engagement in past CIP cycles included online and text surveys, online focus groups, door hangers and door knocking and collaborating with community-based organizations (CBOs) to reach community members. Additional information is available at: https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/capital-improvement-program.

The goal of Oakland’s Department of Transportation (OakDOT) Strategic Plan is to ensure equitable outcomes in transportation for all of Oakland’s diverse constituencies, which guides the City’s prioritization of transportation plans. The City’s

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 134 -->
2019-2021 Paving Plan prioritizes major streets for repaving based on equity indicators, street condition, and traffic safety and represents a $100M construction investment in pavement rehabilitation and preventative maintenance, of which $75M is prioritized on local streets with a goal of improving neighborhood quality of life. Local streets are prioritized based on equity indicators, street condition, and proximity to schools. Additional information is available at: https://www.oaklandca.gov/resources/2019-paving-plan.

Priority neighborhoods for the CIP process and OakDOT's plans are identified using OakDOT's Geographic Equity Toolbox to leverage attention and funding to neighborhoods that may have been historically and currently overlooked by City services and planning processes to support the values of equity and engagement. OakDOT's Geographic Equity Toolbox can be accessed at: https://www.oaklandca.gov/resources/oakdot-geographic-equity-toolbox.

As part of Phase 2 of the GPU, the City will promote complete 15-minute neighborhoods where residents have safe and convenient access to goods and services, such as healthy foods, on a daily or regular basis—that address unique neighborhood needs, and support physical activity, including walking, bicycling, active transportation, recreation, and active play. An expansion of more allowed mixed uses within centers of residential neighborhoods will be studied, as opposed to just along transit corridors as designated in the existing LUTE. The LUTE, OSCAR and the Infrastructure and Capital Facilities elements will include targeted policies and actions for environmental justice communities designated through the EJ screening process (i.e., low-resourced, traditionally underserved, and disproportionately burdened communities) that focus on:

* Equitable distribution of new beneficial public, civic, and cultural facilities and maintenance of existing facilities

* Appropriate land use designations and zoning to facilitate additional healthcare facilities in areas without sufficient access

* Maintain and improve existing civic and public facilities to ensure safer, more attractive facilities that are responsive to community needs

* Expand access to high-quality open space, pedestrian and bicycling amenities, and increase opportunities for physical activity and recreation spaces

* Prioritize investment, incentives, and other programs in environmental justice communities in order to improve community assets that enhance quality of life and address Environmental Justice issues.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 135 -->
**Responsible Party:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge, permit fees, other local, State, and federal funding sources as available

**Timeframe:** July 2023 for adoption of EJ Element. End of 2025 for adoption of LUTE, OSCAR, and Infrastructure and Capital Facilities Element

**Objectives:** The City will continue to explore a variety of funding sources and will continue to prioritize capital improvements in low resource and traditionally underserved areas, which will include environmental justice communities identified through the EJ screening process being completed as part of the EJ Element in the City to improve fair housing conditions, support new construction of housing units, enhancing mobility to high resource areas, access to services and amenities, safer streets, and encourage community preservation, revitalization and, quality of life.

### Action 5.2.10: Promote the development of mixed-income housing to reduce income-based concentration.

As noted previously, lower-income housing tends to be concentrated in lower resourced neighborhoods. The City will work to promote mixed-income developments to further reduce the geographic isolation of lower-income units and promote increase neighborhood investment in distressed areas. The City will encourage use of the State Density Bonus program by incentivizing on-site affordable units along with the Density Bonus instead of paying affordable housing impact fees, promote mixed-income development in specific plan areas, and access the CalHFA bond recycling facility for mixed-income projects.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

**Timeframe:** Ongoing, 2023-2031

**Objectives:** Significantly increase production of mixed-income housing and reduce income-based concentration to match housing need.

### Action 5.2.11: Provide accountability measures for housing programs, including annual monitoring.

The Housing Element is a living document that provides a roadmap for the next eight years. As such, the City will actively monitor activities undertaken to meet program objectives pursuant to Annual Progress Report (APR) requirements. The City currently presents the APR annually to the Planning Commission and the City Council and will continue to bring the report to both the bodies as an information report for discussion and monitoring purposes . To ensure accountability, the City will solicit annual feedback from the community through surveys to understand the effectiveness of individual programs. In addition, the City will create a subcommittee of the Planning Commission to bring the progress report of the Housing Element to monitor its performance.

Responsible Party: Oakland Planning & Building Department; Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development; Oakland Human Services Department; Oakland Economic & Workforce Development Department; Oakland Public Works Department; DOT; Homeless Division, City Administrator’s Office; Sustainability and Resilience Division, City Administrator’s Office

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge and permit fees

**Timeframe:** Ongoing, annual survey and monitoring during the 2023-2031 Housing Element Annual Progress Reporting cycle. By March 2024, create subcommittee of the Planning Commission to monitor the Housing Element.

**Objectives:** Monitor and enforce Housing Element implementation to understand whether individual programs significantly improve Oakland housing conditions and address housing need.

<!-- page 136 -->
## POLICY 5.3. PROTECT HOMEOWNERS AND TENANTS FROM DISCRIMINATION

### Action 5.3.1: Provide fair housing services and outreach.

The City will continue to partner with fair housing service providers operating within Oakland. As most housing discrimination complaints are related to a disability bias, the City will work with fair housing providers to provide additional educational resources in a variety of languages to both tenants and landlords related to disability rights in housing. The City will publicize fair housing services on its website, in City Hall, and in all housing-related programming. The City will also seek additional State and federal funding to assist fair housing providers.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development

**Potential Funding Source:** CDBG, general fund, other local, State, and federal funding sources as available

**Timeframe:** End of 2023

**Objectives:** All stated outreach materials will be created and found online no later than the end of 2023.

### Action 5.3.2: Promote awareness of predatory lending practices

Predatory lending practices are a major contributor to racially discriminatory housing patterns and were one of the major factors in the previous decade’s foreclosure crisis. To curb these practices, the City will work with fair housing service providers to provide educational materials and workshops in a variety of languages to inform Oakland residents of best practices. The City will promote fair lending practices to ensure that low-income residents and residents of color have fair access to capital resources needed to acquire and maintain housing.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development

**Potential Funding Source:** CDBG, general fund, other local, State, and federal funding sources as available

**Timeframe:** End of 2023

**Objectives:** All stated outreach materials will be created and found online no later than the end of 2023.

### Action 5.3.3: Provide targeted outreach and support to disproportionately burdened groups and areas.

Oakland’s Black and Latinx populations experience disproportionately high rates of cost burden and tend to live in neighborhoods with higher rates of overcrowding and other housing issues. The City will work with fair housing service providers to target outreach and programming to Black and Latinx Oaklanders, as well as neighborhoods experiencing high levels of housing issues in parallel with Actions 5.3.1 and 5.3.2. The City will regularly monitor housing issues like cost burden, overcrowding, code enforcement complaints, and substandard housing to understand where the highest need for services exists.

**Responsible Party:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development; Oakland Planning & Building Department

**Potential Funding Source:** General Plan Surcharge, permit fees, other local, State, and federal funding sources as available

**Timeframe:** Ongoing, 2023-2031

**Objectives:** To determine what neighborhoods that fair housing service providers should target for outreach and programing to assist disproportionately burdened groups.

<!-- page 137 -->
## 4.2 Quantified Objectives

State law requires that quantified objectives be established for new construction, rehabilitation, conservation, and preservation activities that will occur during the Housing Element cycle. **Table 4-2** provides Oakland’s quantified objectives by income category for the 2023-2031 Housing Element planning period. New construction estimates include units in pipeline projects, projected accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and the minimum remaining RHNA capacity. The remaining RHNA capacity represents development that the City must support beyond pipeline projects and projected ADUs as identified in the Sites Inventory, Appendix C (including potential development projects, 5th cycle RHNA sites, and other new opportunity sites), and through the actions in this Housing Action Plan.

### Table 4-2: City of Oakland 2023-2031 Quantified Objectives

| | VERY LOW-INCOME[^p137-1] | LOW-INCOME | MODERATE INCOME | ABOVE-MODERATE INCOME | TOTAL |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **New Construction[^p137-2]** | | | | | |
| Pipeline Projects | 1,238 | 1,555 | 182 | 9,936 | **12,909** |
| Projected ADUs | 692 | 692 | 594 | - | **1,978** |
| **Remaining RHNA** | 4,581 | 1,503 | 3,681 | 1,599 | **11,354** |
| **Rehabilitation[^p137-3]** | | | | | |
| Housing Rehabilitation | 1,216 | - | - | 1,216 | **-** |
| **Conservation/Preservation** | | | | | |
| Construction, acquisition, and/ or deed-restricted affordable housing units (Action 3.3.6) | 159 | 91 | 109 | 281 | **640** |
| Down payment assistance for Section 8 voucher holders (Action 5.1.3) | 7 | 4 | 5 | 13 | **30** |
| Proactive Rental Inspections (Action 2.1.3) | 47,768 | 13,221 | 8,395 | 27,116 | **96,500** |
| Tenant Protections: Rent Adjustment Program (Action 1.1.1) | 54,450 | 15,070 | 9,570 | 30,910 | **110,000** |
| Tenant Counseling (individuals) (Action 1.1.5, 1.1.6) | 1,410 | 390 | 248 | 800 | **2,848** |

[^p137-1]: The extremely-low-income housing need is included in the “Very-Low-Income” Pipeline Project, Projected ADUs, and Conservation/Preservation totals.
[^p137-2]: New construction objectives represent the City’s RHNA for the Sixth Cycle Housing Element update. Estimates include units from pipeline projects and projected accessory dwelling units (ADUs).
[^p137-3]: Estimates are derived from the City’s 2020/2021 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (152 rehabilitated units in 2020/2021, projected over 8-year period).

Source: City of Oakland, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022

<!-- page 138 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# OAKLAND 2045
# GENERAL PLAN

---

## 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)

---

## Noise — City of Oakland Noise Element

- Source: https://www.oaklandca.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/planning-amp-building/documents/sp/gp/city-of-oakland-noise-element.pdf
- Pages: 57
- Covers: noise

<!-- page 1 -->
# NOISE ELEMENT

CITY OF OAKLAND **GENERAL PLAN**

<<FIGURE>>

**June 2005**

<!-- page 2 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 3 -->
# NOISE ELEMENT

CITY OF OAKLAND **GENERAL PLAN**

<<FIGURE>>

**City of Oakland**
Community and Economic Development Agency
Planning and Zoning Division
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 3315
Oakland, CA 94612
510 | 238.3941
www.oaklandnet.com

**June 2005**

<!-- page 4 -->
# CREDITS

### MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

Jerry Brown, mayor

Henry Chang, vice-mayor (at-large)
Jane Brunner (District 1)
Nancy Nadel (District 3)
Jean Quan (District 4)
Ignacio De La Fuente (District 5)
Desley Brooks (District 6)
Larry Reid (District 7)

**Cover photo:** *Trail in Joaquin Miller Park, by Barry Muniz; courtesy of the Oakland Convention & Visitors Bureau*

### PLANNING COMMISSION

Nicole Y. Franklin
Colland Jang, vice-chair
Clinton Killian
Suzie W. Lee
Michael Lighty
Mark A. McClure, chair
Anne E. Mudge

### COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

Claudia Cappio, Director of Development
Margaret Stanzione, Strategic Planning Coordinator
Niko Letunic, project manager

<!-- page 5 -->
# TABLE OF CONTENTS

## SECTIONS

| | |
| :--- | ---: |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ | i |
| CHAPTER 1: Introduction ......................................................................................... | 1 |
| CHAPTER 2: A noise primer ..................................................................................... | 5 |
| CHAPTER 3: Institutional framework ..................................................................... | 9 |
| CHAPTER 4: Local noise environment ................................................................... | 13 |
| CHAPTER 5: Noise-land use compatibility ........................................................... | 19 |
| CHAPTER 6: Policy statements ............................................................................... | 23 |
| CHAPTER 7: Resources .............................................................................................. | 27 |
| | |
| APPENDIX A: Noise-related policy statements from other | |
| elements of the Oakland general plan .......................................................... | 29 |
| APPENDIX B: Tables from the technical report .................................................... | 33 |
| APPENDIX C: Oakland City Council resolution adopting the noise | |
| element ............................................................................................................. | 45 |

## FIGURES

| | |
| :--- | ---: |
| Figure 1: Noise monitoring locations ............................................. | after page 14 |
| Figure 2: Roadway noise contours .................................................. | after page 14 |
| Figure 3: Railroad noise contours ................................................... | after page 16 |
| Figure 4: Existing (2004) noise contours for Oakland | |
| International Airport operations .................................................................... | 17 |
| Figure 5: Projected noise contours for Oakland International | |
| Airport operations in Year 2010 .................................................................... | 18 |

<!-- page 6 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 7 -->
# 1 | INTRODUCTION

**Legislative mandate** ➲ California state law requires that each city and county adopt a general plan to guide its physical growth and development. The general plan is a policy document that forms the basis for a jurisdiction’s official decisions regarding the future location of housing, business, industry, transportation facilities, parks, open space and other land uses, the conservation of natural resources, and the protection from environmental hazards. General plans must address locally relevant planning issues under various “elements,” or subject categories, including noise.

The noise element must analyze and quantify, to the extent practicable, current and projected noise levels from the following noise sources: major traffic thoroughfares, passenger and freight railroad operations, commercial and general aviation operations, industrial plants, and other ground stationary noise sources contributing to the community noise environment. Noise levels for these sources must be shown on noise contour maps prepared on the basis of noise monitoring or modeling techniques. Noise contours establish the locational relationship between existing and projected land uses and noise sources, and must be used to guide land use decisions to reduce noise impacts, especially on ➲ sensitive receptors. The noise element must include implementation measures that address any existing and foreseeable noise problems, and must serve as a guideline for complying with the state’s noise insulation standards.

➲ California Government Code, §65300-65303.4 and §65350-65362; §65302(f) for noise element requirements. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research issues *General Plan Guidelines*, a document interpreting the legal requirements for the preparation of a general plan; Appendix C of that document contains guidelines for the preparation of the noise element.

➲ Noise-sensitive receptors are land uses whose purpose and function can be disrupted or jeopardized by noise. Sensitive receptors include residences, schools, churches, hospitals, elderly-care facilities, hotels and libraries and certain types of passive recreational open space. Understandably, noise is of special concern when it occurs near sensitive receptors.

<!-- page 8 -->
**NOISE ELEMENT**

In preparing Oakland’s noise element, staff conducted a thorough review of the noise elements from the following jurisdictions: Alameda and Contra Costa counties, and the cities of Alameda, Berkeley, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Los Angeles, Oakland (the 1974 element), Palo Alto, Piedmont, Pittsburg, San Francisco, San Jose, San Leandro, South San Francisco, Union City and Walnut Creek.

**Updating Oakland’s noise element** Oakland’s original noise element was adopted in 1974. Since then, Oakland’s land-use patterns have changed, and its population and economy have expanded. While noise cannot be eliminated, the City believes that by updating the noise element and the policy statements in it, it can continue to protect residents’ exposure to excessive noise levels. This document is meant to satisfy the state’s requirements for a noise element.

**Policy statements** At the heart of every element of a general plan is a set of goals, objectives, policies actions or other statements which are often collectively referred to as policy statements. The purpose of policy statements is to provide direction for a city or county and guide the development-related actions and decisions of its officials. Policy statements attempt to reconcile and accommodate the diverse and often competing interests of a community and its members. Oakland’s noise element contains two types of policy statements: policies and actions. Policies identify specific areas in which the city will direct efforts in order to attain its goals. Actions are detailed and implementable steps that, if feasible, the city will undertake in order to carry out the policies. There is at least one action supporting every policy, and each action lists the city agency (or agencies) expected to assume the leading role in implementing that action.

It is important to keep in mind that actions are meant to apply only to those geographic and programmatic areas over which the City of Oakland has legal authority, and that the actions will only be implemented if they can be accomplished successfully given financial, environmental, legal, social and technological factors. Also, because the various elements of the Oakland general plan contain policies that address numerous different goals, some policies might compete with each other. In deciding whether to approve a proposed project, the City’s Planning Commission and City Council must balance the various policies and decide whether the project is consistent (that is, in general harmony) with the general plan overall. (Incidentally, project conflicts with the general plan do not inherently result in a significant impact on the environment under the California Environmental Quality Act, since, under the act, impacts must be related to physical changes.)

**Relationship to other elements** By law, the elements of a general plan must be consistent with each other. Appendix C of the State’s *General Plan Guidelines* (“Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of the Noise Element of the General Plan”) discusses the relationship between noise and other elements, most importantly the land use and circulation elements (which in Oakland are aggregated as the land use

<!-- page 9 -->
and transportation element, or LUTE). Appendix C mentions that “a key objective of the noise element is to provide noise-exposure information for use in the land use element. When integrated with the noise element, the land use element will show acceptable land uses in relation to existing and projected noise contours.” Regarding the circulation element, Appendix C states that “the circulation system must be correlated with the land use element and is one of the major sources of noise. Noise exposure will thus be a decisive factor in the location and design of new transportation facilities and the possible mitigation of noise from existing facilities in relation to existing and planned land uses.” Appendix C goes on to state that “the local planning agency may wish to review the circulation and land use elements simultaneously to assess their compatibility with the noise element.”

As recommended by Appendix C of the *General Plan Guidelines*, Oakland’s noise element provides noise-exposure information—in the form of noise contours (➲ CHAPTER 4) and a land use-noise compatibility matrix (➲ CHAPTER 5)—to inform land-use decisions. (The matrix illustrates the degree of acceptability of exposing specified land uses, including sensitive land uses, to a range of ambient-noise levels, as indicated on the noise contour maps.) Also, the noise element acknowledges that transportation is the main source of noise in Oakland, and correlates noise levels with the layout of the transportation system in the form of noise contour (➲ CHAPTER 4). It should be mentioned that the LUTE contains noise-related policies on public nuisances and nuisances from incompatible land uses, the impact of truck traffic on residential neighborhoods, the development of new transportation infrastructure, the development of sites near the seaport and airport and along airport flight paths, and the location of entertainment and large-scale commercial activities. In addition, the open space, conservation and recreation element contains policy statements addressing the provision of landscape as noise screens along freeways (➲ APPENDIX A).

<!-- page 10 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 11 -->
# 2 | NOISE PRIMER

**Description** When an object vibrates, it radiates part of its energy as acoustic pressure in the form of sound waves. Noise can be thought of as sound that is intrusive, annoying or otherwise unwanted. Sound, and noise, can be described in terms of three technical variables:
* AMPLITUDE, OR LOUDNESS, which is the difference in pressure between the peak and the trough of a sound wave; it is measured in decibels.
* FREQUENCY, OR PITCH, which is the number of cycles of a sound wave per unit of time; pitch rises as the number of cycles increases and drops as it decreases.
* TIME PATTERN. Sounds can be continuous (as that of a waterfall), fluctuating (traffic throughout the day), intermittent (the ringing of a phone) or impulsive (a handclap).

**Measurement** Ambient, or community, noise is measured in decibels using the ➲ A-weighted sound-pressure scale (dBA). The normal range of human hearing extends from 0 dBA to about 140 dBA (➲ TABLE 1, next page). Because sound can vary in intensity by over one trillion times within the range of human hearing, decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, which compresses this range into a manageable set of numbers. On the logarithmic scale, sound intensity increases exponentially, so that ten decibels represents ten times more acoustic energy than one decibel but 20 decibels represents 100 more acoustic energy and 30 decibels, 1,000 times more. Also, noise sources do not combine in a simple additive fashion: if two sources produce noise levels

<<FIGURE>>

➲ The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of the sound spectrum. The A-weighting scale adjusts sound levels to correspond to the human hearing response by de-emphasizing the very low and very high sound frequencies that fall outside the human hearing range.

<!-- page 12 -->
of 50 dBA each, combining them would produce a noise level of only 53 dBA, not 100 dBA (that is, a doubling in the amount of sound energy produces only a 3 dBA change).

#### RANGE OF HUMAN HEARING
TABLE 1

| NOISE SOURCE OR ENVIRONMENT (DISTANCE OR LOCATION) | NOISE LEVEL, dBA | LOUDNESS LEVEL (COMPARED TO 70 dBA) |
| :--- | :---: | :--- |
| | 140 | Deafening; eardrums bleed |
| | < 130 | Threshold of pain (64 times louder) |
| Jet takeoff (at 200 feet) | < 120 | Threshold of physical discomfort (32 times louder) |
| Fire engine siren (100 ft), near stage at rock concert, table saw | < 110 | Extremely loud (16 times louder) |
| Passing train (at platform), unmuffled motorcycle | < 100 | Very loud (8 times louder) |
| Pile driver, jackhammer (50 ft), airliner (under flight path) | < 90 | Loud; hearing damage from prolonged exposure (4 times louder) |
| Freeway traffic (100 ft), passing truck, vacuum cleaner | < 80 | Loud; annoying and highly intrusive (twice as loud) |
| Passing bus (on sidewalk), street traffic (100 ft) | < 70 | Moderately loud; intrusive; telephone use is difficult (reference loudness) |
| Dishwasher, AC unit, passing car (on sidewalk) | < 60 | Moderate (half as loud) |
| Normal conversation, light auto traffic (100 ft), office setting | < 50 | Quiet; threshold of interference with human speech (1/4 as loud) |
| In typical living room, background music | < 40 | Very quiet; threshold of interference with sleep (1/8 as loud) |
| In library or in bedroom at night, soft whisper | < 30 | Faint (1/16 as loud) |
| Rustling leaves, inside recording studio | < 20 | Very faint |
| Human breathing | < 10 | Very faint; just audible |
| | 0 | Threshold of normal hearing |

*Compiled by City of Oakland staff from various sources*

**Human perception** Because of the physical characteristics of noise transmission and of noise reception by humans, the relative loudness of sounds does not closely match the actual amounts of sound energy. A change in ambient noise levels of 1-2 dBA is not audible even to sensitive receptors; a change of 3 dBA (twice the sound energy) is

<!-- page 13 -->
considered a just-noticeable difference; a change of at least 5 dBA is necessary to elicit a noticeable change in response by the community; and it takes a change of 10 dBA to be perceived as a doubling in loudness. From this, it can be inferred that a reduction in community noise levels of 5-10 dBA is necessary to appease noise-related complaints.

**Time-sensitive measurement** The intrusiveness of noise depends not only on loudness but also on frequency, duration and time of day it occurs. To better gauge the impact to the community, ambient noise is measured over periods of time rather than at a given moment. The "equivalent sound level" (L<sub>eq</sub>) can be thought of as the steady-state, or average, A-weighted sound level over a measurement period, typically one, eight or 24 hours. The "community noise equivalent level" (CNEL) and "day/night average sound level" (L<sub>dn</sub>) are measures of the 24-hour L<sub>eq</sub> reading at a given location with ➲ upward decibel adjustments, or penalties, to account for people’s increased sensitivity to noise during the evening, night and morning. L<sub>max</sub> and L<sub>min</sub> are the maximum and minimum noise levels during a measurement period, while L<sub>n</sub> refers to the sound level exceeded over a percentage "n" of the measurement period (for example, an L<sub>75</sub> of 60 dBA indicates that the sound level exceeded 60 dBA 75 percent of the time).

**Sources** Noise sources are classified as either stationary (or point) sources or as mobile sources. Common stationary sources include commercial and industrial equipment and activities (air compressors, generators and gas venting, for example); construction activities; car stereos and alarms; sporting and other entertainment events; and residential equipment and activities such as stereos, barking dogs, power tools and air-conditioning units. Stationary sources usually affect only small areas immediately adjacent to the source. Mobile sources—especially cars and trucks—are the most common and significant sources of noise in most communities. Because they stem from transportation activities, mobile sources often affect large areas along transportation corridors. The three main types of mobile noise sources are ground motor vehicles (including cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles and, more recently, motorized scooters), aircraft, and freight and passenger rail traffic. Traffic noise is generated by tire friction and wind resistance, and also by engines, mufflers, horns and sirens (in the case of emergency vehicles). Traffic noise levels depend on the speed of traffic and the percentage of trucks and, to a lesser extent, on traffic volume.

**Propagation and attenuation** Sound propagates, or travels outward, from its source in waves of acoustic pressure. The pattern of propagation is related to the geometry of the sound source. Sound from "point" sources (such as a piece of

➲ For CNEL, penalties are +5 dBA for readings made in the 7-10 pm period and +10 dBA for readings in the 10 pm-7 am period. For L<sub>dn</sub>, there is only a penalty of +10 dBA during the 10 pm-7 am period. In practice, L<sub>dn</sub> and CNEL values are considered equivalent, as they rarely differ by more than 1 dBA.

<!-- page 14 -->
industrial equipment) propagates in a spherical pattern around the point. Sound from sources with a linear pattern (such as a moving train or a line of closely spaced moving cars) propagates in a cylindrical pattern parallel to the line. Finally, sound from sources with a quasi-linear pattern (which is between a point and a line, such as moving cars spaced far apart), propagates in a hybrid pattern between that of a sphere and a cylinder. As the sound travels away from its source, it also attenuates, or drops off in loudness. For each doubling of distance, noise levels attenuate by approximately 6 dBA from point sources, 4.5 dBA from quasi-line sources and 3 dBA from line sources.

**Effects on people** Noise can have significant effects on physical and mental human health and well-being. Adverse impacts and effects include interference with speech and other forms of communication such as television and radio; sleep disruption; negative mood and behavioral changes; and hearing loss (usually temporary and caused by occupational, rather than environmental, noise). Sleep disruption and interference with communication are the main sources of noise-related community complaints. It should be mentioned that people’s tolerance to annoyance from noise is highly subjective, varying greatly among individuals.

**Noise mitigation** Noise impacts can be reduced by controlling the level of noise generation at the source, through site- and building-design techniques at the noise receptor, and by modifying the sound transmission path between source and receptor:
* **AT THE SOURCE:** The Federal and state governments establish uniform noise-emission standards for mobile sources and industrial and consumer machinery, while local governments may set limits on the operations of those sources and also adopt decibel-based noise-exposure guidelines for different land uses (➲ next section).
* **AT THE RECEPTOR:** Noise can be reduced by using wall sound insulation and sound-rated doors and windows; by fitting doors and windows properly and sealing openings and joints; and by locating openings in recognition of nearby noise sources (however, air conditioning might be needed for adequate ventilation).
* **TRANSMISSION PATH:** Barriers and buffers can be used to lessen noise. Reduction of traffic noise, for example, can be accomplished by placing walls or landscaped berms next to roadways, by re-routing traffic, by prohibiting residential development near major thoroughfares, and by designing building setbacks or other site features that orient dwelling units and outdoor areas away from traffic.

<!-- page 15 -->
# 3 | INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

**Federal** Based on its authority to regulate interstate commerce, Congress enacted the 1972 Noise Control Act (NCA) to provide noise-level standards for transportation, industrial and commercial equipment. Among other provisions, the NCA specifically reaffirmed earlier preemption by federal agencies over aircraft-noise control by state and local governments. In 1990, the Airport Noise and Capacity Act again preempted state and local authority by extending Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) authority over flight patterns, landing and departure times, and other operational aspects of public and private airports and heliports. The act grandfathered existing local ordinances controlling noise at airports, but it requires that new regulations receive FAA approval.

**State** The ➲ California noise insulation standards regulate the maximum allowable interior noise level in new multi-unit buildings (such as apartment buildings and hotels) by specifying the extent to which walls, doors and floor/ceiling assemblies must absorb sound. The standards establish a threshold of 45 dBA (CNEL) for noise from exterior sources in any habitable room with doors and windows closed, and require preparation of an acoustical analysis for units proposed in areas with ambient-noise levels of 60 dBA or greater to ensure that the threshold is not exceeded. In Oakland, the standards are enforced by the Building Services Division of the Community and Economic Development Agency (CEDA).

➲ California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2. Title 24, Part 2 is published by the International Code Council, a non-governmental organization with sole publication and distribution rights. It may be examined free of charge at one of many “depository libraries” throughout the state, which are listed on the website of the Building Standards Commission.

<!-- page 16 -->
# NOISE ELEMENT

➲ California Vehicle Code, §27000-27007, §27150-27159 and §27200-27207.

➲ California Code of Regulations, Title 21, §5000, et seq.

California Public Utilities Code, §21670-21679.5

Oakland Municipal Code, 17.120.050 (“Performance Standards—Noise”); and 8.18.010 (“Excessive and annoying noises prohibited”) and 8.18.020 (“Persistent noises a nuisance”).

The state has established ➲ regulations—enforced by the California Highway Patrol or local law-enforcement agencies—which set limits on the operation of vehicle horns, sirens, and mufflers and exhaust systems, and which set maximum noise levels at which cars, trucks and motorcycles can be operated. The ➲ California airport noise regulations provide noise standards governing the operation of aircraft and aircraft engines for airports in the state (in California, federal and state airport-related regulations are enforced by Caltrans).

**California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)**  This state law requires public agencies such as the City of Oakland to identify any significant environmental effects of their “actions,” including their approval of development projects, and to mitigate such effects if feasible. When evaluating projects under CEQA, the City considers the potential for a project to, among other things, expose persons to, excessive noise levels or to result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels .

**County** ➲ State law requires the establishment of airport land use commissions (ALUCs) at the county level. The main role of the ALUCs is to develop airport land-use plans (ALUPs) to advise cities and counties on the orderly expansion of public airports over a 20-year horizon and on minimizing land-use conflicts with surrounding areas over the issues of noise and building heights. Cities and counties must generally refer general plans, zoning ordinances and land-use development proposals near airports and heliports to the ALUC for determination of consistency with the ALUP. In Alameda County, the county’s Community Development Agency acts as the ALUC, monitoring Oakland International Airport, Hayward Executive Airport and Livermore Municipal Airport; it last adopted an ALUP for the county in 1986.

**Oakland**  The Oakland Municipal Code contains numerous regulations related to noise. The most important are the ➲ noise performance standards and the nuisance noise ordinance. The noise performance standards establish maximum noise levels generated by certain activities “across real property lines” which may be received by residential, commercial, manufacturing and other specified land uses. The standards also establish maximum noise levels for both short- and long-term construction and demolition activities, and for residential air-conditioning units, residential and commercial refrigeration units, and commercial exhaust systems. The nuisance noise ordinance generally prohibits “excessive or annoying” noise.

<!-- page 17 -->
In general, noise complaints related to the performance standards are enforced by CEDA’s Code Enforcement Division while complaints related to “nuisance” noise—yelling, loud music or barking dogs, for example—are investigated by the Oakland Police Department (OPD also enforces noise regulations related to ground motor vehicles). In addition, the City uses the zoning ordinance and the conditional-use permit process to limit the hours of operation for noise-producing activities and to identify noise-abatement requirements. In some cases, the discretionary review procedures in the zoning regulations—such as the use permit requirement for certain activities—provide the means for case-by-case review of potentially noisy uses.

**OAK** Oakland International Airport (OAK) has established noise-abatement policies and procedures regarding runway use, aircraft operation and flight patterns. The airport also operates an internal noise management office which administers a variety of noise-management programs: computerized systems to monitor airport-related noise levels in surrounding communities, sound-insulation programs for residences affected by airport noise, “flying quietly” education provided to pilots, periodic public meetings to address community concerns over noise, online information on runway use and operations and Bay Area air-traffic patterns, and a ➲ noise report hotline.

OAK’s noise report hotline received 3,291 noiserelated complaints in 2003. Of these, the vast majority (2,731 complaints, or 83 percent) came from Fremont and Alameda callers; Oakland callers represented just over 1.3 percent of the total (43 complaints). The hotline’s phone number is 510/577.4194; the hotline is generally staffed weekdays from 8:30 am to 5 pm (at other times, messages are recorded).

“The Oakland Police Department receives many complaints about barking dogs... Owners of barking dogs may be in violation of the Oakland Municipal Code. Violations are punishable by law and owners or keepers of animals creating a nuisance may be required to pay a fine. The Oakland Police Department investigates all complaints of barking dogs in the City of Oakland. To file a complaint or for further information, call the Oakland Police Department at 415/777.3333 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.”

—From the website of the Oakland Animal Shelter and Animal Control Field Services, a division of the Oakland Police Department

<!-- page 18 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 19 -->
# 4 | LOCAL NOISE ENVIRONMENT

**Noise sources** The major noise sources in Oakland, as in most cities, are transportation activities, specifically motor-vehicle traffic on major thoroughfares, which generates noise throughout the city continuously; rail operations (including those of the Bay Area Rapid Transit, or BART), which produce significant noise levels intermittently along railroad alignments; and operations at Oakland International Airport (OAK), which produce intermittent noise along flight paths. Finally, while a number of industrial noise sources exist throughout the city (mostly in West and East Oakland) which generate noise levels above those of their surroundings, none generates sufficient noise to affect the city’s overall noise environment.

**Technical study** In 2004, as part of updating the noise element, the City of Oakland retained the noise consulting firm of Illingworth & Rodkin to evaluate the city’s noise environment. The firm conducted a city-wide noise-monitoring survey in August 2004 (supplemented with results from project-specific noise studies conducted previously in Oakland) and presented the results in a report dated December 2004. Much of the information contained in this chapter of the noise element is derived from the Illingworth & Rodkin report. (More detailed information can be found in the report itself, which forms part of the noise element by reference, and which is available from the City.)

<!-- page 20 -->
**Noise monitoring survey** As mentioned above, Illingworth & Rodkin conducted a city-wide noise-monitoring survey on August 17-24, 2004 to determine the local noise environment. Noise levels were measured long-term (for 24 hours) at 12 locations in the city, and short-term (for 1 hour) at 11 additional locations. These 23 measurements were supplemented with results from 14 noise studies conducted by others between 1999 and 2003 for specific development projects in Oakland (➲ FIGURE 1 for noise-measurement locations). ➲ APPENDIX B contains tables summarizing information related to the long-term measurements (➲ TABLE B-1), the short-term measurements (➲ TABLE B-2), and the previously conducted measurements (➲ TABLE B-3). The measurements captured noise from a variety of both mobile and stationary sources.

**Roadway noise** Illingworth & Rodkin used Caltrans’ noise prediction model LeqV2 to develop noise contours (measured in Ldn) for the major traffic thoroughfares in Oakland (including the state and interstate freeways), employing traffic data obtained from various government agencies. The data were input into the traffic noise model for calibration with the observed noise measurements, and existing noise levels along city streets and highways were then calculated using the calibrated traffic noise model (noise levels were estimated at 75 feet from the centerline of major local thoroughfares and 150 feet from the centerline of freeways). ➲ APPENDIX B contains tables summarizing existing noise levels and noise levels predicted for the year 2025 along various local streets (➲ TABLE B-4) and freeway segments (➲ TABLE B-5). The contours of the future traffic noise levels are shown on ➲ FIGURE 2. (Contours of existing traffic noise levels were not mapped because they would not be distinguishable from future contours, given the minor changes expected to occur in noise levels over the next 20 years.) As the noise contour map shows, freeways are the main source of noise in the city, with I-580, I-880, I-980 and highways 13 and 24 generating the highest noise levels, in excess of 70 Ldn.

It should be noted that given Ldn values, including as expressed in noise contours, are considered worst-case estimates because noise measurements do not account for noise-mitigation measures (such as sound walls or berms, building setbacks, and sound-rated construction methods); for this reason, it can be assumed that areas within a given noise contour or surrounding a measurement site experience noise at below the measured levels. It should also be noted that although considerable effort goes into developing noise contours, the present modeling technology is such that the accuracy of contours is usually no better than +/- 3 dB; noise contours should, therefore, not be thought of as absolute lines of demarcation on a map (such as topographical contours) but rather as bands of similar noise exposure.

<!-- page 21 -->
**Railroad noise** There are two Union Pacific railroad right-of-ways in the city, both following north-south alignments. The two lines are parallel and near each other, contributing to cumulatively higher noise levels on the parcels between them. A typical train traveling at 25 mph may produce noise levels in excess of 95 dBA at a distance of 100 feet from the tracks, while train horns may approach 110 dBA. Brakes, coupling impacts and crossing guard warnings are additional common sources of noise along a railroad corridor. The aboveground BART lines—through West Oakland, along East 8^th Street/East 12^th Street/San Leandro Boulevard, along Highway 24, and along Martin Luther King Jr Way—are additional noise sources in the city. A typical BART train produces a noise level of 85 dBA at 100 feet (noise levels are lower near the stations due to the slower speeds of approaching and departing trains). BART trains run frequently through Oakland, at a combined rate of about 40 per hour on all lines during the daytime on weekdays and about 20 per hour during the early morning and evening on weekdays and during the weekend and holidays.

Using data collected for the San Leandro general plan update in 2000, Illingworth & Rodkin estimated noise levels along the Union Pacific and BART track alignments (including from train warning whistles) through Oakland. Distances from track centerlines to various L~dn~ levels are shown on ➲ TABLE B-6, while the noise contours are shown on ➲ FIGURE 3. (It should be remembered that noise generated by trains is intermittent, unlike noise from motor-vehicle traffic, which is continuous.) Given the unavailability of data regarding future railroad and BART operations, predicted future noise levels and noise contours along the rail corridors have not been prepared.

**Aircraft noise** ➲ FIGURE 4, obtained from Oakland International Airport (OAK), shows the noise contours, measured in ➲ CNEL, for existing overflight and ground airport operations (from the fourth quarter of 2004; it should be noted that noise from aircraft overflights is intermittent while noise from ground operations is relatively continuous). ➲ FIGURE 5, from the 1996 EIS/EIR for the Port of Oakland’s proposed Airport Development Plan, shows the predicted CNEL contours from airport operations in the year 2010. As the maps show, noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL are primarily experienced at the airport, over water and over small areas areas of Bay Farm Island. In addition, it is acknowledged that airplane overflights and other airport operations affect several neighborhoods in Oakland, San Leandro and the City of Alameda that are nevertheless outside of the 65 CNEL contour.

Because the community noise equivalent level (CNEL) is the noise metric specified in the State Aeronautics Code, aircraft noise in California is described in terms of CNEL. CNEL is roughly equivalent to the day/night average sound level (L~dn~) but includes a 5 dBA upward adjustment for the evening hours (7-10 pm).

<!-- page 22 -->
**Future noise levels** The noise element must analyze and quantify, to the extent practicable, both current and projected noise levels for the major sources of community noise. As described above, noise levels were predicted for the year 2025 along various local streets (➲ TABLE B-4) and freeway segments (➲ TABLE B-5) based on traffic data obtained from various government agencies. The contours of the future traffic noise levels are shown on ➲ FIGURE 2. (For the noise element, the City chose a time horizon of 20 years from the document's expected publication in 2005. While traffic studies commonly have two time horizons—10 and 20 years—community noise levels in a built-out city like Oakland would not change sufficiently in ten years to also justify this earlier time horizon. As mentioned earlier, contours of existing traffic noise levels were not mapped because they would not be distinguishable from future contours, given the minor changes expected to occur in noise levels over the next 20 years.) Future noise levels were not predicted along rail corridors because there is no reliable data on how railroad and BART operations will change over the next 20 years. Finally, ➲ FIGURE 5, shows the predicted CNEL contours from airport operations in the year 2010 (there is no reliable data for predicting airport noise contours for the year 2025).

<!-- page 23 -->
### Noise Element of the Oakland General Plan

### Figure 3: Railroad/BART Noise Contours (Year 2000)

<<FIGURE>>

Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.

<!-- page 24 -->
**Noise Element of the
Oakland General Plan**

**Figure 2:
Roadway Noise Contours (Year 2025)**

<<FIGURE>>

70 Ldn contour
65 Ldn contour
60 Ldn contour

Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.

<!-- page 25 -->
### Noise Element of the Oakland General Plan

### Figure 1: Noise Monitoring Locations

<<FIGURE>>

Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.

<!-- page 26 -->
**EXISTING (2004) CNEL NOISE CONTOURS FOR OAKLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT OPERATIONS**

FIGURE 4

<<FIGURE>>

*Source: Metropolitan Oakland International Airport*

<!-- page 27 -->
**FUTURE (2010) CNEL NOISE CONTOURS FOR OAKLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT OPERATIONS**    FIGURE 5

<<FIGURE>>

*Source: Port of Oakland Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report; US Army Corps of Engineers, September 10, 1996*

<!-- page 28 -->
# 5 | NOISE-LAND USE COMPATIBILITY

A key purpose of the noise contour maps in the noise element is to provide a basis for determining the acceptability of proposed land uses at their proposed sites. To help accomplish this, the California Department of Health Services developed receiver-based noise-compatibility guidelines, in the form of a matrix, for various land uses. The matrix illustrates the degree of acceptability of exposing specified land uses (including sensitive land uses) to a range of ambient-noise levels, as indicated on the noise contour maps. As part of the noise element update, the City of Oakland is adopting a version of the guidelines matrix (➲ FIGURE 6, at the end of this chapter). The matrix, in conjunction with the noise contour maps (➲ FIGURES 2-3, in Chapter 4) and when appropriate, site-specific noise assessments, should be used by the City when considering proposed development projects in order to gauge the acceptability of a proposed project (that is, its compatibility with noise levels at the proposed site).

The California *General Plan Guidelines* is of the opinion that the matrix criteria "require a rather broad interpretation." For one thing, noise contours should be thought of as bands of similar noise exposure, rather than as absolute lines of demarcation, due to the limited accuracy of existing noise modeling technology; for another, noise contours should be considered worst-case estimates because noise measurements do not account for noise-mitigation measures. In addition, the evaluation of proposed land uses for noise compatibility should, in general, include many factors. These include the type of

<!-- page 29 -->
noise source; the sensitivity of the noise receptor; the noise reduction likely to be provided by structures; the degree to which the noise source may interfere with speech, sleep or other activities characteristic of the land use; seasonal variations in noise source levels; existing outdoor ambient levels; general societal attitudes towards the noise source; prior history of the source; and tonal characteristics of the source. To the extent that any of these factors can be evaluated, the measured or computed noise exposure values may be adjusted in order to more accurately assess local sentiments towards acceptable noise exposure.

Conventional contemporary construction methods and materials decrease outdoor noise by 12-18 dB (with partially open windows). At the same time, according to common practice, the following are the maximum interior noise levels generally considered acceptable for various common land uses:
* 45 dB: residential, hotels, motels, transient lodging, institutional (churches, hospitals, classrooms, libraries), movie theaters
* 50 dB: professional offices, research and development, auditoria, meeting halls
* 55 dB: retail, banks, restaurants, sports clubs
* 65 dB: manufacturing, warehousing

Taking residential uses as an example, the above information implies that an ambient noise level of 60 dB is the threshold of a “normally acceptable” environment for residences (maximum interior noise level of 45 dB plus average noise mitigation of 15 dB). Higher ambient noise levels would require detailed noise analyses, sound-rated construction methods or materials, mechanical ventilation systems (so that windows may be kept closed), or noise shielding features such as sound walls, street setbacks and thoughtful site planning and building orientation. For example, considering that sound walls typically provide noise level reduction of 10 dB, residences could be built in areas exposed to noise levels of 70 dB if a suitable sound wall was provided.

Regarding the noise-land use compatibility guidelines, it is important to keep in mind two cautionary principles. First, the guidelines should not be used permissively to allow for the degradation of noise levels up to the maximum desired standards: for example, if the ambient noise level in an area currently zoned for residential uses is below 60 dB, an increase in noise up to that level should not necessarily be allowed. Second, even land uses proposed for “normally acceptable” noise environments should be evaluated in terms of any potential adverse noise impacts that such proposed projects would have on existing land uses nearby.

<!-- page 30 -->
**NOISE-LAND USE COMPATIBILITY MATRIX** FIGURE 6

| LAND USE CATEGORY | COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE (L~dn~ OR CNEL, DB) | | | | | |
| :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| | 55 | 60 | 65 | 70 | 75 | 80 |
| Residential | | | | | | |
| Transient lodging—motels, hotels | | | | | | |
| Schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, nursing homes | | | | | | |
| Auditoriums, concert halls, amphitheaters | | | | | | |
| Sports arenas, outdoor spectator sports | | | | | | |
| Playgrounds, neighborhood parks | | | | | | |
| Golf courses, riding stables, water recreation, cemeteries | | | | | | |
| Office buildings, business commercial and professional | | | | | | |
| Industrial, manufacturing, utilities, agriculture | | | | | | |

*Adapted from State of California—General Plan Guidelines, 2003 (Appendix C); Governor’s Office of Planning and Research*

**INTERPRETATION**

NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE: Development may occur without an analysis of potential noise impacts *to the proposed development* (though it might still be necessary to analyze noise impacts that the project might have *on its surroundings*).

CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE: Development should be undertaken only after an analysis of noise-reduction requirements is conducted, and if necessary noise-mitigating features are included in the design. Conventional construction will usually suffice as long as it incorporates air conditioning or forced fresh-air-supply systems, though it will likely require that project occupants maintain their windows closed.

NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE: Development should generally be discouraged; it may be undertaken only if a detailed analysis of the noise-reduction requirements is conducted, and if highly effective noise insulation, mitigation or abatement features are included in the design.

CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE: Development should not be undertaken.

<!-- page 31 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 32 -->
# 6 | POLICY STATEMENTS

**Overview** At the heart of every general plan element is a set of goals, objectives, policies, recommendations, strategies, actions and other statements which are often collectively referred to as policy statements. The purpose of policy statements is to provide direction for a city or county, and guide the development-related actions and decisions of its officials. Policy statements attempt to reconcile the diverse interests of a community, and are normally based on background technical information and issue analyses developed as part of the general-plan process.

Oakland’s noise element uses a hierarchical, three-layer framework to organize the policy statements. At the top of the hierarchy are goals, or broad, general ends which the city desires to achieve by implementing the noise element. The noise element formulates two goals for the City:
* To protect Oakland’s quality of life and the physical and mental well-being of residents and others in the City by reducing the community’s exposure to noise; and
* To safeguard Oakland’s economic welfare by mitigating noise incompatibilities among commercial, industrial and residential land uses.

Goals form the basis for policies, the next level of the hierarchy. Policies, which are less general than goals, identify specific areas in which the city will direct efforts in order to attain its goals. Below the policies are actions, detailed and implementable steps that, if

<!-- page 33 -->
feasible, the city will undertake in order to carry out the policies and, ultimately, the goals. There is at least one action supporting every policy, and each action lists the city agency or agencies expected to assume the leading role in implementing that action. (CEDA refers to the Community and Economic Development Agency, OPD to the Oakland Police Department, and PWA to the Public Works Agency.) It is important to note that the actions are underlain by two assumptions. First, the actions are meant to apply only to those geographic and programmatic areas over which the City of Oakland has legal authority. Second, the actions will only be implemented if they can be accomplished successfully given financial, environmental, legal, social and technological factors.

## POLICY STATEMENTS

| POLICY 1 | Ensure the compatibility of existing and, especially, of proposed development projects not only with neighboring land uses but also with their surrounding noise environment. |
| :--- | :--- |

* ACTION 1.1: Use the noise-land use compatibility matrix (Figure 6) in conjunction with the noise contour maps (especially for roadway traffic) to evaluate the acceptability of residential and other proposed land uses and also the need for any mitigation or abatement measures to achieve the desired degree of acceptability.
**▶ CEDA PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION**

***

* ACTION 1.2: Continue using the City’s zoning regulations and permit processes to limit the hours of operation of noise-producing activities which create conflicts with residential uses and to attach noise-abatement requirements to such activities.
**▶ CEDA PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION**

***

* ACTION 1.3: Continue working with the Alameda County Community Development Agency (in its role as the county’s airport land use commission) and with the Port of Oakland to ensure consistency with the county’s airport

<!-- page 34 -->
land-use plan of the city’s various master-planning documents, zoning ordinance and land-use development proposals near Oakland’s airport.
**▶ CEDA PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION**

| POLICY 2 | Protect the noise environment by controlling the generation of noise by both stationary and mobile noise sources. |
| :--- | :--- |

* ACTION 2.1: Review the various noise prohibitions and restrictions under the City’s nuisance noise ordinance and revise the ordinance if necessary.
**▶ OPD BUREAU OF FIELD OPERATIONS**

* ACTION 2.2: As resources permit, increase enforcement of noise-related complaints and also of vehicle speed limits and of operational noise from cars, trucks and motorcycles.
**▶ OPD BUREAU OF FIELD OPERATIONS**
**▶ CEDA CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION**

* ACTION 2.3: Encourage the Port of Oakland to continue promoting its noise-abatement office and programs for Oakland International Airport.
**▶ CEDA PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION**

| POLICY 3 | Reduce the community’s exposure to noise by minimizing the noise levels that are *received* by Oakland residents and others in the City. (This policy addresses the *reception* of noise whereas Policy 2 addresses the *generation* of noise.) |
| :--- | :--- |

* ACTION 3.1: Continue to use the building-permit application process to enforce the California Noise Insulation Standards regulating the maximum allowable interior noise level in new multi-unit buildings.
**▶ CEDA BUILDING SERVICES DIVISION**

* ACTION 3.2: Review the City’s noise performance standards and revise them as appropriate to be consistent with City Council policy.
**▶ CEDA PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION**

<!-- page 35 -->
* ACTION 3.3: Demand that Caltrans implement sound barriers, building retrofit programs and other measures to mitigate to the maximum extent feasible noise impacts on residential and other sensitive land uses from any new, widened or upgraded roadways; any new sound barrier must conform with City policies and standards regarding visual and aesthetic resources and quality.
**► PWA TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DIVISION**

<!-- page 36 -->
# 7 | RESOURCES

Below is a list of noise-related resources online, including many that were used to prepare the noise element. It should be kept in mind that a large percentage of Internet addresses become invalid every year, as web pages cease to exist or are moved to other locations on the Internet. Nevertheless, it was felt that providing online resources would be useful because many web pages do remain valid for at least several years and also because the noise element will be consulted by the public most frequently in the few months after its publication.

### Government agencies
* FAA Office of Environment and Energy, Noise Division: aee.faa.gov/noise
* Oakland Community and Economic Development Agency: oaklandceda.com
* Oakland Police Department: www.oaklandpolice.com

### Government resources
* Government information sources on noise pollution: www.libsci.sc.edu/bob/class/clis734/webguides/noise.html
* California law codes: leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
* California Code of Regulations: ccr.oal.ca.gov
* California *General Plan Guidelines*: opr.ca.gov/planning/PDFs/General_Plan_Guidelines_2003.pdf
* California Environmental Quality Act: ceres.ca.gov/ceqa

<!-- page 37 -->
* Oakland Municipal Code: bpc.iserver.net/codes/oakland
* Oakland International Airport's Noise Management Program: flyoakland.com/noise/noise_management_pro.shtml

**Noise-pollution control advocacy**
* Noise Pollution Clearinghouse: nonoise.org
* Right to Quiet Society: quiet.org
* The League for the Hard of Hearing's Noise Center: lhh.org/noise
* Airport noise law: www.netvista.net/~hpb

<!-- page 38 -->
# APPENDIX A

## Noise-Related Policy Statements from Other Elements of the Oakland General Plan

| From the Land Use and Transportation Element |
| :--- |

**Policy I/C4.2: Minimizing nuisances.** The potential for new or existing industrial or commercial uses, including seaport and airport activities, to create nuisance impacts on surrounding residential land uses should be minimized through appropriate siting and efficient implementation and enforcement of environmental and development controls (p. 42).

**Policy T1.5: Locating truck services.** Truck services should be concentrated in areas adjacent to freeways and near the seaport and airport, while ensuring the attractiveness of the environment for visitors, local business, and nearby neighborhoods (p. 51).

**Policy T1.6: Designating truck routes.** An adequate system of roads connecting port terminals, warehouses, freeways and regional arterials, and other important truck destinations should be designated. This system should rely upon arterial streets away from residential neighborhoods (p. 51).

**Policy T1.7: Routing freeway construction.** New or expanded freeway construction should be routed through areas containing land uses which can tolerate any anticipated future noise impact, and/or incorporate special design features or traffic controls which will offset the impact.(p. 51).

**Policy T1.8: Re-routing and enforcing truck routes.** The City should make efforts to re-route traffic away from neighborhoods, wherever possible, and enforce truck route controls (p. 51).

<!-- page 39 -->
**Policy T6.1: Posting maximum speeds.** Collector streets shall be posted at the lowest possible speed (usually a maximum speed of 25 miles per hour), except where a lower speed is dictated by safety and allowable by law (p. 60).

**Policy T6.4: Rebuilding freeways.** In the event of a major disaster, necessitating reconstruction of the I-880 freeway, it should be rebuilt below ground in the downtown/Jack London Square area (p. 60).

**Policy D12.3: Locating entertainment activities.** Large scale entertainment uses should be encouraged to concentrate in the Jack London Waterfront and within the Broadway corridor area. However, existing large scale facilities in the Downtown should be utilized to the fullest extent possible (p. 73).

**Policy D12.4: Locating smaller scale entertainment activities.** Small scale entertainment uses, such as small clubs, should be allowed to locate in the Jack London Waterfront area and to be dispersed throughout downtown districts, provided that the City works with area residents and businesses to manage the impacts of such uses (p. 73).

**Policy W1.3: Reducing land use conflicts.** Land uses and impacts generated from Port or neighborhood activities should be buffered, protecting adjacent residential areas from the impacts of seaport, airport, or other industrial uses. Appropriate siting of industrial activities, buffering (e.g., landscaping, fencing, transitional uses, etc.), truck traffic management efforts, and other mitigations should be used to minimize the impact of incompatible uses (p. 78).

**Policy W2.2: Buffering of heavy industrial uses.** Appropriate buffering measures for heavy industrial uses and transportation uses on adjacent residential neighborhoods should be developed and implemented (p. 78).

**Policy W6.2: Developing areas adjacent to the airport.** Development of sites proximate to airport flight paths should be in conformance with Federal and State standards, as articulated in Federal Aviation Regulation, Part 77 and Part 150 ALUC planning guidelines, and any other applicable regulations and amendments (p. 88).

**Policy W7.1: Developing lands in the vicinity of the seaport/airport.** Outside the seaport and airport, land should be developed with a variety of uses that benefit from the close proximity to the seaport and airport and that enhance the unique characteristics of the seaport and airport. These lands should be developed with uses which can buffer adjacent neighborhoods from impacts related to such activities (p. 88).

**Policy N1.4: Locating large-scale commercial activities.** Commercial uses which serve long term retail needs or regional consumers and which primarily offer high volume goods should be located in areas visible or amenable to high volumes of traffic. Traffic generated by large scale commercial developments should be directed to arterial streets and freeways and not adversely affect nearby residential streets (p. 104).

**Policy N1.6: Reviewing potential nuisance activities.** The City should closely review any proposed new commercial activities that have the potential to create public nuisance or crime problems, and should monitor those that are existing. These may include isolated commercial or industrial establishments located within residential areas, alcoholic beverage sales activities (excluding restaurants), adult entertainment, or other entertainment activities (p. 104).

**Policy N3.9: Orienting residential development.** Residential developments should be encouraged to face the street and to orient their units to desirable sunlight and views, while avoiding unreasonably blocking sunlight and views for neighboring buildings, respecting the privacy needs of residents of the development and surrounding properties, providing for sufficient

<!-- page 40 -->
conveniently located on-site open space, and avoiding undue noise
exposure (p. 107).

**Policy N5.2: Buffering residential areas.** Residential areas
should be buffered and reinforced from conflicting uses through
the establishment of performance-based regulations, the removal
of non-conforming uses, and other tools (p. 109).

**Policy N11.4: Alleviating Public Nuisances.** The City
should strive to alleviate public nuisances and unsafe and illegal
activities. Code Enforcement efforts should be given as high a
priority as facilitating the development process. Public nuisance
regulations should be designed to allow community members to
use City codes to facilitate nuisance abatement in their
neighborhood (p. 114).

### From the Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element

**Policy OS-3.6: Open Space Buffers Along Freeways.**
Maintain existing open space buffers along Oakland’s freeways to
absorb noise and emissions… (p. 2-29).

*   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 (p. 2-30).

*   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 (p. 2-
    30).

<!-- page 41 -->
This page intentionally left blank

<!-- page 42 -->
# APPENDIX B

### TABLES FROM THE TECHNICAL REPORT

*See pages that follow*

<!-- page 43 -->
### Summary of Long-Term Noise Monitoring Results
#### Table B-1

| Site | Location (distance, in feet, from centerline of road) | Date | Daytime Noise Levels (dBA) | Nighttime Noise Levels | L<sub>dn</sub> |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| LT-1 | Hwy 24 (~144 ft), east of Broadway | 8/17 to 8/19/04 | 74 to 80 | 67 to 78 | 80 |
| LT-2 | Skyline Pkwy (~20 ft), at 7293 Skyline Pkwy | 8/17 to 8/19/04 | 55 to 68 | 32 to 58 | 61-63 |
| LT-3 | Hwy 13 (~90 ft), at Monterey and Maiden Ln | 8/17 to 8/19/04 | 67 to 72 | 57 to 69 | 72 |
| LT-4 | Skyline Pkwy (~87 ft), at Mott Pl | 8/17 to 8/19/04 | 52 to 61 | 42 to 55 | 57-58 |
| LT-5 | Fruitvale Av (~87 ft), at Davis St | 8/17 to 8/19/04 | 63 to 67 | 54 to 63 | 67 |
| LT-6 | 14<sup>th</sup> Av (~75 ft), at East 22<sup>nd</sup> St | 8/17 to 8/19/04 | 64 to 68 | 55 to 64 | 68 |
| LT-7 | I-580 (~186 ft), at Wesley St | 8/17/04 | 72 to 73 | -- | -- |
| LT-8 | San Leandro St (~30 ft), at the BART tracks | 8/23 to 8/24/04 | 72 to 74 | Down to 59 | -- |
| LT-9 | 55<sup>th</sup> Av (~132 ft), at Bancroft Av | 8/23 to 8/24/04 | 64 to 74 | 55 to 74 | 72 |
| LT-10 | International Blvd (~75 ft), at 81<sup>st</sup> St | 8/23 to 8/24/04 | 67 to 75 | 61 to 67 | 73 |
| LT-11 | 98<sup>th</sup> St (~81 ft), at E St | 8/23 to 8/24/04 | 69 to 72 | 60 to 68 | 72 |
| LT-12 | Hegenberger Rd (~81 ft), at Leet | 8/23 to 8/24/04 | 68 to 72 | 62 to 69 | 74 |

<!-- page 44 -->
### SUMMARY OF SHORT-TERM NOISE MONITORING RESULTS
### TABLE B-2

| SITE | LOCATION (DISTANCE, IN FEET, FROM CENTERLINE OF ROAD) | DATE AND TIME | L~MAX~ | L~MIN~ | L₁ | L₁₀ | L₅₀ | L₉₀ | L~EQ~ |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| ST-1 | MLK Blvd (~84 ft) | 8/18/2004; 10:30 am | 96 | 55 | 83 | 73 | 68 | 60 | 74 |
| ST-2 | Alcatraz St (~36 ft), at 620-626 Alcatraz | 8/18/2004; 11:10 am | 84 | 48 | 75 | 71 | 65 | 53 | 68 |
| ST-3 | Intersection of Grandview and Gravatt | 8/18/2004; 11:40 am | 66 | 39 | 65 | 55 | 44 | 41 | 53 |
| ST-4 | Moraga (~54 ft), at Harbord Dr | 8/18/2004; 12:15 am | 74 | 45 | 72 | 70 | 63 | 55 | 65 |
| ST-5 | Pleasant Valley Av (~63 ft), at Home St | 8/18/2004; 12:40 am | 78 | 54 | 76 | 72 | 66 | 60 | 68 |
| ST-6 | Shepard Canyon Rd (~63 ft), at Paso Robles | 8/18/2004; 2:00 am | 77 | 41 | 70 | 63 | 52 | 44 | 59 |
| ST-7 | Park (~63 ft), at Everett | 8/23/2004; 2:00 am | 78 | 46 | 76 | 71 | 64 | 53 | 67 |
| ST-8 | Lincoln (~42 ft), at Burlington | 8/23/2004; 2:20 am | 83 | 42 | 77 | 67 | 56 | 46 | 65 |
| ST-9 | 35^th^ Av (~69 ft), at Harbor View | 8/23/2004; 2:50 am | 88 | 50 | 80 | 71 | 63 | 55 | 69 |
| ST-10 | Redwood Rd (~66 ft), at Via Rialto | 8/24/2004; 12:00 am | 76 | 48 | 74 | 70 | 61 | 52 | 65 |
| ST-11 | Golf Links Rd (~71 ft), at Dunkirk Av | 8/24/2004; 12:40 am | 73 | 39 | 68 | 63 | 52 | 44 | 58 |

During short-term measurements, vehicular traffic on the street network was the dominant noise source; however, there were contributions from overflight aircraft at ST-4, ST-5, ST-6, ST-8 and ST-11. Aircraft at ST-5 and ST-8 generated maximum levels of 70 dBA.

<!-- page 45 -->
**SUMMARY OF PREVIOUSLY CONDUCTED NOISE MEASUREMENTS** TABLE B-3

| LOCATION | DURATION | NOISE LEVEL (DBA) | DISTANCE (FEET) | MAJOR NOISE SOURCE | SOURCE OF INFORMATION |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Oak & 4th Street | 24 Hour | 71 Ldn | Fence line | Traffic on Oak Street | ESA, 1999 |
| Telegraph Ave & 32nd St | 24 Hour | 71 CNEL | 50 | Traffic on Telegraph Ave | ESA, 2000 |
| NE corner of MacArthur BART | 24 Hour | 72 CNEL | * | Traffic on I-580, BART | ESA, 2000 |
| MLK Jr Way btwn Apgar & 39th St | * | 65 Leq | 60 | I-580, BART, MLK Jr Way traffic | ESA, 2000 |
| 62nd St btwn San Pablo & Marshall | * | 60 Leq | 25 | Traffic on 62nd and San Pablo | ESA, 2000 |
| San Pablo & 16th | 30 Min | 63 CNEL | 30 | Traffic on San Pablo Ave | Lamphier & Associates, 2000 |
| 16th & Clay | 30 Min | 62 CNEL | 30 | Traffic on 16th Street | Lamphier & Associates, 2000 |
| 16th Street btwn Jefferson and Clay | 30 Min | 61 CNEL | 30 | Traffic on 16th Street | Lamphier & Associates, 2000 |
| 17th Street btwn MLK and Jefferson | 30 Min | 66 CNEL | 30 | Traffic on 17th Street | Lamphier & Associates, 2000 |
| 9th St | 24 Hour | 65 CNEL | * | Traffic on 9th St | Charles Salter & Associates, 2000 |
| 8th St | 24 Hour | 66 CNEL | * | Traffic on 8th St | Charles Salter & Associates, 2000 |
| Jefferson St. | 24 Hour | 71 CNEL | * | Traffic on Jefferson St. | Charles Salter & Associates, 2000 |
| Clay St. | 24 Hour | 71 CNEL | * | Traffic on Clay St. | Charles Salter & Associates, 2000 |
| Vernon Street north of Bay Place | 24 Hour | 58 Ldn | 60 | Traffic on Vernon Street | ESA, 2000 |
| Bay Place | 15 Min | 64 peak | 30 | Traffic on Bay Place | ESA, 2000 |
| Harrison Street | 15 Min | 66 peak | 55 | Traffic on Harrison Street | ESA, 2000 |
| 3rd/Broadway, NW Corner | 15 Min | 70 peak am | Sidewalk | I-880, railroad, local traffic | Jones & Stokes, 2001 |
| 3rd/Broadway, NW Corner | 15 Min | 67 Peak pm | Sidewalk | I-880, railroad, local traffic | Jones & Stokes, 2001 |
| 3rd/Broadway, SW Corner | 15 Min | 66 peak am | Sidewalk | I-880, railroad, local traffic | Jones & Stokes, 2001 |
| 3rd/Broadway, SW Corner | 15 Min | 68 peak pm | Sidewalk | I-880, railroad, local traffic | Jones & Stokes, 2001 |
| 3rd/Franklin NW Corner | 15 Min | 69 peak am | Sidewalk | I-880, railroad, local traffic | Jones & Stokes, 2001 |
| 3rd/Franklin NW Corner | 15 Min | 66 peak pm | Sidewalk | I-880, railroad, local traffic | Jones & Stokes, 2001 |
| 2nd/Broadway, SW Corner | 15 Min | 69 peak am | Sidewalk | I-880, railroad, local traffic | Jones & Stokes, 2001 |
| 2nd/Broadway, SW Corner | 15 Min | 69 peak pm | Sidewalk | I-880, railroad, local traffic | Jones & Stokes, 2001 |
| Pine Street & Gross Street | 24 Hour | 68 CNEL | * | I-880, local traffic, BART, aircraft | G. Borchard & Associates, 2001 |
| 1109 Wood Street btwn 11th & 12th | 24 Hour | 64 CNEL | * | Local traffic, aircraft, I-880 | G. Borchard & Associates, 2001 |

<!-- page 46 -->
| LOCATION | DURATION | NOISE LEVEL (DBA) | DISTANCE (FEET) | MAJOR NOISE SOURCE | SOURCE OF INFORMATION |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| So. side of 3rd St near Tower Lofts | 24 Hour | 68 Ldn | * | I-880, local traffic | Charles Salter & Associates, 2001 |
| I-880 Freeway (South of Oak Street) | 24 Hour | 75 CNEL | 500 | Traffic on I-880 | Lamphier-Gregory, 2002 |
| Foothill Boulevard (At 68th Ave) | 24 Hour | 69 CNEL | 50 | Traffic on Foothill Blvd | Lamphier-Gregory, 2002 |
| MacArthur Blvd (South of 90th Ave) | 24 Hour | 70 CNEL | 50 | Traffic on MacArthur Blvd | Lamphier-Gregory, 2000 |
| San Pablo Avenue (at 32nd Street) | 15 Min | 69 CNEL | 50 | Traffic on San Pablo Ave | Lamphier-Gregory, 2003 |
| West Grand Avenue (at Chestnut St) | 15 Min | 71 CNEL | 50 | Traffic on West Grand Ave | Lamphier-Gregory, 2003 |
| Mandela Parkway (at 17th Street) | 15 Min | 64 CNEL | 50 | Traffic on Mandela Parkway | Lamphier-Gregory, 2003 |
| 16th Street (West of Wood Street) | 24 Hour | 66 CNEL | * | Traffic on 16th Street | Lamphier-Gregory, 2003 |
| Peralta Street (at 8th Street) | 15 Min | 69 CNEL | 50 | Traffic on Peralta Street | Lamphier-Gregory, 2003 |
| 7th Street (at Mandela Parkway) | 15 Min | 72 CNEL | 50 | Traffic on 7th Street | Lamphier-Gregory, 2003 |
| Alice St, entrance to 'The Landing' | 24 Hour | 66-67 Ldn | 40 | Amtrak activity and local traffic | ESA, 2003 |
| Embarcadero near Alice St | 24 Hour | 72-73 Ldn | 150 (Amtrak) | Amtrak activity and local traffic | ESA, 2003 |

<!-- page 47 -->
### CALCULATED TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS FOR MAJOR LOCAL ROADWAYS
#### TABLE B-4

| STREET NAME | FROM | TO | EXISTING LDN (AT 75 FT) | DISTANCE (FT) TO NOISE CONTOUR FROM ROADWAY CENTER | DISTANCE (FT) TO NOISE CONTOUR FROM ROADWAY CENTER | FUTURE LDN (AT 75 FT) | DISTANCE (FT) TO NOISE CONTOUR FROM ROADWAY CENTER | DISTANCE (FT) TO NOISE CONTOUR FROM ROADWAY CENTER | DISTANCE (FT) TO NOISE CONTOUR FROM ROADWAY CENTER |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| | | | | 70 LDN | 65 LDN | 60 LDN | | 70 LDN | 65 LDN | 60 LDN |
| 14^th / Beaumont | 8^th St | 21^st St | 65 | * | 80 | 170 | 66 | * | 90 | 190 |
| 14^th / Beaumont | East 24^th St | East 27^th St | 67 | 50 | 100 | 210 | 67 | 50 | 100 | 220 |
| 23^rd Ave | East 7^th St | 12^th St | 68 | 60 | 120 | 260 | 69 | 60 | 140 | 300 |
| 23^rd Ave | 29^th Ave | East 7^th St | 68 | 60 | 120 | 260 | 69 | 60 | 140 | 300 |
| 35^th Ave | Foothill Blvd | East 14^th St | 60 | * | * | 70 | 61 | * | * | 90 |
| 35^th Ave | MacArthur Blvd | Foothill Blvd | 66 | * | 80 | 180 | 66 | * | 90 | 190 |
| 42^nd Ave | Foothill Blvd (S) | 14^th St | 67 | 50 | 110 | 240 | 66 | * | 90 | 190 |
| 51^st St | Shattuck Ave | Telegraph Ave | 61 | * | * | 80 | 61 | * | * | 90 |
| 51^st St | Telegraph Ave | Broadway | 67 | 50 | 100 | 210 | 67 | 50 | 100 | 220 |
| 66^th Ave | Oakport St | San Leandro St | 66 | * | 80 | 180 | 66 | * | 90 | 190 |
| 73^rd Ave | Bancroft Ave | MacArthur Blvd | 69 | 60 | 130 | 280 | 70 | 70 | 160 | 350 |
| 73^rd Ave | International Blvd | MacArthur Blvd | 71 | 90 | 190 | 410 | 72 | 100 | 220 | 470 |
| 73^rd Ave | Arthur St | Bancroft Ave | 71 | 80 | 180 | 380 | 72 | 100 | 220 | 470 |
| 7^th St | Fallon St | Fifth Ave | 63 | * | 50 | 120 | 65 | * | 70 | 160 |
| 7^th St | Wood St | Market St | 66 | * | 90 | 190 | 67 | 50 | 100 | 220 |
| 98^th Ave | Bancroft Ave | Golf Links Rd | 66 | * | 90 | 180 | 65 | * | 70 | 160 |
| 98^th Ave | San Leandro St | Bancroft Ave | 65 | * | 80 | 160 | 66 | * | 90 | 190 |
| 98^th Ave | I-880 (E) | San Leandro St | 67 | 50 | 110 | 230 | 68 | 60 | 120 | 260 |
| Alcatraz Ave | Telegraph Ave | Berkeley city limit | 64 | * | 60 | 140 | 68 | 60 | 120 | 260 |
| Alcatraz Ave | Berkeley city limit | Shattuck Ave | 60 | * | * | 80 | 61 | * | * | 90 |
| Bancroft Ave | Seminary Ave | Havenscourt Blvd | 60 | * | * | 80 | 62 | * | 50 | 100 |
| Bancroft Ave | Havenscourt Blvd | 73^rd Ave | 66 | * | 90 | 200 | 67 | 50 | 100 | 220 |
| Bancroft Ave | 98^th Ave | SL city limit | 66 | * | 90 | 190 | 66 | * | 90 | 190 |
| Bancroft Ave | 73^rd Ave | 98^th Ave | 66 | * | 90 | 200 | 67 | 50 | 100 | 220 |
| Broadway | Keith Ave | Rte 13 EB on-ramp | 69 | 60 | 140 | 300 | 71 | 90 | 190 | 410 |
| Broadway | MacArthur Blvd | Pleasant Valley Ave | 66 | * | 90 | 200 | 67 | 50 | 100 | 220 |
| Broadway | 27^th St | MacArthur Blvd (W) | 67 | 50 | 100 | 220 | 66 | * | 90 | 190 |

<!-- page 48 -->
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Broadway | Pleasant Valley Ave | Keith Ave | 68 | 60 | 120 | 260 | 69 | 60 | 140 | 300 |
| Brush St | 5^th St | 11^TH St | 67 | 50 | 100 | 230 | 69 | 60 | 140 | 300 |
| Claremont Ave | College Ave | Berkeley city limit | 65 | * | 80 | 160 | 66 | * | 90 | 190 |
| Claremont Ave | Berkeley city limit | CCC LIMIT | 67 | 50 | 100 | 230 | 66 | * | 90 | 190 |
| Claremont Ave | Telegraph Ave | College Ave | 66 | * | 90 | 190 | 65 | * | 70 | 160 |
| Coliseum Way | 46^th Ave | 66^TH Ave (E) | 66 | * | 90 | 190 | 61 | * | * | 90 |
| Edes Ave | I-880 off-ramps | 85^TH Ave | 66 | * | 90 | 180 | 63 | * | 60 | 120 |
| Foothill Blvd | Lakeshore | 5^th Ave | 58 | * | * | 60 | 59 | * | * | 60 |
| Foothill Blvd | 8^th Ave | 14^TH Ave | 63 | * | 50 | 110 | 61 | * | * | 90 |
| Foothill Blvd | 14^th Ave | 19^TH Ave | 59 | * | * | 60 | 60 | * | * | 70 |
| Foothill Blvd | 23^RD Ave | Fruitvale Ave | 61 | * | * | 80 | 60 | * | * | 70 |
| Foothill Blvd | 35^th Ave | 38^th Ave | 62 | * | 50 | 110 | 63 | * | 60 | 120 |
| Foothill Blvd | 38^th Ave | 42^nd Ave (S) | 63 | * | 50 | 110 | 61 | * | * | 90 |
| Foothill Blvd | High St | Vicksburg Ave | 61 | * | * | 90 | 62 | * | 50 | 100 |
| Foothill Blvd | Vicksburg Ave | 55^th Ave | 59 | * | * | 60 | 59 | * | * | 60 |
| Foothill Blvd | 55^th Ave | Seminary Ave | 60 | * | * | 80 | 59 | * | * | 60 |
| Fruitvale Ave | Harold St | International Blvd | 62 | * | * | 100 | 63 | * | 60 | 120 |
| Fruitvale Ave | International Blvd | Alameda city limit | 63 | * | 50 | 120 | 63 | * | 60 | 120 |
| Golf Links Rd | Fontaine St | 98^th Ave | 63 | * | 60 | 130 | 64 | * | 60 | 140 |
| Grand Ave | MacArthur Blvd | Piedmont city limit | 66 | * | 90 | 190 | 65 | * | 70 | 160 |
| Grand Ave | Harrison St | MacArthur Blvd | 69 | 60 | 130 | 280 | 69 | 60 | 140 | 300 |
| Harrison St | Hamilton Pl | Santa Clara Ave | 66 | * | 90 | 200 | 67 | 50 | 100 | 220 |
| Harrison St | 27^th St | Hamilton Pl | 66 | * | 90 | 200 | 67 | 50 | 100 | 220 |
| Harrison St | Grand Ave | 27^th St | 66 | * | 90 | 200 | 67 | 50 | 100 | 220 |
| Havenscourt Blvd | International Blvd | Bancroft Ave | 62 | * | 50 | 100 | 63 | * | 60 | 120 |
| Hegenberger Rd | Edes Ave | San Leandro St | 75 | 160 | 340 | 730 | 76 | 190 | 410 | 870 |
| Hegenberger Rd | San Leandro St | 14^th St | 74 | 140 | 290 | 640 | 75 | 160 | 350 | 750 |
| Hegenberger Rd | Doolittle Dr | Pardee Dr | 70 | 80 | 160 | 350 | 71 | 90 | 190 | 410 |
| High St | Brookdale Ave | Redding St | 64 | * | 70 | 140 | 66 | * | 90 | 190 |
| High St | Alameda city limit | Oakport St | 70 | 70 | 160 | 330 | 69 | 60 | 140 | 300 |
| High St | Coliseum Way | San Leandro St | 65 | * | 80 | 160 | 66 | * | 90 | 190 |
| High St | Foothill Blvd | Brookdale Ave | 64 | * | 60 | 140 | 64 | * | 60 | 140 |

<!-- page 49 -->
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| International Blvd | 1^st Ave Pl | 14^th Ave | 64 | * | 70 | 140 | 64 | * | 60 | 140 |
| International Blvd | 14^th Ave | Fruitvale | 66 | * | 90 | 180 | 63 | * | 60 | 120 |
| International Blvd | Fruitvale Ave | 42^nd Ave | 64 | * | 70 | 150 | 64 | * | 60 | 140 |
| Lakeshore Ave | 18^th St East | 12^th St East | 65 | * | 70 | 150 | 66 | * | 90 | 190 |
| Lakeside Dr | Madison St | Harrison St | 63 | * | 50 | 120 | 64 | * | 60 | 140 |
| MacArthur Blvd | Fruitvale Ave | High St | 66 | * | 80 | 180 | 66 | * | 90 | 190 |
| MacArthur Blvd | High St | Buell St | 66 | * | 90 | 190 | 66 | * | 90 | 190 |
| MacArthur Blvd | Buell St | Seminary Ave (E) | 68 | 50 | 110 | 240 | 68 | 60 | 120 | 260 |
| Market St | 55^th St | Stanford Ave | 66 | * | 90 | 180 | 65 | * | 70 | 160 |
| MLK Way | 27^th St | MacArthur Blvd | 63 | * | 60 | 120 | 64 | * | 60 | 140 |
| MLK Way | 47^th St | END1 | 63 | * | 60 | 120 | 64 | * | 60 | 140 |
| Miles Ave | College Ave | Rte 24 SB off-ramp | 61 | * | * | 90 | 63 | * | 60 | 120 |
| Moraga Ave | Piedmont city limit | Estates Dr | 63 | * | 60 | 120 | 64 | * | 60 | 140 |
| Moraga Ave | Estates Dr | Thornhill Dr | 62 | * | 50 | 100 | 64 | * | 60 | 140 |
| Moraga Ave | Thornhill Dr | Mountain Blvd | 63 | * | 60 | 120 | 64 | * | 60 | 140 |
| Mountain Blvd | Edwards Ave (S) | Keller Ave | 74 | 140 | 300 | 660 | 74 | 140 | 300 | 640 |
| Mountain Blvd | Holy Names College | Redwood Rd (S) | 65 | * | 70 | 160 | 64 | * | 60 | 140 |
| Mountain Blvd | Redwood Rd (S) | Carson St | 62 | * | 50 | 100 | 62 | * | 50 | 100 |
| Mountain Blvd | Moraga Ave | Park Blvd (N) | 65 | * | 80 | 170 | 66 | * | 90 | 190 |
| Park Blvd | Grosvenor Pl | Wellington St | 69 | 60 | 130 | 280 | 69 | 60 | 140 | 300 |
| Park Blvd | Leimert Blvd | Trafalgar Pl | 64 | * | 60 | 130 | 64 | * | 60 | 140 |
| Park Blvd | Spruce St | MacArthur Blvd | 65 | * | 70 | 160 | 66 | * | 90 | 190 |
| Park Blvd | Wellington St | Leimert Blvd | 65 | * | 70 | 150 | 64 | * | 60 | 140 |
| Redwood Rd | Aliso Ave | Skyline Blvd West | 66 | * | 90 | 200 | 66 | * | 90 | 190 |
| Redwood Rd | Aliso Ave | END3 | 66 | * | 80 | 180 | 66 | * | 90 | 190 |
| San Leandro St | 66^th Ave | 75^th Ave | 67 | 50 | 100 | 230 | 68 | 60 | 120 | 260 |
| San Leandro St | 75^th Ave | SL city limit | 68 | 50 | 120 | 250 | 69 | 60 | 140 | 300 |
| San Leandro St | High St | 66^th Ave | 65 | * | 70 | 160 | 67 | 50 | 100 | 220 |
| San Leandro St | Fruitvale Ave | High St | 66 | * | 90 | 200 | 66 | * | 90 | 190 |
| Seminary Ave | Bancroft Ave | International Blvd | 59 | * | * | 70 | 59 | * | * | 60 |
| Seminary Ave | San Leandro St | International Blvd | 60 | * | * | 70 | 58 | * | * | 60 |
| Shattuck Ave | 52^nd St | 55^th St | 61 | * | * | 90 | 62 | * | 50 | 100 |

<!-- page 50 -->
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Shattuck Ave | 55^st St | Alcatraz Ave | 63 | * | 60 | 130 | 64 | * | 60 | 140 |
| Stanford Ave | San Pablo Ave | Adeline St | 65 | * | 70 | 150 | 67 | 50 | 100 | 220 |
| Telegraph Ave | West Grand Ave | 27^th St | 62 | * | 50 | 100 | 60 | * | * | 70 |
| Telegraph Ave | 27^th St | W MacArthur Blvd | 62 | * | 50 | 100 | 62 | * | 50 | 100 |
| Telegraph Ave | 40^th St | 50^th St | 62 | * | 50 | 100 | 63 | * | 60 | 120 |
| Telegraph Ave | 51^st St | Aileen St | 63 | * | 50 | 120 | 63 | * | 60 | 120 |
| Telegraph Ave | Aileen St | Alcatraz Ave | 68 | 60 | 120 | 260 | 68 | 60 | 120 | 260 |
| Telegraph Ave | Alcatraz Ave | Berkeley city limit | 68 | 60 | 120 | 260 | 68 | 60 | 120 | 260 |
| W MacArthur Blvd | Market St | Telegraph Ave | 66 | * | 90 | 200 | 67 | 50 | 100 | 220 |
| W MacArthur Blvd | Telegraph Ave | Broadway | 67 | 50 | 110 | 230 | 68 | 60 | 120 | 260 |
| W MacArthur Blvd | Broadway | Fairmount Ave | 68 | 50 | 110 | 240 | 68 | 60 | 120 | 260 |

\*Distances of less than 50 feet are not included on this table

<!-- page 51 -->
**NOISE ELEMENT**

### CALCULATED TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS FOR HIGHWAYS AND FREEWAYS  TABLE B-5

| HIGHWAY | VICINITY | EXISTING LDN (150 FT) | DISTANCE (FT) TO NOISE CONTOUR FROM ROAD CENTER | | |
| :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| | | | 70 LDN | 65 LDN | 60 LDN |
| SR 13 | Oakland, Carson St | 71 | 170 | 380 | 810 |
| SR 13 | Oakland, Redwood Rd | 71 | 170 | 380 | 810 |
| SR 13 | Oakland, Lincoln Av | 72 | 200 | 440 | 950 |
| SR 13 | Oakland, Park Blvd | 73 | 240 | 510 | 1100 |
| SR 13 | Oakland, Moraga Av | 72 | 200 | 440 | 950 |
| SR 13 | Oakland, Broadway Terr | 73 | 240 | 510 | 1100 |
| SR 13 | Oakland, Jct SR 24 | 73 | 240 | 510 | 1100 |
| SR 24 | Oakland, Telegraph Av / Claremont Av | 79 | 600 | 1290 | 2770 |
| SR 24 | Oakland, Broadway / Patton St | 79 | 600 | 1290 | 2770 |
| SR 24 | Oakland, Jct SR 13 at Landvale Rd | 80 | 700 | 1500 | 3230 |
| SR 24 | Oakland, Caldecott Lane | 79 | 600 | 1290 | 2770 |
| SR 24 | Caldecott Tunnel | 80 | 700 | 1500 | 3230 |
| I-580 | Oakland, Foothill Blvd | 78 | 550 | 1180 | 2540 |
| I-580 | Oakland, 106[^th] Av | 78 | 540 | 1170 | 2510 |
| I-580 | Oakland, Golf Links Rd | 79 | 570 | 1220 | 2630 |
| I-580 | Oakland, Keller Av | 79 | 570 | 1230 | 2640 |
| I-580 | Oakland, Edwards Av | 79 | 570 | 1230 | 2660 |
| I-580 | Oakland, Kuhnle Av | 79 | 610 | 1320 | 2840 |
| I-580 | Oakland, Jct SR 13 North | 79 | 600 | 1290 | 2770 |
| I-580 | Oakland, MacArthur Blvd | 78 | 530 | 1130 | 2440 |
| I-580 | Oakland, High St | 78 | 510 | 1100 | 2360 |
| I-580 | Oakland, 35[^th] Av | 78 | 550 | 1190 | 2560 |
| I-580 | Oakland, Coolidge Av | 79 | 600 | 1290 | 2780 |
| I-580 | Oakland, Fruitvale Av | 78 | 550 | 1190 | 2560 |
| I-580 | Oakland, Beaumont Av | 79 | 610 | 1320 | 2840 |

<!-- page 52 -->
| HIGHWAY | VICINITY | EXISTING LDN (150 FT) | DISTANCE (FT) TO NOISE CONTOUR FROM ROAD CENTER | | |
| :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| | | | 70 LDN | 65 LDN | 60 LDN |
| I-580 | Oakland, Park Blvd | 79 | 560 | 1200 | 2580 |
| I-580 | Oakland, Lakeshore Av / Park Blvd | 79 | 620 | 1350 | 2900 |
| I-580 | Oakland, Van Buren Av / Grand Av | 79 | 570 | 1230 | 2640 |
| I-580 | Oakland, Oakland Av / Harrison St | 79 | 620 | 1340 | 2890 |
| I-580 | Oakland, Jct I-80 and I-880 | 79 | 610 | 1300 | 2810 |
| I-880 | Oakland, 98^th Av | 83 | 1070 | 2310 | 4980 |
| I-880 | Oakland, Hegenberger Rd | 83 | 1030 | 2220 | 4790 |
| I-880 | Oakland, 66^th Av | 83 | 1090 | 2350 | 5060 |
| I-880 | Oakland, Jct SR 77, High St / 42^nd Av | 81 | 810 | 1750 | 3770 |
| I-880 | Oakland, 29^th / Fruitvale Av | 83 | 1120 | 2410 | 5180 |
| I-880 | Oakland, 23^rd Av | 83 | 1110 | 2400 | 5160 |
| I-880 | Oakland, Embarcadero | 83 | 1180 | 2550 | 5490 |
| I-880 | Oakland, 5^th Av | 83 | 1180 | 2550 | 5490 |
| I-880 | Oakland, Oak St / Madison St | 83 | 1170 | 2520 | 5430 |
| I-880 | Oakland, Jackson St / Broadway | 83 | 1090 | 2360 | 5080 |
| I-880 | Oakland, Jct I-980; Market St | 83 | 1100 | 2370 | 5100 |
| I-880 | Adeline St / Union St | 80 | 700 | 1520 | 3270 |
| I-880 | 7^th St | 80 | 730 | 1560 | 3370 |
| I-880 | West Jct. I-80 | 80 | 670 | 1440 | 3110 |
| I-980 | Oakland, 14^th St | 80 | 700 | 1500 | 3230 |
| I-980 | Oakland, 18^TH St | 81 | 810 | 1750 | 3770 |
| I-980 | Oakland, Jct. I-580 | 82 | 950 | 2040 | 4390 |

<!-- page 53 -->
# NOISE ELEMENT

## NOISE CONTOUR DISTANCES FOR RAILROAD LINES
TABLE B-6

| RAILROADS | DISTANCE (FT) TO NOISE CONTOUR FROM TRACK | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | 75 LDN | 70 LDN | 65 LDN | 60 LDN |
| UPRR (whistle) | 80 | 180 | 390 | 840 |
| BART + UPRR | 130 | 280 | 600 | 1290 |

<!-- page 54 -->
# APPENDIX C

### OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE NOISE ELEMENT

*See pages that follow*

<!-- page 55 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 56 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 57 -->
<<FIGURE>>

---

## Safety — Safety Element (Adopted 9/26/23)

- Source: https://www.oaklandca.gov/files/assets/city/v/3/planning-amp-building/documents/sp/gp/safety-element/safety-element_adopted-9.26.23_89907-c.m.s_updated-aug2026.pdf
- Pages: 80
- Covers: safety
- **Transcription findings were recorded for this document;** check figures against the source.

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

<<FIGURE>>

# Oakland 2045
# Oakland Safety Element

### Adopted September 26, 2023

### Resolution #: 89907 C.M.S

<!-- page 2 -->
**Prepared by:**

DYETT & BHATIA
Urban and Regional Planners

**With Contributions From:**

Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Environmental Science Associates

<!-- page 3 -->
# Table of Contents

**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... ES-1**

### 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1-1
#### 1.1 Purpose and Requirements .......................................................................................... 1-1
Statutory Requirements ......................................................................................................................................... 1-1
Racial Equity Goals for the City of Oakland + Previous/Existing Efforts .............................................. 1-2
Relationship to Local Hazard Mitigation Plan ............................................................................................... 1-3
Relationship to Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment ..................................................................... 1-3
Relationship to Oakland’s General Plan Elements .....................................................................................1-4
Process and Community Engagement ...........................................................................................................1-4
Connection to Vision and Guiding Principles ............................................................................................... 1-5

### 2. NATURAL HAZARDS .............................................................................................................2-1
#### 2.1 Geologic and Seismic Hazards ......................................................................................2-1
Topography and Soils ..............................................................................................................................................2-1
Types of Seismic Hazards .......................................................................................................................................2-1
Geologic and Seismic Hazards............................................................................................................................2-2
Social Vulnerability ...................................................................................................................................................2-3
Institutional and Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................................2-3
Goals and Policies ..................................................................................................................................................... 2-6
#### 2.2 Fire ...................................................................................................................................... 2-6
Wildfire/Wildfire Urban Interface ...................................................................................................................... 2-6
Social Vulnerability ...................................................................................................................................................2-7
Institutional and Regulatory Framework .......................................................................................................2-11
Goals and Policies ................................................................................................................................................... 2-13
#### 2.3 CLIMATE CHANGE ......................................................................................................... 2-14
Increased Impacts on Wildfire, Precipitation Changes, Sea Level Rise ............................................. 2-14
Urban Heat and Drought ..................................................................................................................................... 2-15

#### 2.4 Hydrology and Flooding .............................................................................................. 2-16
Hydrology .................................................................................................................................................................. 2-16
Flooding ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2-16
Sea Level Rise .......................................................................................................................................................... 2-20
Social Vulnerability ................................................................................................................................................. 2-20
Institutional and Regulatory Framework ...................................................................................................... 2-22
Goals and Policies ................................................................................................................................................... 2-24

### 3. HUMAN-MADE HAZARDS ................................................................................................. 3-1
#### 3.1 Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................................... 3-1
Hazardous Sites/Cleanup Sites ...........................................................................................................................3-1
Social Vulnerability ...................................................................................................................................................3-6
Institutional and Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................................3-7
Goals and Policies ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-9
#### 3.2 Other Public Safety and Hazard Issues ...................................................................... 3-10
Airport Hazards ....................................................................................................................................................... 3-10
Public Safety ............................................................................................................................................................. 3-10
Goals and Policies ................................................................................................................................................... 3-14

### 4. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE ............................................................. 4-1
#### 4.1 Emergency Preparedness and Response ................................................................... 4-1
Existing Programs, Agencies, and Operations .............................................................................................. 4-1
Community Resilience and Response .............................................................................................................. 4-3
Alerts and Evacuation ............................................................................................................................................. 4-5
Capital Improvement Needs ............................................................................................................................... 4-14
Goals and Policies ................................................................................................................................................... 4-15

### 5. GOALS, POLICIES, AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES .............................................. 5-1

<!-- page 4 -->
# List of Figures

Figure SAF-1: Vulnerable Communities and Seismic Hazards ............................................... 2-4
Figure SAF-2: Vulnerable Communities and Landslide Hazards .............................................. 2-5
Figure SAF-3a: Fire Hazards ................................................................................................................... 2-8
Figure SAF-3b: Existing and General Plan (1998) Land Uses in VHFHSZ ............................ 2-9
Figure SAF-4: Collaborative Fire Threat Management ................................................................2-10
Figure SAF-5: Vulnerable Communities and Flood Hazards ....................................................... 2-17
Figure SAF-6: Dam Breach Inundation Area .................................................................................... 2-19
Figure SAF-7: Vulnerable Communities and 100-year Coastal Flood + 0.5 ft SLR ........... 2-21
Figure SAF-8: Hazardous Materials and Sites, 2021 ....................................................................... 3-2
Figure SAF-9: Open Leaking Underground Storage Tanks ........................................................ 3-4
Figure SAF-10: CalEnviroScreen based on DTSC Cleanup Sites .............................................. 3-5
Figure SAF-11: Airport Safety Compatibility Zones ......................................................................... 3-11
Figure SAF-12: Emergency Service Network .................................................................................. 4-2
Figure SAF-13a: Emergency Assessment, Primary and Secondary Routes ........................... 4-6
Figure SAF-13b: Residential Areas with Less Than Two Access Points To Evacuation
and Combined Hazard Zone .............................................................................................. 4-9
Figure SAF-13c: Evacuation Scenario, Wildfire in Northern Hills (PM Peak Traffic) ....... 4-10
Figure SAF-13d: Evacuation Scenario, Wildfire in Northern Hills (Night) ............................. 4-11
Figure SAF-13e: Evacuation Scenario, Wildfire in Central Hills (PM Peak Traffic) .......... 4-12
Figure SAF-13f: Evacuation Scenario, Wildfire in Eastern Hills (PM Peak Traffic) ...... 4-13

# List of Tables

Table SAF-1: Top 10th Percentile Tracts by Indicator — Climate Change Topic ................... 2-15
Table SAF-2: Hazardous Waste and Substances Cortese List Sites ............................................ 3-3
Table SAF-3 Top 10th Percentile Tracts by Indicator — Hazardous Materials ........................ 3-6
Table SAF-4: DVP Grant Awards Fiscal Year 2022-2023................................................................. 3-13
Table SAF-5: Public Air-Conditioned Facilities .................................................................................. 4-4
Table SAF-6: Summary of Roadway Congestion and Over-Capacity Conditions under 
Wildfire Scenarios in Evacuation Zones (2030) ........................................................... 4-8
Table SAF-7: Police and Fire Station Capital Improvement Projects funded by 
Measure KK Infrastructure Bond ......................................................................................... 4-14

<!-- page 5 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# Executive Summary

The updated Safety Element of the City of Oakland’s General Plan incorporates safety considerations into the planning and decision-making process by reducing potential short- and long-term risks of death, injuries, property damage, and economic dislocation resulting from fires, floods, droughts, earthquakes, landslides, and climate change; as well as local hazards associated with the workings of a major city.

California state law requires that each city and county adopt a general plan to guide its physical growth and development. A jurisdiction’s general plan is its official policy document to create a blueprint for the future of the jurisdiction and guide its development. In California, all cities must adopt a general plan composed of at least seven elements, including the Safety Element.

All cities must also incorporate environmental justice into the General Plan. Oakland has chosen to adopt an Environmental Justice Element while also incorporating environmental justice goals into each element, including the Safety Element.

The Safety Element aims to protect residents, workers, and visitors from seismic and geologic hazards, fire hazards, hazardous materials, flooding, and other potential hazards that risk life and property. The Element also uses an equity lens through its hazards analysis and prioritizes vulnerable communities in the development of its goals, policies, and actions. The Safety Element aims to be rooted in an equity framework in accordance with the General Plan’s Vision Statement and Guiding Principles.

The Safety Element builds on the City’s 2021- 2026 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; addresses all state requirements; and serves as a central reference point for the City’s efforts to address safety and climate change issues, including earthquakes, floods, fires, toxic waste, and other hazards. The Safety Element includes overarching goals and policies to address natural hazards, fire and flood hazard management for critical facilities, non-conforming development to contemporary fire safe standards (e.g., road standards and vegetation hazards), emergency evacuation routes per SB 99, emergency evacuation, climate adaptation, sea level rise, drought, and identifies capital improvement programs to improve the City’s resilience to natural and human-caused hazards.

The City’s updated Safety Element contains five chapters: an introduction, three chapters dealing with specific environmental hazards which include natural hazards, human-made hazards, emergency preparedness and response, and implementation measures. In general, each chapter contains an overview of a specific hazard or issue; a summary of populations vulnerable to the hazard; an outline of the institutional framework, including relevant agencies, regulations, and programs; and a set of goals and policies specific to that hazard or issue. Implementing actions are included in the Chapter 5 table. Below are brief descriptions of the contents of each chapter:

*   **Chapter 1, “Introduction,”** presents the background and purpose of the Safety Element, including statutory requirements. It also outlines the City of Oakland’s process and community engagement efforts undertaken to develop the Element. Further, the chapter outlines the organization and goals of the Safety Element and considers the Element’s relationship to other elements of the City’s General Plan and guiding principles.

<!-- page 6 -->
* **Chapter 2, “Natural Hazards,”** describes the risks from geologic and seismic hazards, fire, and flooding hazards in the City of Oakland. These hazards primarily include earthquake-induced surface rupture and ground shaking, liquefaction, land subsidence, and landslides; extreme weather events; wildfire and urban fire; and storm-induced flooding, dam failure, and sea level rise. Goals and policies for each natural hazard are presented in this chapter, while implementing actions are discussed in Chapter 5.

* **Chapter 3, “Human-made Hazards,”** outlines the risk from hazardous materials and other public safety hazards, including airport hazards and crime in Oakland. Hazardous materials include an overview of the city’s hazardous sites/cleanup sites, underground storage tanks, and hazardous materials releases. Airport hazards consider land use incompatibilities with the surrounding areas. Other public safety issues addressed include systemic inequities that contribute to the underlying causes of crime and potential solutions to prevent crime through environmental design. Goals and policies are presented for human-made hazards in this chapter, while implementing actions are discussed in Chapter 5.

* **Chapter 4, “Emergency Preparedness and Response,”** analyzes the City of Oakland’s ability to respond to and facilitate an evacuation in the event of an emergency. The chapter provides an overview of the City’s existing emergency preparedness and response programs, agencies, and operations. It also provides information on Oakland’s emergency alert systems and evacuation routes, and describes current capital improvement needs relevant to emergency preparedness and response. Goals and policies for emergency preparedness and response are presented in this chapter, while implementing actions are discussed in Chapter 5.

* **Chapter 5, “Implementation Measures,”** provides a summary table of the goals, policies, and actions relevant to each of the hazard topics discussed in this Element.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 7 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# 1. Introduction

Oakland’s prime location on the San Francisco Bay, sunny climate, and diverse geography contribute to its natural beauty, economic landscape, and quality of life. However, these same features also present risks to health and safety that the City must plan for proactively.

In the face of climate change and increasing risk of natural disasters and related hazards, the City of Oakland must mitigate safety hazards and be prepared for disasters in order to maintain a safe, enjoyable, and resilient community. Though many of these hazards will affect Oakland at a citywide scale, consequences of climate change and hazards will also be felt inequitably, meaning that under current conditions some groups will likely experience more harm than others. Thus, the City must also address systemic causes of racial and socioeconomic disparities to eliminate inequitable impacts that vulnerable communities face. This Element addresses the environmental hazards that affect the City and provides goals and policies to guide the City’s response to these issues.

## 1.1 PURPOSE AND REQUIREMENTS

The City of Oakland is updating its General Plan, a visionary blueprint for the city’s future over the next 20 years. The updated Safety Element presents a framework for minimizing risks posed by natural and human-caused hazards that may impact residents’ health and welfare. This Element aims to protect residents, workers, and visitors from seismic and geologic hazards, fire hazards, hazardous materials, flooding, and other potential hazards that risk life and property. Other health-related issues, such as air quality, pollution burden, and environmental remediation are addressed in the Environmental Justice Element of the General Plan.

Topics addressed in this chapter include:

*   Geologic and Seismic Hazards
*   Hazards and Hazardous Materials
*   Hydrology and Flooding
*   Fire
*   Climate Change
*   Airport Hazards
*   Public Safety
*   Emergency Preparedness and Response

### STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

State law under Government Code Section 65302(g) requires general plans to include a Safety Element to identify and address hazards for the protection of the community. In accordance with State law, this Element addresses seismic and geologic-related hazards, flood hazards, wildland and fire hazards, evacuation routes, and hazardous materials.

Adopted in 2015, SB 379 requires that, beginning January 1, 2017, all cities and counties in California include climate adaptation and resiliency strategies in the Safety Element of their general plan as part of the general plan revision process. The climate adaptation update must include community goals, policies, and objectives informed by a climate change vulnerability assessment, as well as measures for addressing climate vulnerabilities. In accordance with State law, the City’s Climate and Vulnerability Assessment presents findings and analysis on climate adaptation and resilience strategies and informs this Element’s goals and policies.

<!-- page 8 -->
### RACIAL EQUITY GOALS FOR THE CITY OF OAKLAND + PREVIOUS ONGOING EFFORTS

A guiding tenet of Oakland’s General Plan update is to advance the City’s mission to “intentionally integrate, on a Citywide basis, the principle of ‘fair and just’ in all the City does in order to achieve equitable opportunities for all people and communities.”[^p8-1] This means working to eliminate the root causes of inequity by understanding barriers to achieving greater equity and strengths of communities, and working with communities to develop solutions for long-term and systemic changes. That process begins by undertaking a full acknowledgment of the systemic racial inequities that have shaped the City of Oakland. A history of Oakland’s past land use planning and zoning decisions that have disproportionately harmed Oakland’s Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) and low-income communities is found in the City’s Environmental Justice Element.

The City recognizes that determinants of equity are the drivers of achieving a fair and just society. Access to the determinants of equity is necessary to have equity for all people regardless of race, class, disability, gender, or language spoken. Inequities are created when barriers exist that prevent individuals and communities from accessing these conditions and reaching their full potential. While all components of equity are an important part of building community power and resilience, the determinants of equity as defined in the Oakland Municipal Code that are most specifically aligned with goals and policies in the Safety Element include:

*   **Community and public safety** that includes services such as fire, police, emergency medical services and code enforcement that are responsive to all residents so that everyone feels safe to live, work and play in any neighborhood in Oakland;
*   **Equity in City practices** that eliminates all forms of discrimination in City activities in order to provide fair treatment for all employees, contractors, clients, community partners, residents and others who interact with the City; and
*   **Healthy built and natural environments** for all people that include mixes of land use that support jobs, housing, amenities, and services; trees and forest canopy; and clean air, water, soil, and sediment.

### Vulnerable Communities: Definitions

The Safety Element builds on the City’s ongoing efforts to achieve racial equity in Oakland. The Element’s goals and policies will prioritize **“frontline communities”**, or vulnerable communities that will be affected ‘first and worst’ from climate change and environmental hazard impacts. The Safety Element’s racial equity focus is based on the frameworks established by the City’s 2018 Oakland Equity Indicators Report, the 2020 Racial Equity Impact Assessment and Implementation Guide for the Oakland’s 2030 Equitable Climate Action Plan (ECAP), and other previous studies that have laid the foundation to ensure that the City integrates equity and social justice into its policies, practices, and actions.

“Frontline communities” face intersecting vulnerabilities, including racial discrimination, poverty, disability, housing insecurity, linguistic isolation, poor air quality, and more, which magnify climate threats. As a result, they are often the least able to adapt, resist, or recover from climate impacts. “Frontline communities” can change based on the specific threat or policy being considered. For example, vulnerable communities located on coastlines will be most severely impacted by sea level rise.

This Element uses the term **“vulnerable communities”**, and each section in this Element identifies what vulnerable groups are most affected by specific hazards, though there may be other groups also affected pending implementation of a specific policy or action.

**Environmental Justice (EJ) Communities** (referred to as “disadvantaged communities” in SB 1000) are low-income areas that are disproportionately impacted by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to adverse health effects. EJ Communities are eligible for special funding considerations, as well as targeted environmental justice efforts and investments. In Oakland, the most cumulatively burdened Environmental Justice Communities were defined using a robust screening analysis that analyzed both composite and individual scores of more than 50 indicators and other relevant factors. In other words, EJ Communities face the greatest cumulative burden from a variety of factors beyond safety.

*As applicable, sections in this Chapter include a list of Oakland neighborhoods (by census tract) that fall in the top decile for safety-related indicators. See the Environmental Justice Element and corresponding appendix for more information.*

<<FIGURE>>

[^p8-1]: Oakland Municipal Code Section 2.29.170.1

<!-- page 9 -->
### Mapping Vulnerable Communities

The Safety Element’s natural hazard maps also illustrate areas of highest social vulnerability in Oakland. Using the methodology developed by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), block groups labeled “Highest social vulnerability” have eight or more social vulnerability indicators with rates in the 70th percentile, relative to the Bay Area; and/or six or more social vulnerability indicators with rates in the 90th percentile, relative to the Bay Area.

Social Vulnerability indicators include:
* Renters
* Under 5 years old
* Very low income
* Non U.S. citizens
* Without a vehicle
* People with disabilities
* Single parent families
* Communities of Color
* 65 years old and older living alone
* Limited English proficiency
* Without a high school degree
* Severely housing cost burdened

By mapping and prioritizing vulnerable communities in the development of the Safety Element’s goals and policies, this Element aims to be rooted in an equity framework in accordance with the General Plan’s Vision Statement and Guiding Principles. Other frontline communities, including people in specific industries, people experiencing homelessness, and other groups may also be affected by specific hazards; however, these groups are not included in mapping, as census-level data is not available. Regardless, all policies in the Safety Element must consider the impacts to vulnerable individuals, and actions must address unique needs and build adaptive capacity accordingly.

<<FIGURE>>

### RELATIONSHIP TO LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN

Hazard mitigation plans must be updated and re-submitted for FEMA approval every five years to maintain eligibility for funds. The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan supplements the Safety Element of the General Plan to provide specific insight into hazards that the city faces along with strategies for mitigation. The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) for the City of Oakland planning area was developed in accordance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) and followed FEMA’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan guidance. The LHMP incorporates a process where hazards are identified and profiled, the people and facilities at risk are analyzed, and mitigation actions are developed to reduce or eliminate hazard risk. The implementation of these mitigation actions, which include both short and long-term strategies, involve planning, policy changes, programs, projects, and other activities.

The 2026–2031 LHMP[^p9-a] establishes and promotes a comprehensive hazard mitigation strategy and efforts to protect the whole community and environment from identified natural and human-made hazards. The 2026–2031 LHMP provides a list of actions that may assist the City in reducing risk and preventing loss from future hazard events, as well as critical facilities (facilities and infrastructure that are critical to the health and welfare of the population) to increase preparedness. The action items address multi-hazard issues, as well as mitigation for hazards that include earthquake, landslide, severe weather, wildfire, sea level rise, dam failure, flood, tsunami, and drought. While the Safety Element of the General Plan provides an overview of the environmental and human-made hazards that affect Oakland, the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan provides greater analysis, context, and mitigation strategies for these hazards.

### RELATIONSHIP TO CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

The Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment (‘Assessment’) for the City of Oakland was released in March 2023. The purpose of this Assessment is to assist the City and the community in identifying and summarizing climate change hazards and risk, and to inform policies for the Safety, Environmental Justice, Land Use and Transportation, and other pertinent General Plan elements and may serve as reference for additional community engagement. The Assessment highlights specific locations and communities most likely to be severely impacted by wildfires, sea level rise and flooding, and temperature increases. California Senate Bill (SB) 379 (2015) Government Code section 65302 requires all cities and counties in California to address climate adaptation and resiliency in their general plans.

The Assessment synthesizes climate change projections created by Cal-Adapt, historical data pertaining to natural events and hazards, and socio-demographic data to determine which climate impacts are most likely to affect the city, where these

[^p9-a]: The City of Oakland adopted the 2026-2031 LHMP on June 2, 2026 via Resolution No. 91178.

<!-- page 10 -->
impacts may manifest, who will be affected, and how severely. The Assessment also considers existing and planned development in identified at-risk areas, including structures, roads, utilities, and essential public facilities, and identifies the federal, state, regional, and local agencies responsible for the provision of public health, safety, transportation, and environmental services, including special districts and local offices of emergency services.

### RELATIONSHIP TO OAKLAND’S GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS

Based on timing requirements specified by State law, the Housing, Environmental Justice, and Safety elements are being updated concurrently during the first phase of the General Plan update. Other elements, including the Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE); Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element (OSCAR), and others will be updated as part of Phase 2.

The Safety Element is also closely related to the other General Plan Elements, particularly the Environmental Justice and Housing Elements. In recognition of the connections between environmental justice topics, such as hazardous materials, the Safety Element also addresses hazards as they relate to environmental justice and integrates these concepts into its policies, goals, and actions. For example, the Safety Element includes policies that require the City to review new proposed facilities with consideration for proximity to residential development and Environmental Justice Communities where pollution overburden already exists.

Further, the Housing Element presents the City of Oakland’s strategy and commitment for how it will meet the housing needs of the community. The Element aims to make quality housing opportunities available to all Oakland residents and address systemic housing inequity. The Safety Element aims to protect residents, workers, and visitors from hazards. As such, policies, goals, and actions in the Safety Element also help to protect housing from impacts of environmental and human-made hazards. For example, policies in the Safety Element require geotechnical analysis of development in geologic or seismic hazard zones, or stringent design and building requirements for housing in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

### PROCESS AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Community engagement included a range of activities intended to meet people where they are. In many instances, community members shared their firsthand knowledge of environmental issues in their neighborhoods, as well as existing community-led efforts and strategies to address these issues. Engagement activities included:

* **Focus groups.** The City conducted three focus groups on safety issues with various organizations involved in public safety, climate change, and resilience issues. The three focus group topics were on 1) general Safety Element topic requirements and background; 2) climate change and resilience; and 3) addressing perception of safety in the built environment, as well as the social determinants of creating a safe environment, such as housing, employment, and other issues that the General Plan could address.

* **Cultural events and pop-ups.** Since November 2021 to March 2023, the General Plan Update (GPU) Deeply Rooted Collaborative has conducted pop-up events in Eastmont, Fruitvale, San Antonio, Chinatown, West Oakland, and Downtown. For example, in West Oakland these events have been porchside chats and a pop-up at Hoover Elementary. Engagement has also been integrated into larger community events like the Oakland Asian Cultural Center’s (OACC) Asian Pacific New Year Celebration and the Black Joy Parade. At these community-embedded events, the team has engaged with thousands of people, with a majority being individuals from communities of color. These events sought to hear community concerns, ideas and solutions through interviews and focus group conversations.

* **Technical Advisory Committee.** The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is comprised of internal City department representatives as well as other Oakland-based, neighboring, and regional governmental agency representatives. The TAC serves to advise on key strategies to address Oakland’s big issues related to housing, environmental justice, safety, and other topics; review community input collected at key points in the process; and inform, discuss, and provide technical direction on policies and actions.

* **Stakeholder interviews.** At eight discussion groups held in May 2022, representatives from over 50 agencies, businesses, and community groups participated in small group discussions with project staff. At the Environmental Justice and Conservation discussion, participants emphasized youth participation and community-led climate action programs. Others described community health issues related to urban heat and stormwater runoff filtration.

* **Neighborhood Councils.** City staff are working with Neighborhood Service Coordinators to present at Neighborhood Crime Prevention Councils (NCPCs) on topics including housing, environmental justice, industrial lands and safety and natural hazards and receive feedback.

Some of the key themes from community outreach included the following:

* **Community Leadership and Planning.** Many community members highlighted community stewardship and leadership as a tool for climate and disaster resilience. Several existing organizations are already working with frontline communities to produce solutions to climate change and disaster preparedness. The City should leverage this existing work and partner to support these organizations as they implement community-driven solutions.

* **Importance of Green Infrastructure.** Green infrastructure was one of the most frequently mentioned strategies to address climate change, improve air quality, and bolster public health. Community members favored nature-based adaptation strategies to protect against sea level rise, urban flooding, and urban heat. Community members also noted that urban greening and green infrastructure projects were frequently included in existing community plans, including the East Oakland Neighborhoods Initiative and the West Oakland Community Action Plan. Oakland staff indicated that finding funding for green infrastructure was a challenge, but that it could be included in tandem with complete streets or other street improvement projects.

* **Equitable response.** Community members were interested in developing a preemptive emergency response training

<!-- page 11 -->
that reaches more diverse audiences. Climate hazards and disaster-related emergencies disproportionately affect people with disabilities, low-income people, people of color, and houseless individuals. Decisions made related to disaster risk and response should be examined with this lens, and coordination with community groups on education, outreach, training exercise, and strategies is the best way to make emergency preparedness accessible.

*   **Public Safety.** The issue of public safety and preventing violence was another major issue voiced by the community. Community members discussed improving and expanding community spaces as well as improving cleanliness across the city as a critical factor in increasing feelings of safety. Many felt that certain places in Oakland lacked sufficient and accessible community spaces such as parks, local businesses, recreation centers, libraries, and churches, which contributes to a lack of vibrancy and human presence in Oakland. They felt that formalizing informal gathering spaces would be a useful tool to create safety by building community. Community members also shared that observations of trash and illegal dumping can inhibit community pride. Suggested strategies from some community members included increased pedestrian and bicycle safety; geographically equitable investments in community facilities, such as childcare, community centers/restorative justice centers, and gathering places; and land uses/urban design that create an active and welcoming streetscape. Many of these policies are included in the Environmental Justice Element.

### CONNECTION TO VISION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES

The Safety Element seeks to address and mitigate hazards that can affect the health and safety of the community. The purpose of this Element ties closely in with the following portions of the General Plan’s Vision Statement:

**We are housed, healthy, and safe.** *Oakland has high-quality accessible housing for everyone who needs it, and each person is housed with dignity. Every neighborhood, home, school, and park has clean air and fresh water, and Oakland’s children breathe that fresh, clean air as they run, play, and grow. Cool shade from mature trees, scents of flowers, and sounds of birds chirping and bees buzzing enrich lush residential areas. The city’s many grocery stores, farmer’s markets, and garden farmstands offer fresh, healthy food to nurture tables and bodies in all different cultural traditions. Oakland’s homes and communities have healed from historic violence, and crime-free, clean streets and public spaces are safe for people to walk and linger.*

**We are interconnected.** *Oakland is a center for sustainable living, where each neighborhood is connected to every other neighborhood through safe, easy, low-carbon transportation options. People of all ages and abilities can walk, bike, or roll along streets that are safe, welcoming, and well-maintained, and residents can take buses and shuttles with ease and take advantage of expanding regional transit options. Designated truck routes keep noisy vehicles out of neighborhoods, and residents are proud of the city’s clean, low speed streets lined with local businesses and abundant trees. The prevalence of walking, biking, and transit helps Oakland meet its climate goals, and strong neighborhood networks ensure that residents are equipped to handle and recover from natural and human-caused challenges as they arise.*

The Safety Element also most closely furthers the following General Plan Guiding Principles:

*Each of these guiding principles is rooted in an equity framework that should work through the Plan’s policies to reduce disparities and promote more equitable outcomes, especially for racial equity. Please see the accompanying racial equity framework for more information.*

**We are housed, healthy, and safe.**

*   Ensure that every home, neighborhood, school, and park has clean air, water, and land.
*   End community violence and crime through a collaborative and community-led public health approach to violence and healing.

**We are interconnected.**

*   Proactively plan for resilience, quick response, and equitable recovery from sea level rise, wildfires, severe drought, extreme weather and heat, and other climate-change challenges.

<!-- page 12 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 13 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# 2. Natural Hazards

Like many California communities, Oakland faces numerous natural hazards, including geologic and seismic hazards, fire, flooding, and sea level rise. This section defines and describes each of these natural hazards in Oakland and highlights where communities are disproportionately vulnerable to their impacts.

## 2.1 GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS

### TOPOGRAPHY AND SOILS

Oakland sits at the intersection of two plates of the earth’s crust. Within the last five million years, the faulting and folding of earthquake plates uplifted the present Oakland Hills and created what is now the San Francisco Bay, while erosion and sedimentation from the San Joaquin/Sacramento Delta have created the broad alluvial plain on which most of Oakland lies.

Oakland’s topography falls into two broad categories: The lowlands (or flatlands), which include the flat coastal land surrounding the bay, tidal flats, and the more gently sloped inland land, and the uplands (or the hills). The city’s topography rises from an elevation of sea level at its western edge to approximately 1,760 feet in the northeast Oakland Hills. Slopes are generally steeper in the hills, with areas in the Oakland Hills, especially areas east of Highway 13/I-580, exceeding slopes of 30 percent. Significant portions of neighborhoods northeast of Lake Merritt, such as Grand Lake, as well as Hills-adjacent parts of East Oakland have slopes exceeding 15 percent. The terrain flattens out toward the western and southwestern parts of the city as well as north of I-980; these relatively flat areas include Downtown, West Oakland, most of North Oakland, the Port and Airport, and most of East Oakland.

Several soil types occur within Oakland with varied qualities that affect how fast it erodes, its absorbency, how it behaves in an earthquake, how it reacts to metals (known as corrosivity), and other factors. The three primary soil types in Oakland are the bay muds located along the shoreline and in the landfilled areas; the alluvium and dune-sand deposits in the flatland and lower hill areas; and the sandstones and shale fragments of the upper hill areas. Bay mud consists of fine-grained, unconsolidated sand, silt, and clay with abundant organic material; over time, bay muds near the original shoreline have been overlain with artificial fill, typically consisting of mixed material such as rock and other debris. Soils in the flatlands have been formed by thousands of years of hillside erosion and are characterized by high corrosivity and low erosion potential. Finally, soils in the upper hills are composed of sandstone and shale materials, while soils in the lower hills consist of variable soils deposited through erosion, landsliding and artificial cutting and filling.[^p13-1]

### TYPES OF SEISMIC HAZARDS

There are various hazards associated with an earthquake. **Surface rupture** occurs when the ground surface is broken due to fault movement during an earthquake, and usually occurs along an active or potentially active fault trace.

* Fault creep is the slow, constant slippage that can occur on active faults absent an earthquake. Surface rupture may occur suddenly during an earthquake or slowly in the form of fault creep. Examples of fault creep are well known along the Hayward Fault where it crosses highly developed areas in Alameda County.[^p13-2] This slow surface creep offsets and deforms curbs, streets, buildings, and other structures that lie near the fault.

**Ground shaking** generally refers to all aspects of motion of the earth’s surface resulting from an earthquake and is often the primary cause of damage from seismic events. The extent of ground shaking depends on the magnitude and intensity of the earthquake, distance from the rupture (e.g., epicenter), and local geologic conditions.

* Intensity is a subjective measure of the perceptible effects of seismic energy at a given point, commonly measured by the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (MMI). This scale reports the

[^p13-1]: City of Oakland, 2004. City of Oakland General Plan, Safety Element. Available online: https://www.oaklandca.gov/resources/safety-element
[^p13-2]: Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, 2019, California Department of Conservation (https://www.conservation. ca.gov/cgs/alquist-priolo)

<!-- page 14 -->
intensity of shaking on a 10-tiered scale from “not felt except by a few under especially favorable circumstances” (I, or low), to “some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations. Rails bent”

* Magnitude is an objective measure of an earthquake’s size at its release, typically reported by the moment magnitude (MW) scale, which looks at the distance a fault moves and the force required to move it.

**Liquefaction** occurs when loose, saturated, granular soil, usually found near the ground surface, is temporarily transformed from a solid to a liquefied state as a result of seismic ground shaking, or other rapid loading, causing the soil to lose strength and lose its ability to support structures. Additionally, liquefied soil exerts higher pressure on retaining walls causing them to tilt or slide and can trigger landslides.

* According to the 2021 – 2026 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, sections of Oakland’s shoreline, such as the Port of Oakland and the Oakland International Airport, are increasingly vulnerable to liquefaction during seismic events due to the abundance of loose, saturated, and granular soil types.

**Land subsidence** is a gradual settling or sudden sinking of the Earth’s surface due to removal or displacement of subsurface earth materials. The principal causes include aquifer-system compaction associated with groundwater withdrawals, drainage of organic soils, underground mining, natural compaction, or collapse, such as with sinkholes or thawing permafrost. Subsidence can also be caused by natural events such as earthquakes.

* Subsidence occurs around the banks of the San Francisco Bay, impacting Oakland’s coastline. This subsidence is largely influenced by the tectonics of the region as well as by sediment compaction of the landfill and Bay Mud deposits that comprise much of the soil in the area. Subsidence occurs with rates exceeding five millimeters per year in the San Francisco Bay Area.[^p14-3]

**Landslides** and mudslides generally have the potential to occur on most sloped land. The risks tend to be greatest where a number of contributing factors are present, including slopes over 15 percent; weak, unconsolidated, or shallow soils; water saturation; a history of landslides; active earthquake faults; and extensive grading or vegetation removal (from fires or development activity). The slide itself is usually triggered by an earthquake, heavy rain, or misdirected runoff.

* Slopes at the greatest risk for landslides in the city are concentrated throughout the Oakland Hills (especially in the northern hills) and within two miles south of Highway 13.
* The landslide hazard in the Oakland Hills is exacerbated by the fact that the area is situated near the Hayward fault. During a major earthquake on that fault, landslides may occur in the hills in response to strong ground movements anticipated to occur in the area. Landslides could block roads, which would hamper evacuation, firefighting, and relief operations within the area. While efforts have been taken by the City through the development process to minimize landslide potential, most hillside development predates the imposition of grading and related requirements. For this reason, older hillside homes and subdivisions are the most susceptible to damage from landslides.

<<FIGURE>>

## GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS

Oakland is located between two known active fault zones – Hayward and San Andreas. The Hayward Fault Zone extends north-northwest to south-southeast approximately 55 miles from San Jose to Point Pinole along the eastern side of Oakland, as shown on **Figure SAF-1**. The fault is active, producing large earthquakes historically, and is designated as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (EFZ).[^p14-4] [^p14-5] The San Andreas Fault Zone is a system of faults trending northwest for approximately 600 miles, from the Gulf of California to Cape Mendocino. It also has been designated an EFZ. There have been numerous large and destructive earthquakes generated from the San Andreas Fault Zone, including the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. The latest earthquake forcast model, the third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, has estimated that the entire San Francisco Bay Area has a 72 percent chance of experiencing an earthquake of magnitude 6.7 or higher over the next 30 years, with the Hayward and San Andreas faults being the most likely to cause such an event.

Strong seismic ground shaking and earthquake induced liquefaction and/or landslides are the primary geologic hazards of concern in Oakland in the event of an earthquake. The Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment reveals that most of Oakland is at risk for violent shaking, while part of the Port, including Oakland International Airport, is at risk for severe shaking.[^p14-6] Other earthquake ground shaking scenarios are modeled in the City’s Hazard Mapper, which shows groundshaking risk for earthquakes that may occur at the Calaveras, Hayward, and San Andreas fault zones.[^p14-7] Liquefaction is the rapid loss of shear

[^p14-3]: Blackwell, Em, Manoochehr Shirzaei, Chandrakanta Ojha, and Susanna Werth. 2020. “Tracking California’s Sinking Coast From Space: Implications For Relative Sea-Level Rise.” Science Advances 6(31):eaba4551. Retrieved from https://advances.sciencemag.org
[^p14-4]: In accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Alquist-Priolo Act) of 1972, the State Geologist established regulatory zones, called “Earthquake Fault Zones,” around the surface traces of active faults and published maps showing the earthquake fault zones. Within the fault zones, buildings for human occupancy cannot be constructed across the surface trace of active faults.
[^p14-5]: Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2015a. Long-Term Time-Dependent Probabilities for the Third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3). Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 105, No. 2A. pp. 511-543. April 2015. doi: 10.1785/0120140093
[^p14-6]: Ibid.
[^p14-7]: The City of Oakland Hazard Mapper. Available at

<!-- page 15 -->
strength experienced in saturated soils below groundwater level during strong earthquake shaking. Liquefaction can move blocks of soil, placing strain on buried pipelines that can lead to leaks or pipe failure. Liquefaction susceptibility is generally highest in the low-lying coastal areas of Oakland, and around Lake Merritt and the Channel that connects it to the Estuary (Figure SAF-1). Earthquake-induced landslides are a particular type of landslide in which rocks and soil are displaced due to strong ground shaking. Figure SAF-2 also shows that landslides are most likely in the hillier parts of Oakland. The latest regulatory maps for Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation (see Institutional and Regulatory Framework section for more information) can be found at the California Department of Conservation’s website.

The degree of damage caused by an earthquake depends on an area’s geologic composition, the number of people and the designated land uses, the prevailing construction standards, the prevalence and condition of gas lines, the condition of water and sewer main lines, the efficiency of the emergency-response system, and even the time of day and day of the week. Most of Oakland’s geologic and seismic threat comes from impacts to City utility lifelines, quake-related fire, landslide, or flood, and impacts to structures or buildings, which can include partial or total collapse. The potential for structural hazards largely depends on the structure’s design and construction type. While modern building codes require seismic study, safety measures, and earthquake-resistant design to help protect communities against structural hazards, many buildings in Oakland were built before these codes were in place.

While it is impossible to prevent earthquakes, the loss and damage resulting from their impacts can be minimized through proper design and construction of structures, public infrastructure, and land use development. Geological investigations and greater oversight of engineering practices and construction techniques will continue to remain essential elements of the development process, and the safety of existing buildings must be upgraded whenever possible. The City’s building electrification plan, as outlined in the 2030 ECAP, will not only drive long-term building energy efficiency improvements but also enhance infrastructure safety during earthquakes. The ECAP proposes a two stage process: in stage 1, new developments will no longer incorporate gas connections, and in stage 2, existing buildings will stop using gas. This will allow the City to gradually decommission parts of the gas pipeline system, reducing the risk of gas main ruptures during earthquakes.

### SOCIAL VULNERABILITY

Based on the location of hazards and vulnerable communities illustrated in the figures, higher-income residents and white residents who make up the majority of the population in census tracts along the city’s northern edge in the hills are more likely to be at risk of landslides and ground shaking, while lower-income areas and communities of color are more likely to be affected by moderate susceptibility to liquefaction (the highest liquefaction risks are along the shoreline in industrial areas and in the Jack London and Brooklyn Basin areas). From Mid-60th Avenue along the Hegenberger corridor past 98th Avenue and West Oakland along West Grand Avenue, East Oakland is also vulnerable and contains a large percentage of households of color, who are often already more burdened by housing costs than white households. Due to the large-scale nature of seismic events, however, the entirety of Oakland is generally at risk of geologic hazards. Goals and policies developed by the City will work to mitigate these geologic and seismic hazards while prioritizing adaptation for socially vulnerable groups through compliance with state laws, geotechnical regulations, and local policies and programs.

### INSTITUTIONAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Following the devastation of the San Fernando earthquake in 1971 (magnitude 6.6), California created the Alquist-Priolo Act to reduce damage and losses from surface fault rupture. This act established regulatory zones surrounding the surface traces of active faults in California so that a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed or built on active faults with potential for surface rupture and must be sited at a minimum distance from the fault.[^p15-8]

Established in 1990, Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA) directs the Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey to identify and map areas prone to earthquake hazards of liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides, and amplified ground shaking. The purpose of the SHMA is to reduce the threat to public safety and to minimize the loss of life and property by identifying and mitigating these seismic hazards. The SHMA requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones (known as Seismic Zones of Required Investigation) and to issue appropriate seismic hazard zone maps to all affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in planning and controlling construction and development.[^p15-9] Additionally, if a property is located in a Seismic Hazard Zone as shown on a map issued by the State Geologist, the seller or the seller’s agent must disclose this fact to a potential buyer. The best official resource for locating Seismic Hazard Zones is the California Department of Conservation’s online application, known as “EQ Zapp”.[^p15-10]

While an earthquake fault zone generally prohibits location of structures for human occupancy within 50 feet of a trace of an active fault line, the State may grant exceptions for development within an earthquake fault zone if a geologic investigation approved by the State Geologist shows that the structure is not situated upon a trace of an active fault line.[^p15-11]

To further address earthquake hazards, and pursuant to Oakland Municipal Code Chapter 15.20, the City of Oakland applies Standard Conditions of Approval to all projects that involve new structures, major additions, and subdivisions located in an Earthquake Fault Zone per the State Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act and in a seismic hazard zone per the State Seismic Hazards Mapping Act.

The City of Oakland’s Soft Story Retrofit Program also works to save lives by strengthening buildings with large ground-floor openings or weak stories that are particularly prone to collapse during an earthquake. Effective January 22, 2019, Municipal Ordinance No. 13516 requires residential property owners of subject buildings to strengthen these vulnerable buildings with seismic retrofits. Actions in the Safety Element (found in Chapter 5) direct study and evaluation of other types of buildings that may be at risk, including those made of non-ductile (or inflexible) concrete. Use of this material was one of the factors associated with rampant building collapse caused by the February 2023 earthquakes in Turkey.

[^p15-8]: Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, 2019, California Department of Conservation (https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/alquist-priolo)
[^p15-9]: Public Resources Code, Chapter 7.8, Section 2690-2699.6
[^p15-10]: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geohazards/eq-zapp
[^p15-11]: Public Resources Code, section 2621.7

<!-- page 16 -->
<<FIGURE>>

| | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| &mdash; | Earthquake Fault Line | <img src="circle.png" alt="circle" width="10"/> | BART Stations |
| <img src="grey_block.png" alt="grey block" width="20"/> | Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone | <img src="ferry.png" alt="ferry" width="10"/> | Ferry Terminals |
| | **Liquefaction Susceptibility** | <img src="dashed_blue.png" alt="dashed blue" width="20"/> | BART Lines |
| <img src="dark_brown.png" alt="dark brown" width="20"/> | Very High | <img src="grey_line.png" alt="grey line" width="20"/> | BART Airport Connector |
| <img src="medium_brown.png" alt="medium brown" width="20"/> | High | <img src="red_line.png" alt="red line" width="20"/> | Bus Rapid Transit Line |
| <img src="tan_brown.png" alt="tan brown" width="20"/> | Moderate | <img src="dotted_line.png" alt="dotted line" width="20"/> | Ferry Routes |
| <img src="light_tan.png" alt="light tan" width="20"/> | Low | <img src="rail_line.png" alt="rail line" width="20"/> | Railroads |
| <img src="pale_yellow.png" alt="pale yellow" width="20"/> | Very Low | &mdash; | Major Highways |
| | **Social Vulnerability Rank** | &mdash; | Major Roads |
| <img src="red_hatch.png" alt="red hatch" width="20"/> | Highest Social Vulnerability | <img src="green_block.png" alt="green block" width="20"/> | Parks |
| | | <img src="dash_dot.png" alt="dash dot" width="20"/> | City of Oakland |
| | | <img src="solid_grey.png" alt="solid grey" width="20"/> | Alameda County |

SOURCE: ESA, 2022; BCDC, 2020; City of Oakland, 2021; ALAMEDA COUNTY GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021

<!-- page 17 -->
# Figure SAF-2: Vulnerable Communities and Landslide Hazards

<<FIGURE>>

SOURCE: BCDC, 2020; CGS Information Warehouse, Department of Conservation, data accessed 2022; MTC/ABAG Hazard Viewer, data accessed 2021; City of Oakland, 2021; ALAMEDA COUNTY GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022

<!-- page 18 -->
### GOALS AND POLICIES

| GOAL SAF-1: | MINIMIZE THE RISK TO LIFE AND PROPERTY CAUSED BY SEISMIC AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS. |
| :--- | :--- |
| **SAF-1.1** | **Seismic Hazards.** Develop and continue to enforce and carry out regulations and programs to reduce seismic hazards and hazards from seismically triggered phenomena. Prioritize programs in areas of highest seismic risk and seismic vulnerability. |
| **SAF-1.2** | **Structural Hazards.** Continue, enhance, or develop regulations and programs designed to minimize seismically related structural hazards from new and existing buildings. |
| **SAF-1.3** | **Limit Development in Hazardous Areas and Minimize Erosion.** Minimize threat to structures and humans by limiting development in areas subject to landslides or other geologic threat and undertake efforts to limit erosion from new development. |
| **SAF-1.4** | **Seismic Hazard Coordination.** Work with other public agencies to reduce potential damage from earthquakes to "lifeline" utility, economic, and transportation systems, including Caltrans; BART; PG&E, EBMUD, and other utilities providers; the Port of Oakland; and others. |

<<FIGURE>>

## 2.2 FIRE

### WILDFIRE/WILDFIRE URBAN INTERFACE

As climate change exacerbates drought conditions in California, wildfire threats have become increasingly common. A wildfire is any uncontrolled fire on undeveloped land that requires fire suppression. According to the City of Oakland 2021 – 2026 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, wildfires are common in the Bay Area, with large historic wildfires recorded in 1961, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1970, 1981, 1985, 1988, and 1991. Between 1954 and 2020, FEMA issued major disaster (DR), emergency (EM) and fire management assistance declarations for two fire hazard-related events in Alameda County. The 1991 Oakland Hills Fire (Tunnel Fire) killed 25 people, injured 150 others, burned 1,520 acres, destroyed thousands of homes, and caused $1.7 billion in losses. The high winds, steep terrain, and heavy fuel load made fighting this historic wildfire a major challenge. Major wildfires that occur outside the city still have profound impacts on economies, health, and ecosystem function throughout the region.

State law requires the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), to identify areas, or zones, of very high fire hazard severity potential under the Fire and Resources Assessment Program (FRAP). These Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) are mapped and identified based on expected burn probabilities, potential fuels over a 30- to 50-year time period, and their correlated expected fire behavior, in order to better predict possible vegetation fire exposure to buildings and developments. These maps are updated periodically; the latest maps are available at the CAL FIRE Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program webpage. As shown in **Figure SAF-3a**, the eastern portion of the city in the Oakland Hills is designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) and a Local Responsibility Area (LRA), where local governments have fiscal responsibility for wildfire protection. This portion of the city is adjacent to State Responsibility Areas (SRAs), where the State has responsibility for wildfire protection, also designated as VHFHSZ. Approximately 10,800 acres of land in Oakland are designated as VHFHSZ, representing approximately 22 percent of land area in City limits. Existing land uses and current General Plan (1998) land uses are shown in **Figure SAF-3b**. This is the largest VHFHSZ by acreage within a Bay Area city boundary. CAL FIRE is currently updating these maps to reflect climate change and wind activity patterns, with likely expanded areas designated at higher tiers of wildfire threat.

Additionally, the Oakland Hills area is largely defined as part of the wildland-urban interface (WUI). The WUI is an area where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildlands. This designation is based on the fuel load, weather and terrain factors that influence fire likelihood and fire behavior. The mapped WUI includes these areas mapped as VHFHSZ and includes additional land area further west in the more developed areas of the city. While many of the fires in the WUI are small and can be controlled, the proximity of dense residential communities to areas that are fire-prone increases the hazard of wildfire in Oakland. Larger fires in this ecosystem should be anticipated every 10-20 years.[^p18-12] Wildfire in the urban interface is a growing concern in the Bay Area. In the past 60 years, the region has experienced over 500 wildfires which have threatened public safety, property, infrastructure, air quality, water quality, and natural environments. [^p18-13]

A significant number of structures are vulnerable to wildfire in the City. As of 2008, California State Building code requires minimum standards be met for new buildings in fire hazard severity zones. Most housing in the city—84 percent—was built prior to this code requirement (U.S. Census, 2020). It is unknown how many of these structures are in fire hazard zones, though the 2021-2026 LHMP estimates that 13 percent of Oaklanders (over 15,000 homes) reside in either a high or very-high wildfire severity zone. Any proposed development in the VHFHSZ must comply with state and city requirements for building standards, vegetation management, points of egress, and other measures, as well as other policies included in this Element. As described in the LHMP, an estimated 35 percent of the critical facilities in the city are located in wildfire risk areas, with many of these facilities

[^p18-12]: City of Oakland, 2017. City of Oakland General Plan Update, Safety Element. Available online: https://www.oaklandca.gov/resources/safety-element
[^p18-13]: Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2021. Wildfires. Available online: https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/resilience/data-re-search/wildfire#:~:text=Wildfire%20Risk%20and%20Resources,destroyed%20more%20than%208%2C000%20structures.

<!-- page 19 -->
believed to be wood-frame. Because these facilities could have a significant amount of functional downtime after a wildfire, both mitigation and operations planning continuity will be necessary to develop procedures for providing services under circumstances where access to critical facilities is limited.

Further, tree mortality in the WUI increases the level of dead wood that can act as fuel. Increased fuel loading due to tree mortality increases the level of fire hazard for adjacent communities.[^p19-14] Climate change also compounds threats, as increased temperature and more frequent drought stress trees and speed up tree deaths, but also can result in less water storage in soils, reduced biomass in soils, and extended periods of dry grasses. All of these expand the risk of both fire ignition and severity. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) maps these high fire-threat areas where there is a higher risk for power line fires igniting and spreading rapidly. As shown on Figure SAF-4, tree die-back in East Bay Regional Parks (e.g., Reinhardt, Anthony Chabot) puts adjacent areas of Oakland at risk for wildfire impacts, including secondary impacts of air and water pollution, erosion, and landslides.

### URBAN FIRE

An urban fire is a fire that can rapidly spread to adjoining structures and damage or destroy large commercial buildings, apartment complexes, and other residential or commercial facilities. As described previously, much of the fire hazard that Oakland faces is due to the proximity of dense, residential communities and urban areas to areas with high fire risk due to steep slopes, vegetation that can act as fuel for fires, and seasonal winds which can spread fire. The primary factors affecting the risk of structural fire are the age and condition of the building or structure, its proximity to other structures, and the methods and materials used in its construction. As the City grows and development becomes denser, the possibility of urban fires increases.

Urban fires usually result from sources within buildings themselves, though recently the region has also observed an uptick in fires originating in homeless encampments. Smoking in bed, faulty wiring, children playing with matches, and appliance malfunctions are often causes of structural fires. Additionally, cinders from wood-burning fireplaces that remain alive and travel considerable distances have also been blamed for starting fires near residential locations. Therefore, urban fires can generally be mitigated through implementing and enforcing proper building code requirements, reducing the prevalence of gas lines and appliances, adherence to fire flow requirement minimums, and instituting zoning or subdivision ordinance requirements as described in the Institutional and Regulatory Framework section. Following the devastating 2016 Ghost Ship fire, in which 36 people lost their lives, the City issued Executive Order 2017-1, “Improving Safety of Non-Permitted Spaces While Avoiding Displacement”, which directed the City Administrator and City departments to take action to preserve housing, workspaces, and cultural gathering spaces while improving life safety in unpermitted buildings. The City continues to make progress toward its goals of making the community safer while protecting against displacement through focus on six areas, including bringing buildings into compliance; increasing inspection capacity and enhancing protocols; improving inter-departmental communications; strengthening tenant protections and education; streamlining special event permitting; and identifying housing resources.

### SOCIAL VULNERABILITY

Global climate change has contributed to greater frequency and severity of extreme climate and weather, with increased chance of compound extreme events such as concurrent heat waves and droughts as well as fire weather.[^p19-15] While Oakland enjoys a relatively temperate climate due to its bayfront location, changes in climate conditions are already affecting the city, and felt most acutely by frontline communities.

Based on the location of the WUI area and vulnerable communities, higher-income and white residents who make up the majority of the population in the Oakland Hills are more likely to be at significant risk of wildfires. Uncontrolled wildland fires do have the risk of spreading beyond the very high and high vulnerability areas into urban areas, which could impact socially-vulnerable populations. Additionally, the entire city will be impacted by wildfires occurring throughout the metropolitan region via impacts on air/wildfire smoke, water, and soil quality; damage to energy infrastructure and roads; and strain on local firefighting resources as the fire department is called to respond to fires across the region and state. Unhoused populations, outdoor workers, residents who live in poorly insulated or ventilated homes, and people who are already burdened by elevated local (indoor/outdoor) pollution are increasingly at risk due to the consequences of climate change that have exacerbated the now-annual “smoke season.” Goals and policies developed by the City will work to mitigate fire hazards while prioritizing adaptation for socially vulnerable groups through compliance with state laws, fire safe development regulations, and local policies and programs.

### VHFHSZ and Housing Development

As described previously, the Oakland Hills are largely within a very high fire hazard severity zone/wildland urban interface. Much of the land in the hills is currently zoned for either open space (OS), or Hillside Residential (RH), which is intended to maintain, and enhance residential areas that are primarily characterized by detached, single unit structures on hillside lots. One of the purposes of zoning is to protect public health; for example, preventing a large amount of development in the fire-prone hills is one way to avoid strain on evacuation routes. However, as described in the EJ and Safety Elements, single-family zoning has also explicitly been used as a tool to racially segregate neighborhoods. While civil rights legislation outlawed overt housing discrimination in the 20th century, exclusionary zoning policies that restrict higher density-housing continue to have the effect of limiting racial and economic diversity in these areas.

As part of efforts to advance racial equity, policies in the General Plan attempt to balance fire safety considerations with actions that further opportunity in exclusionary single-family areas. For example, the City is proposing an Affordable Housing Overlay, which allows 100 percent affordable developments by-right in select areas located in the VHFHSZ that have adequate emergency access and evaluated for congestion issues in emergency wildfire scenarios (see “Emergency Evacuation” in Chapter 4). Coupled with any zoning changes, the City will continue to require that new development prepare a Fire Protection Plan (Policy SAF-2.3) and will implement specific policies to aid evacuation in these constrained areas.

[^p19-14]: CAL FIRE, 2022. Tree Mortality. Available online at https://frap.fire.ca.gov/frap-projects/tree-mortality/. Accessed January 10, 2022.
[^p19-15]: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), Cambridge University Press, 2021.

<!-- page 20 -->
# Figure SAF-3a: Fire Hazards

<<FIGURE>>

SOURCE: CAL FIRE, 2018; ESA, 2022; BCDC, 2020; City of Oakland, 2021; ALAMEDA COUNTY GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021

<!-- page 21 -->
# Figure SAF-3b: Existing and General Plan (1998) Land Uses in VHFHSZ

<<FIGURE>>

**General Plan Land Use**
* [ ] Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
* [ ] Hillside Residential
* [ ] Detached Unit Residential
* [ ] Mixed Housing Type Residential
* [ ] Neighborhood Center Mixed Use
* [ ] Community Commercial
* [ ] Business Mix
* [ ] Institutional
* [ ] Resource Conservation
* [ ] Urban Park and Open Space

**Existing Land Use**
* [ ] Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
* [ ] Single Family Residential
* [ ] Single Family Residential - Attached
* [ ] Multi Family Residential
* [ ] Mixed Uses - Residential
* [ ] Service Stations
* [ ] Hotel, Motel, Lodging Commercial
* [ ] General Commercial
* [ ] Office
* [ ] General Industrial
* [ ] Assisted Living/Nursing Facility
* [ ] School/College/Educational Facility
* [ ] Religious/Institutional
* [ ] Parks, Recreation & Open Space
* [ ] Public
* [ ] Utilities/Railroads
* [ ] Parking Lots/Garages
* [ ] Vacant

SOURCE: CAL FIRE, 2018; City of Oakland, 2021; ALAMEDA County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021

<!-- page 22 -->
# Figure SAF-4: Collaborative Fire Threat Management

<<FIGURE>>

| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| <img src="rect_brown.png" alt="brown square"> | Tree Mortality High Hazard Zones |
| **CPUC Fire-Threat** | |
| <img src="rect_orange.png" alt="orange square"> | Tier 2 |
| <img src="rect_red.png" alt="red square"> | Tier 3 |
| <img src="circle_blue.png" alt="blue circle"> | BART Stations |
| <img src="icon_ferry.png" alt="ferry icon"> | Ferry Terminals |
| <img src="line_dashed_teal.png" alt="dashed teal line"> | BART Lines |
| <img src="line_dotted_teal.png" alt="dotted teal line"> | BART Airport Connector |
| <img src="line_double_red.png" alt="double red line"> | Bus Rapid Transit Line |
| <img src="line_dashed_blue.png" alt="dashed blue line"> | Ferry Routes |
| <img src="line_hatched.png" alt="hatched line"> | Railroads |
| <img src="line_thick_grey.png" alt="thick grey line"> | Major Highways |
| <img src="line_thin_grey.png" alt="thin grey line"> | Major Roads |
| <img src="rect_green_pale.png" alt="pale green square"> | Parks |
| <img src="line_dash_dot.png" alt="dash dot line"> | City of Oakland |
| <img src="line_solid_grey.png" alt="solid grey line"> | Alameda County |

<!-- page 23 -->
### INSTITUTIONAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

#### Fire Safe Development Codes

The California Fire Code (Title 24, Part 9 of the California Code) establishes regulations to protect life and property from the hazards of fires in new and existing buildings and structures. The provisions of the Fire Code apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal, and demolition of buildings or structures throughout California. Public Resources Code 4291 includes regulations and defensible space requirements for areas located in SRAs. The City adopted and amended the 2022 California Fire Code (Ordinance 13720) and regulates fire safety in Chapter 15 of the Oakland Municipal Code (OMC). The amendments enacted via Ordinance amend Chapter 15 of the Oakland Municipal Code Chapter 15.12 – Oakland Fire Code with the most current edition of the California Fire Code as the governing fire code, effective January 1, 2023. Additionally, the OMC includes a vegetation management inspection program to inspect properties in VHFHSZs for proper vegetation management and includes a chapter of special construction requirements in fire hazard areas in the areas damaged by the 1991 Tunnel Fire.

#### Peakload Water Supply Requirement

The Fire Code stipulates fire-flow requirements for buildings.[^p23-16] Fire-flow is the rate of a water supply, measured at 20 pounds per square inch (psi) (138 kPa) residual pressure, that is available for firefighting. Fire-flow minimums vary depending on building use, building size, and if a sprinkler system is provided. Water mains serving one- and two-family dwellings, townhouses, and group homes must provide a fire-flow of 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) for buildings without an automatic sprinkler system, or 500 gpm for buildings with fire protection services such as automatic sprinkler systems. The required fire-flow standard for commercial, industrial, manufacturing, and large apartment buildings varies from 1,500 to 8,000 gpm based on the type of construction, type of use, and any built-in fire protection devices. School buildings are within Appendix BB of the Fire Code and range between 1,500 to 8,000 gpm depending on type and square footage.

According to the East Bay Municipal Utility District’s (EBMUD) Water Shortage Contingency Plan, Oakland obtains most of its water supply from the Mokelumne River, EBMUD’s primary water source. Water flows into Oakland primarily through the Claremont tunnel from the Orinda water treatment plant, then through several aqueducts and large transmission mains into smaller distribution mains supplying the entire city; at the same time, water is stored at various reservoirs located throughout the city. EBMUD is actively planning and implementing additional sources of water supplies from multiple sources, including development of the Bayside Groundwater Project to bank excess water in wet years and withdraw water in drought years, increasing the production and delivery of recycled water in its service area, use of the Freeport Regional Water Facility Long Term Renewal Contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and developing water transfers and contracts with other water agencies. The Oakland Fire Department participates in annual meetings with EBMUD and other local jurisdictions to plan for adequate water capacity.

#### Minimum Road Widths and Clearances Around Structures

Clear emergency vehicle access to buildings is very important in the event of a fire or seismic event. Such access is regulated by the adopted and amended Fire Code. Under the current Fire Code, all portions of a building shall be within 150 feet of a serviceable fire access road. Fire apparatus access roads shall be all weather roads with a minimum width of 20 feet. However, many streets in the Oakland Hills do not meet current Municipal Code Standards for minimum width and are in steep areas without off-street parking; therefore, residents park on the narrow streets making the streets even narrower and less accessible for emergency responders.[^p23-17] Additionally, city infrastructure surveys have shown that the VHFHSZ has many narrow streets with dead ends. Considering these factors, conditions related to emergency response are currently not adequate to serve the population living in the VHFHSZ.

Prompted by community members’ concerns and the leadership of City councilmembers in Council Districts 1 and 4, the City of Oakland continues to develop solutions to address a serious public safety issue regarding emergency vehicle access through narrow streets. This is especially an issue in Oakland’s hills where residents have reported delays in emergency response due to parked cars blocking the roadway, leaving too narrow a space for typically-larger emergency vehicles to safely pass. New signs and enforcement efforts were launched in 2017, with input from the Oakland Fire Department, Oakland Public Works, the Oakland Department of Transportation and the City Administrator’s Office. The Fire Department has also explored legislation that would formally prohibit all street parking in the hills on Red Flag Days which are issued by the National Weather Service for weather events which may result in extreme fire behavior that will occur within 24 hours.

Creating defensible space, or the clearance around structures, is another mechanism for improving a building’s chance of surviving a wildfire by limiting combustible materials and vegetation up to a 100 feet radius around the structure. The Fire Code requires buildings and structures within areas designated as a VHFHSZ to maintain defensible space. In the adopted and amended Fire Code, the City of Oakland is required to maintain an effective 30-foot defensible space by removing and clearing away flammable vegetation and combustible growth from structures. The OMC and vegetation inspection program requires that owners of both vacant and developed lots in the area comply with fire-hazard-abatement requirements, which include removal of

<<FIGURE>>

[^p23-16]: California Fire Code 2019, Appendix B Fire-Flow Requirements for Buildings. Table B105.1(1) and Table B105.1(2).
[^p23-17]: City of Oakland Planning Commission, 2021. Case File Number ZA21006 Staff Report. June 2, 2021. Available online: https://oaklandside.org/ wp-content/uploads/2021/06/02-Staff-Report-020621_CPC_Staff_ReportUpdated-signed.pdf

<!-- page 24 -->
overgrown grass, brush and weeds; the removal of low-hanging tree branches, street-address numbers visible from the road; and maintenance of firebreaks, which are a natural or constructed barrier used to stop or check fires that may occur or to provide a control line from which to work. To align with the City’s objective of preserving and enhancing green infrastructure networks, it is important that the provision of defensible space does not result in the expansion of impervious surface area. Property owners should integrate defensible space strategies with green infrastructure as much as possible.

In 2021, planning efforts were initiated to develop a Vegetation Management Plan, which includes various activities, such as goat grazing, vegetation clearing and monitoring, and brush clearance for more than 1,400 acres of City property plus 300 acres of roadside treatment areas within the designated VHFHSZ in the Oakland Hills. Policies and actions in the General Plan support development and implementation of the Vegetation Management Plan and consideration of other methods to provide ongoing revenue for additional efforts for vegetation management. The Vegetation Management Plan is expected to be adopted in winter 2023/2024.

### Responsible Agencies

There are several agencies responsible for fire prevention and emergency response in the Bay Area. This Element emphasizes interagency coordination and planning efforts between the City of Oakland and the following agencies to best mitigate and adapt to urban fire and wildfire. In addition, the City aims to closely consult and coordinate with community-based organizations in order to best engage residents about fire hazards. Such community groups may include the Greenlining Institute, Oakland Climate Action Coalition, and Communities for a Better Environment.

**The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE)** manages fire prevention and response for the State of California. CAL FIRE oversees enforcement of California’s forest protection regulations, implements fuel management projects, participates in forest conservation and management, and provides training and educational programs. CAL FIRE also engages in general emergency response activities.

### Fuel Reduction and Management

In December 2021, the City was awarded over $820,0000 in new grant funding from CAL FIRE to selectively remove approximately 250 dead, dying, or otherwise hazardous trees, and selectively prune hazardous branches on trees lining or overhanging the Skyline Boulevard Evacuation Corridor, beginning at Shepherd Canyon Road and ending at Keller Avenue, and plant 150 Oak trees to serve as shaded fuel breaks. Starting in 2022, tree crews have been working closely with the Oakland Fire Department (OFD) and the Public Works Department to advance the project. These funds come from CAL FIRE’s budget available for distribution for fire fuels reduction projects.

**The Oakland Fire Department** is the primary emergency response service provider for the City of Oakland, and provides comprehensive strategies and training in fire prevention, fire suppression, emergency medical services, all risk mitigation, emergency preparedness, 911 services and community-based fire services.

**The Vegetation Management Unit (VMU)** serves to inspect properties in the Oakland Hills, much of which is designated as a VHFHSZ. The VMU works under the Oakland Fire Department’s Fire Prevention Bureau. The VMU is responsible for the inspections of over 20,000 homes and vacant parcels in the VHFHSZ. The purpose of these inspections is to identify and mitigate hazards that could contribute to the spread, growth, and intensity of wildfire. The VMU conducts inspections annually, and property owners are required to actively maintain their parcels in a fire-safe condition year-round.

**The Emergency Management Services Division (EMSD)** exists within the Oakland Fire Department and is the primary agency responsible for responding to, recovering from, and mitigating against any hazard that affects the City of Oakland.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 25 -->
### GOALS AND POLICIES

#### GOAL SAF-2: PROACTIVELY PREVENT URBAN FIRES AND EXPOSURE TO WILDFIRE AND PROTECT COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND PROPERTY FROM FIRE DANGER.

**SAF-2.1 Structural Fires.** Continue, enhance, or implement programs that seek to reduce the risk of structural fires. Prioritize programs in areas with greatest risk and greatest social vulnerability.

**SAF-2.2 Vegetation and Urban Forest Management.** Manage vegetation and the urban forest to reduce combustible load, erosion, and other risks exacerbated by climate change.

* Adopt and fully implement a Vegetation Management Plan for high-fire risk areas. Continue to update and enforce the Oakland Fire Code to require building owners in high-risk areas to maintain defensible space and implement fire prevention measures. As part of the Vegetation Management Plan, build partnerships with and consult indigenous groups on sacred burning, selective harvest, non-commercial thinning, and other traditional fire suppression techniques.
* Implement the Urban Forest Master Plan, a comprehensive, area-wide urban canopy and vegetation plan that identifies locations where trees can be added and maintained, such as parks, streets, and rights-of-way. As a follow-up action, proactively address soil sequestration of carbon and water in frontline communities most affected by wildfire and other climate risks. See Environmental Justice Element policy EJ-6.16 for other urban forest objectives.
* Prioritize the use of greenbelts as a nature-based solution to reduce the risk of wildfire by identifying strategic locations for new greenbelts, especially in frontline communities.

**SAF-2.3 Development in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).** Prioritize development in areas with existing adequate road networks, evacuation routes, and water infrastructure. Require any new development in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone to prepare a Fire Protection Plan that minimizes risks by:

* Assessing site-specific characteristics such as topography, slope, vegetation type, wind patterns, etc. as part of a risk analysis.
* Determination of fire response capability, including the assistance of local fire protection agencies, and availability of local resources.
* Siting and designing development to avoid hazardous locations (e.g., through community fire breaks) to the extent feasible.
* Incorporating fuel modification and brush clearance techniques in accordance with applicable fire safety requirements (including fuel breaks and their maintenance) and carried out in a manner which reduces impacts to environmentally sensitive habitat to the maximum feasible extent.
* Using fire-resistant building materials and design features, such as visible signage, consistent with the adopted Oakland Municipal Code and Fire and Building Code standards (including Fire Safe Regulations as minimum standard).
* Using fire-retardant, native plant species in landscaping.
* Complying with established standards and specifications for fuel modification, visible home and street addressing and signage, defensible space, access and egress, and water facilities.
* Banning fuel storage (e.g., fuel storage for power generators) in VHFHSZ.
* Requiring street improvements to comply with minimum fire road access standards.
* Disallowing new residential development/subdivisions in areas with less than two evacuation routes (as shown in Figure SAF-13b), unless a development were to be able to provide additional connections to ameliorate this condition.
* Following the most recent California Fire Code as adopted and amended.
* Participating in the City's fire safety and public education efforts related to requirements for development, property maintenance, and emergency preparedness.

**SAF-2.4 Slope-Density Regulations.** Reduce permitted development densities and intensities by slope tiers—such as between 15 and 30 percent slope, and greater than 30 percent slope—in hills/hillside areas. *This consideration would be considered and reflected as part of the LUTE update.*

**SAF-2.5 Financial Assistance.** Identify or develop programs to provide financial incentives or assistance to low-income households for defensible space maintenance, home hardening, and situational-specific training for evacuation procedures to reduce risk to people and property.

**SAF-2.6 Agency Coordination.** Continue to participate not only in general mutual-aid agreements but also in agreements with adjoining jurisdictions and other public agencies for proactive prevention of and cooperative response to wildfires, including multi-jurisdictional programs and task forces.

**SAF-2.7 Protect Against Smoke and Wildfire.** Improve access to better indoor air quality to protect against smoke and wildfire through methods such as requiring installation of MERV filters in new developments and identifying additional clean air centers and resilience spaces within residential areas. Additionally, the City will explore funding mechanisms such as available grants, to assist residents of EJ communities in purchasing indoor air filters.

**SAF-2.8 Water Infrastructure.** In partnership with EBMUD, plan for the ongoing maintenance and long-term integrity of planned and existing water supply infrastructure, including peak load water supply.

<!-- page 26 -->
## 2.3 CLIMATE CHANGE

The consequences of climate change are intensifying worldwide, underscoring the urgent need for action. California is one of the most “climate-challenged” regions of North America; its historical climate is highly variable, and climate change is making extreme conditions more frequent and severe.[^p26-18] Given the complexity of the global climate system and the significant uncertainty regarding long-term greenhouse gas emissions, the results of different climate change projections can look quite different. See the City of Oakland’s Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for more information regarding climate projections that inform this Safety Element. Because climate change is cross-cutting, goals, actions, and policies related to climate change are incorporated into each associated hazard, as well as in the Environmental Justice Element.

In the San Francisco Bay Area, annual maximum temperatures have already increased by 1.7°F from 1950-2005, sea levels have risen over eight inches in the last 100 years, and several studies suggest that the coastal fog critical to the Bay Area climate is less frequent than before. Such changes will also affect the natural ecosystems that characterize the Bay Area, such as becoming less suitable for the iconic redwood forests that once dominated the region.[^p26-19] Despite global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, changes in temperature, precipitation, and sea level rise are projected to increase significantly in the coming decades and will produce substantial impacts on Bay Area social systems and the built environment as well as natural and managed resource systems. Oakland is among a growing number of Bay Area local governments, agencies, nonprofits, and private sector stakeholders that are taking actions that advance climate adaptation and resilience, including through its 2030 ECAP.

The continual emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and resulting effects on the climate crisis are an issue of equity. Frontline communities, those who have been and will continue to be hit first and worst by the impacts of environmental injustice and the climate crisis, are often the least able to adapt, resist, or recover from climate impacts.[^p26-20] For example, increasingly extreme climate conditions will have cost implications, such as energy costs needed to heat or cool a home. These additional costs will be felt more acutely by populations that are already impacted by severe housing, transportation, and/or healthcare cost burdens. Furthermore, neighborhood characteristics affected by historical disinvestment and other racial disparities create even more of a burden. For example, neighborhoods with fewer trees and green spaces or inadequate funding to maintain these resources would lack the benefits experienced by a neighborhood with ample shade and cooling from a healthy urban forest (discussed in the ‘Urban heat and drought’ section). Additionally, people who do not own a car and rely on public transportation may be exposed to extreme climate conditions, especially where public transportation infrastructure is not designed for these conditions.

Alameda County faces climate change exposures that pose considerable health risks to the population, especially to frontline communities. For further information on impacts to vulnerable groups, see the City of Oakland’s Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment and the 2030 ECAP (see callout box on p. 4-3). Climate change will result in increased impacts on natural hazards, including wildfire, flooding, sea level rise, drought, and urban heat. Thus, the Safety Element incorporates a range of topics as well as climate change adaptation and resiliency strategies into its goals and policies.

<<FIGURE>>

### INCREASED IMPACTS ON WILDFIRE, PRECIPITATION CHANGES, SEA LEVEL RISE

As global climate change intensifies the frequency and severity of extreme climate and weather, it has led to an increased likelihood in compound extreme events, such as concurrent heat waves, droughts, and fire weather.[^p26-21] Historically, wildfire has exhibited a cyclical pattern within California—some years may see intense wildfire while others may not. As wildfire emerges from a variety of climate conditions including type of vegetative cover, precipitation, and temperature, wildfire severity will continue to fluctuate over time. However, climate change will favor many of the climatic conditions that make wildfire more likely, meaning that average wildfire intensity will gradually increase. Wildfire is associated with a host of secondary impacts such as smoke production and air quality issues, reductions in soil and water quality, landslides, erosion, and impacts to health, energy, and transit systems.

Climate change models predict changes in the seasonal distribution of precipitation, with rainfall becoming more concentrated in the winter months and falling in fewer, higher-intensity events. These changes may result in a number of secondary impacts, such as flooding, reduction in winter snowpack, drought, groundwater depletion, increased wildfire risk, changes in streamflow, and strain to health, energy, and infrastructure systems. Flooding effects will be felt most strongly in coastal and low-lying areas, and areas with inadequate stormwater infrastructure.

Projections for global sea level rise vary between one foot in the next few decades up to seven feet anticipated by 2100. According to sea level rise scenarios outlined in the City of Oakland 2021 – 2026 LHMP, the San Francisco Bay is projected to experience a 48-inch rise in sea level by 2050, and a 108 inch rise in sea level by 2100.[^p26-22] Potential for new or prolonged flooding as the sea level rises will increasingly reach beyond the city’s shoreline; areas once considered to be outside of the floodplain will begin to experience periodic coastal and/

[^p26-18]: Louise Bedsworth, et. al., “California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment Statewide Summary Report,” California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission, 2018, https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Statewide_Reports-SUM-CCCA4-2018-013_Statewide_Summary_Report_ADA.pdf. Accessed February 10, 2022.
[^p26-19]: David Ackerly, et. al., “California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment San Francisco Bay Area Summary Report,” University of California, Berkeley, 2018, https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Reg_Report-SUMCCCA4-2018-005_SanFranciscoBayArea_ADA.pdf. Accessed February 10, 2022.
[^p26-20]: City of Oakland, Oakland 2030 Equitable Climate Action Plan, 2020.
[^p26-21]: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, 2021,
[^p26-22]: California Ocean Protection Council, Sea-Level Rise Guidance, 2018.

<!-- page 27 -->
or urban flooding, especially places like the Port of Oakland and the Oakland International Airport, which are chronically subsiding (i.e., sinking because they are built on bay fill) and are at higher risk of liquefaction during seismic events.[^p27-23] Neighborhoods/tracts that will be most affected by sea level rise are shown in **Table SAF-1**.

### URBAN HEAT AND DROUGHT

Alongside the rise in global temperatures, precipitation patterns in California are also changing. Less precipitation is falling as snow, and more is falling as rain. Reduced winter snowpack will negatively impact local water availability, particularly during drought periods. Drought frequency may also increase as rainstorms become less likely during the summer months.

As of 2022, the entire state of California remains in extreme drought conditions due to a lack of rainfall and higher average temperatures as a result of climate change. Effects from drought may be felt most acutely in winter months, with drought periods also becoming more likely in the future. The driest winter months in 100 years mark the third year of drought for the state. January, February, and March of 2022 had the least rain and snow on record for any of these months in California. This is the state’s second extreme drought in 10 years, indicating the impacts of a changing climate[^p27-24].

Climate change also affects public health: global temperature increases and exacerbated climate severity can lead to respiratory issues from wildfire smoke, an extended allergy season, and heat-related illness. Drought also has public health implications for food systems. As the ECAP notes, worsening climate change impacts, including prolonged drought, unpredictable weather patterns, fires, and flooding, are already straining and disrupting agricultural resources and food supply chains, which also exacerbate local food insecurity. Policies related to food security and accessibility are found in the Environmental Justice Element.

### Table SAF-1: Top 10th Percentile Tracts by Indicator — Climate Change Topic

| HEAT HEALTH EVENTS MAX TEMP | | ENERGY COST BURDEN | | SEA LEVEL RISE | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Tract Name¹** | **Score** | **Tract Name** | **Score** | **Tract Name** | **Score** |
| Panoramic Hill | 1.00 | **Lockwood/Coliseum/Rudsdale** | 1.00 | Port Lower* | 1.00 |
| | | **Lower San Antonio East** | 0.99 | **Port Upper** | 0.99 |
| | | **Fitchburg** | 0.98 | Acorn Industrial* | 0.98 |
| | | **Castlemont** | 0.97 | **Brookfield Village/Hegenberger** | 0.97 |
| | | **New Highland** | 0.96 | **Lockwood/Coliseum/Rudsdale** | 0.96 |
| | | **Brookfield Village** | 0.96 | **Prescott/Mandela Peralta** | 0.96 |
| | | **Bancroft/Havenscourt East** | 0.95 | **Chinatown/Laney** | 0.95 |
| | | **Seminary** | 0.94 | **Jack London Square** | 0.94 |
| | | **Stonehurst** | 0.93 | **McClymonds** | 0.93 |
| | | **Webster** | 0.92 | **Melrose** | 0.92 |
| | | **Arroyo Viejo** | 0.91 | Eastlake | 0.91 |
| | | **Sobrante Park** | 0.90 | **Oakland Estuary** | 0.90 |

Note: Bolded and green census tracts are EJ Communities.
1. Only includes one tract in top decile due to ties. Next highest score is 0.89.
*Indicates census tract with low population.

While the combined effects of regional topography, oceanic currents, fog exposure, and onshore winds function like a natural air conditioner for the Bay Area, studies suggest that summertime fog off California has declined substantially, making warming near the coast as much of a concern as in inland areas. Increases in urban temperature may be felt most acutely by those living in urban heat islands – pockets of the urban environment where temperatures can dramatically exceed those in neighboring non-urban areas. The proliferation of paved surfaces in built environments can lead to these urban heat islands, especially in places where urban forestry and water bodies are not commonly found. This can further increase summertime cooling costs. For Oakland residents, this means that both the city’s hills and flatlands will feel the heat, and the built environment will be a key driver for maintaining the comfort and health of Oaklanders.

Local hotspots in the city that will have increased heat exposure—including parts of Fruitvale/South Kennedy, the Coliseum Industrial Complex, Frick/Bancroft Business area, Castlemont, Oak Knolls-Golf Links/Chabot Park, Webster, and the Oakland International Airport area—are hotter than their surroundings. Urban heat island effects can be moderated by the cooling effects of trees and irrigation in urban landscapes, which have been estimated to reduce daytime summer temperatures across urbanized portions of the Bay Area by an average of 1.8°F. See the Environmental Justice Element for more information on efforts to increase tree canopy in underserved areas. Areas of greatest urban heat exposure, greatest energy cost burden, and greatest risk for sea level rise as identified as part of the EJ Communities screening analysis are shown in **Table SAF-1**.

[^p27-23]: City of Oakland, 2021-2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan, July 2021, https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/2021-07-01_OaklandHMP_AdoptedFinal-1.pdf.
[^p27-24]: California, State of. “Current Drought Conditions.” California Drought Action, drought.ca.gov/current-drought-conditions/.

<!-- page 28 -->
## 2.4 HYDROLOGY AND FLOODING

### HYDROLOGY

Flooding is the inundation of normally dry land as a result of a rise in the level of surface waters or the rapid accumulation of storm-water runoff. It becomes a hazard when the flow of water has the potential to damage property and threaten human life or health. Oakland is subject to riverine flooding, flash flooding, and stormwater flooding. Riverine flooding occurs when streams and rivers exceed the capacity of their channels to accommodate water flow and water overflows the banks, spilling out into adjacent land. The National Weather Service defines a flash flood as a “rapid and extreme flow of high water into a normally dry area, or a rapid rise in a stream or creek above a predetermined flood level, beginning within six hours of the causative event.” Stormwater flooding occurs from a precipitation event that can overwhelm a stormwater management system, causing water to inundate roads and property.

The City of Oakland’s watershed consists of 15 main creeks, over 30 tributaries, Lake Merritt, Lake Temescal, and the Oakland Estuary. According to FEMA’s December 21, 2018, Flood Insurance Study (FIS), the City of Oakland drainage systems are adequate to carry low frequency storm runoff. However, larger storms can cause stormwater flooding.

<<FIGURE>>

### FLOODING

#### Storm-Induced Flooding and Flood Hazard Zones

Flood hazards are mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as part of the National Flood Insurance Program. The 100-year Flood Zone, which has a 1 percent annual chance flood risk, and 500-year Flood Zone, which has a 0.2 percent annual chance flood risk, are depicted in **Figure SAF-5**. Flood hazards are dynamic and can change frequently due to a variety of factors, including weather patterns, erosion, and new development. FEMA, through the Risk MAP program, works with communities to collect new or updated flood hazard data and periodically updates flood maps to reflect these changes. The primary areas of flooding in Oakland are along the shoreline of the San Francisco Bay, Oakland Estuary, and San Leandro Bay. Flooding is also associated with Lake Merritt and Glen Echo Creek, as well as Arroyo Viejo, Lion, Sausal, and Peralta Creeks, and the areas near these bodies of water are at the most risk of being impacted during flood events. Most of the City’s developed shoreline is not within the current 100-year Flood Zone, except the north part of the Oakland International Airport.[^p28-25] The LHMP estimates that there are approximately 14,600 structures in the 100-year Flood Zone, and major new development is also occurring in several areas along the shoreline, including the Brooklyn Basin area. While recent projects take sea level rise projections into account, areas that pre-date updated flood maps and the latest best available sea level rise science may be at risk of flooding in the future.

Historically, flooding has been the most frequent natural hazard occurring in Oakland, with most hazard associated with excess stormwater runoff from heavy rain. Since 1950, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported flood events, 26 of which were flash floods, within Alameda County, amounting to a total of $18,349,000 in lost property damages. As described in the City of Oakland 2021 – 2026 LHMP, Alameda County and the communities within it have experienced 12 flooding events since 1969 for which federal disaster declarations were issued. Many flood events do not trigger federal disaster declaration protocol but have significant impacts on their communities. Large floods can result in multiple severe and widespread impacts including damage to electric and transportation infrastructure, destruction of homes and businesses, increased rates of flood-borne disease, and loss of life.

Severe flooding in the region is often the result of a combination of topographic features; severe weather or excessive rainfall; and infrastructure characteristics such as inadequate stormwater drainage and elevated levels of impervious surface. Stormwater flooding is most likely to occur in areas with elevated levels of impervious surface and in places where stormwater infrastructure is impaired or inadequate.[^p28-26]

To help address storm-induced flooding in areas with inadequate stormwater drainage, the City of Oakland is developing a new Storm Drainage Master Plan that will include a detailed and comprehensive examination of, including condition and sizing, its storm drainage system, and will model flooding conditions and create a list of high priority capital projects for future work. This project is also identifying and developing conceptual plans for large green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) projects designed to capture stormwater from a large watershed area (from 1 to over 100 acres). If feasible to build, the large GSI projects would help alleviate flooding in specific areas with inadequate storm drainage. The project is also evaluating opportunities to daylight creeks where multiple benefits could be achieved such as urban greening, flood protection, and habitat enhancement. The Storm Drainage Master Plan will be completed in 2024.

In 2019, the City of Oakland developed a Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan to comply with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP), work within the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program, and to protect and restore watersheds within the City. “Green Stormwater Infrastructure” refers to a variety of practices and engineered facilities designed to detain and clean, capture and reuse, or infiltrate stormwater runoff to reduce the volume of runoff and improve water quality. In accordance with the City’s Resilient Oakland Playbook, Oakland will use green stormwater

[^p28-25]: The portion of the airport designated by FEMA as Zone X indicates an area that is determined to be outside the 500-year flood and is protected by levee from 100-year flood.

[^p28-26]: 2021 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan [LHMP].” City of Oakland, https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/2021-local-hazard-mitigation-plan. Accessed 9 Sept. 2022.

<!-- page 29 -->
# Figure SAF-5: Vulnerable Communities and Flood Hazards

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 30 -->
infrastructure to manage stormwater and help reduce the risk of nuisance flooding, where feasible, from smaller storms.

See the Environmental Justice Element for more information on how the City plans to use green stormwater infrastructure and urban greening to address water quality issues and inequities in environmental justice communities.

### Tsunami and Seiche

A tsunami is a series of high-energy waves that radiate outward like pond ripples from an area where a generating event occurs, arriving at shorelines over an extended period. Tsunamis can be induced by earthquakes, landslides, and submarine volcanic explosions. According to the 2016 Alameda County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, tsunamis have not been a major problem in Alameda County or most of the Bay Area and have resulted in insignificant damage. Further, the hazard in the bay is much smaller than along the Pacific Coast, as the bay is an enclosed body of water. From 1812 to 2000, NOAA recorded 22 tsunamis in the Bay Area.

Flooding from tsunamis would affect low-lying areas along San Francisco Bay and the Oakland Estuary, especially filled areas that are only a few feet above sea level. Areas that could be flooded with several feet of water include the Bay Bridge landing, the outer and middle harbor of the Port of Oakland's seaport, the San Leandro Bay shoreline (including Martin Luther King, Jr. Regional Shoreline) and the Oakland International Airport's shoreline. Areas along the inner harbor, Brooklyn Basin and the tidal channel would be sheltered by the island of Alameda. The likelihood of large-scale devastation in Oakland resulting from tsunamis appears to be small, especially as there would usually be several hours to evacuate residents and undertake other emergency preparations for most tsunamis approaching the coast.[^p30-27] Despite this small risk, there are portions Oakland, particularly along the shoreline, that are within a Tsunami Hazard Area, areas mapped by the California Department of Conservation that could be exposed to tsunami hazards during a tsunami event.[^p30-28]

A seiche is a resonant, side-to-side movement of water in a closed or mostly closed body of water such as the San Francisco Bay. The USGS defines a seiche as the sloshing of a closed body of water which can be caused from earthquake shaking. Unlike tsunamis, which are created by the sudden uplift of the sea floor, seismic seiches are standing waves that occur when an earthquake passes through the area. In Oakland, the only threat of large-scale damage from seiches appears to come from downstream flooding that would be caused by large volumes of water overtopping a dam or reservoir. Thus, the likelihood of large-scale devastation in Oakland resulting from seiches is minimal.[^p30-29]

### Dam Failure and Inundation

The California Department of Water Resources' Division of Safety of Dams reviews and approves inundation maps for extremely high, high, and significant hazard dams. There are four dams in Oakland that are considered extremely high hazard dams: Lake Temescal, Central, Dunsmuir Reservoir, and Chabot. Piedmont and Seneca dams are also in the vicinity, but they are considered a low hazard and do not have associated inundation maps. Figure SAF-6 depicts the inundation areas for Lake Temescal, Central, Dunsmuir Reservoir, and Chabot dams.

According to the 2021 – 2026 LHMP, many dam failures in the United States have been secondary results of other disasters. The most common causes are earthquakes, landslides, extreme storms, equipment malfunction, structural damage, foundation failures, and sabotage. Poor construction, lack of maintenance and repair, and deficient operational procedures are preventable or correctable by a program of regular inspections. Terrorism and vandalism are serious concerns that all operators of public facilities must plan for; these threats are under continuous review by public safety agencies. Flooding from dam failure, while unlikely, could have catastrophic impacts on portions of North and East Oakland. However, the risk posed by dam failures is mitigated by the regulatory safeguards in place.

<<FIGURE>>

[^p30-27]: City of Oakland, 2004. City of Oakland General Plan, Safety Element. Available online: https://www.oaklandca.gov/resources/safety-element
[^p30-28]: Latest Tsunami Hazard Area mapping available at the California Department of Conservation website, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/
[^p30-29]: City of Oakland, 2004. City of Oakland General Plan, Safety Element. Available online: https://www.oaklandca.gov/resources/safety-element

<!-- page 31 -->
# Figure SAF-6: Dam Breach Inundation Area

<<FIGURE>>

SOURCE: ESA, 2022; City of Oakland, 2021; ALAMEDA COUNTY GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022

<!-- page 32 -->
### SEA LEVEL RISE

Oakland is bordered to the west by more than 20 miles of San Francisco Bay coastline. While the bay is an important biological, cultural, recreational, and economic resource, it also poses an environmental risk to residents and properties located near the waterfront. Sea level rise, the rise in global sea level accompanying other effects of global climate change, has already increased San Francisco Bay water levels by nearly eight inches in the last century.[^p32-30] As sea level rise increases further, it will increase the flooding hazard from the bay, especially during storm events.

Additionally, relatively new research by the SF Estuary Institute, (SFEI) UC Berkeley, and Pathways Climate Institute discussed in the Climate Vulnerability Assessment suggests that rising water tables caused by sea-level rise could result in previously unexamined hazards for residents and infrastructure in those areas. According to a report prepared by the Pathways Climate Institute and SFEI, "low-lying inland areas could flood from below by emergent groundwater long before coastal floodwaters overtop the shoreline."[^p32-31] Compounding the hazards associated with sea level rise related flooding alone, emergent groundwater can cause legacy soil contamination to migrate to the surface, mobilizing toxic liquids and waste from contaminated pits or piles. As discussed in the Environmental Justice Element, groundwater contamination hazards are more likely to affect low-lying census tracts closer to the waterfront than census tracts located in the Oakland Hills.

Following from the sea-level rise (SLR) projections used in the City’s 2021-2026 LHMP, the 100-year coastal flood with 0.5 foot of SLR and 5.5 feet of SLR, respectively, provide a near-term and long-term indication of future flood hazards. For 0.5 foot of SLR (Figure SAF-7), the City's exposure to 100-year coastal flooding remains similar to present day, with Oakland International Airport being most at risk. A few other small sections of the City shoreline are also exposed to 100-year flood hazards. Potential for new or prolonged flooding as the sea level rises will increasingly reach beyond the city's shoreline; areas once considered to be outside of the floodplain will begin to experience periodic coastal and/or urban flooding, especially places like the Port of Oakland and the Oakland International Airport, which are chronically subsiding (i.e., sinking because they are built on bay fill) and are at higher risk of liquefaction during seismic events.[^p32-32]

### SOCIAL VULNERABILITY

Lower-income areas and communities of color, particularly in Oakland’s flatlands, are most affected by sea level rise hazards. Neighborhoods at risk of flood hazards primarily include Central/East Oakland, Coliseum/Airport, and census tracts in Eastlake/Fruitvale, and West Oakland. The dam breach inundation area affects the majority of Central/East Oakland as well as parts of Eastlake/Fruitvale and North Oakland. Sea level rise and tsunamis will primarily impact populations located along the coastline in West Oakland and Central/East Oakland, as well as the Port of Oakland and the Oakland International Airport.

Unhoused individuals are especially vulnerable to climate change impacts. Unhoused individuals experience elevated levels of exposure to environmental stressors such as high heat, poor air quality, and flooding. In the event of a climate emergency, unhoused populations may lack a secure place to shelter and they are often more difficult to reach via emergency alert systems.[^p32-33] Additionally, unhoused individuals may be overlooked during disaster planning initiatives, and often lack legal standing that may be required to access support services and resources during and after climate disasters. Vulnerable populations such as individuals with disabilities, children, and elderly populations also face unique challenges related to the impacts of climate change. For an in depth discussion of the relationship between social vulnerability and climate change in Oakland, please refer to the Climate Hazards and Vulnerability Assessment.

Goals and policies developed by the City will work to mitigate these flood and sea level rise hazards while prioritizing adaptation for socially vulnerable groups through the development of local policies and resilience programs in association with state guidance. Such policies will foster community and regional engagement for sea level rise planning. Coupled with policies on future sea level rise monitoring, findings from these engagement efforts will help the City establish planning thresholds for new development, sea level rise adaptation strategies, and other shoreline protection measures. Climate adaptation strategies called out in the 2030 ECAP include the development of at least three Resilience Hubs by 2030, two of which (those serving West Oakland and East Oakland) will be located in areas at risk of flood hazards.

<<FIGURE>>

[^p32-30]: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2018. Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (CO-OPS), NOAA Sea-Level Trends 1987-2018, 2018. tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9414290.
[^p32-31]: May, C. L.; Mohan, A.; Plane, E.; Ramirez-Lopez, D.; Mak, M.; Luchinsky, L.; Hale, T.; Hill, K. 2022. Shallow Groundwater Response to Sea-Level Rise: Alameda, Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties. Pathways Climate Institute and San Francisco Estuary Institute.
[^p32-32]: City of Oakland, 2021-2026 Hazard Mitigation Plan, July 2021, https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/2021-07-01_OaklandHMP_AdoptedFinal-1.pdf.
[^p32-33]: Thomas, K., Hardy RD., Lazrus H., Mendez M., Orlove B., Rivera-Collazo, I., Roberts JT., Rockman M., Warner BP., Winthrop R., Explaining differential vulnerability to climate change: A social science review (December 2018). Oct 29 2019: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.565.

<!-- page 33 -->
# Figure SAF-7: Vulnerable Communities and 100-year Coastal Flood + 0.5 ft SLR

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 34 -->
### INSTITUTIONAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

FEMA is responsible for managing the 100-year floodplain, areas with a 1 percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. A Flood Insurance Rate Map, an official FEMA-prepared map, is used to delineate both the Special Flood Hazard Areas (the 100-year floodplain) and the flood-risk premium zones in a community (as shown in Figure SAF-5). Under Executive Order 11988, FEMA requires local governments that are covered by the National Flood Insurance Program to pass and enforce a floodplain management ordinance that specifies minimum requirements for any construction within the 100-year floodplain. FEMA administers the National Flood Insurance Program, which includes floodplain management and flood hazard mapping and provides subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations to limit development in floodplains.

The California Building Code also requires certain general structural design standards for essential/critical or larger structures within a Tsunami Design Zone, which consists of the land area between a coastline and the inundation limit line, within which structures are analyzed and designed for inundation by the maximum considered tsunami.[^p34-34]

Current state guidance calls for preparing for at least 3.5 feet of sea-level rise by 2050.[^p34-35] These adaptation strategies will be incorporated into the goals and policies of the Safety Element. Should in the long-term future a regional sea level rise adaptation solution, such as water lock near the Golden Gate Bridge, be pursued, this would affect Oakland as well.

The City’s ongoing efforts have begun to address how shorelines could be protected from sea level rise in the future. The 2017 Preliminary Sea Level Rise Road Map was developed as part of Resilient Oakland, a coordinated effort to align resources, plans, and actions in support of a thriving and resilient community. Oakland was competitively selected in December 2013 to join 100 Resilient Cities, an initiative pioneered by the Rockefeller Foundation that aims to help cities around the world build resilience to the social, economic, and physical challenges of the 21st century. Several groundbreaking sea level rise studies have already been conducted for parts of the Oakland shoreline. Based on these studies, critical assets such as highways, transit stations, schools, wastewater infrastructure, and landfills are anticipated to be impacted by sea level rise. The Road Map builds on the findings from those studies, as well as other work carried out by the City and community organizations, to document existing conditions, set forth potential actions to address these conditions, and continue focus on this critical area of the City’s resilience. To address changes since the 2017 Sea Level Rise Road Map and incorporate the most recent climate data, the City Administrator’s Office plans to update the Sea Level Rise Road Map in 2023.

Priority actions for the City of Oakland identified by the Sea Level Rise Road Map include identifying and pursuing engagement and collaboration opportunities, participating in regional coordination, better understanding neighborhood vulnerabilities, enabling climate-smart development, and identifying funding to develop a citywide comprehensive adaptation strategy. The Safety Element incorporates these priority actions in its goals and policies to ensure implementation is occurring in an efficient and appropriate manner. The Vulnerability Assessment also provides a starting place for community engagement around potential climate change impacts and resilience strategies. Under uncertain future climate change scenarios, protecting shorelines and adapting to sea level rise will need to continue to be an iterative process that requires community coordination and guidance. See the previous Climate Change section in this Element for more information regarding future climate change projections.

#### Responsible Agencies

There are several agencies responsible for flood management and emergency response in the Bay Area. This Element emphasizes interagency coordination and planning efforts between the City of Oakland and the following agencies to best mitigate and adapt to flooding and sea level rise. In addition, the City aims to closely consult and coordinate with community-based organizations in order to best engage residents about flooding hazards and sea level rise. Such community groups may include Save The Bay, SF Estuary Institute, and the East Oakland Collective.

**The California Department of Water Resources** engages in flood management and flood emergency response programs. It developed the Flood Emergency Response Information Exchange to improve flood emergency preparedness, response, and recovery. The Department also implements the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and administers the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program.

**San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board** enforces waterway protection and pollution control regulations in Oakland. In 2009 it adopted the NPDES Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP), which requires the City to use GSI (aka Low Impact Development) to treat and control stormwater on-site for development projects that add/replace impervious surfaces. The permit also requires the City to retrofit additional acres of existing impervious surface so that it is treated and managed by GSI between 2022 and 6/30/2027).

**Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)** has regulatory jurisdiction over existing and proposed land use changes and structures within 100 feet (inland) from the Bayshore’s mean high water elevation. Sea Level Rise vulnerability

<<FIGURE>>

[^p34-34]: Please see https://asce7tsunami.online/ for more information.
[^p34-35]: California Ocean Protection Council, 2020. Strategic Plan to Protect California’s Coast and Ocean 2020-2025

<!-- page 35 -->
and risk assessments are required when planning shoreline areas or designing larger shoreline projects in BCDC’s jurisdiction. Risk assessments must be based on the best available estimates of future SLR. New projects on Bay fill, likely to be affected by future SLR and storm surge activity during the life of the project, must meet additional requirements, and when feasible, integrate hard shoreline protection structures with natural features that enhance the Bay ecosystem (e.g., including marsh and/or upland vegetation).

**Alameda County Flood Control & Water Conservation District** plans, constructs, and maintains Western Alameda County’s flood control systems such as creeks, channels, levees pump stations, reservoirs, and dams. It also performs hydrologic, geotechnical, and environmental studies, and enforces waterway pollution control regulations in waterways under Alameda County jurisdiction.

**The Port of Oakland**, under the direction of the Port Commission, has broad regulatory authority over trust lands granted pursuant to the Burton Act. The Port has its own land use and development code, and oversees the permitting of new construction and rehabilitation projects in its jurisdiction, though the Port must obtain building permits through the City’s Planning and Building Department. Jurisdictional authority of the Port includes 20 miles of waterfront, and includes ground, commercial, retail, office, industrial, and maritime industrial leases, and landmarks such as Jack London Square.

**The Emergency Management Services Division (EMSD)** exists within the Oakland Fire Department and is the primary agency responsible for responding to, recovering from, and mitigating against any hazard that affects the City of Oakland.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 36 -->
### GOALS AND POLICIES

#### GOAL SAF-3: PROTECT PEOPLE AND PROPERTY FROM FLOODING.

**SAF-3.1 Minimize Storm Induced Flooding.** Continue or strengthen city programs that seek to minimize the storm-induced flooding hazard.

**SAF-3.2 Storm-Induced Flooding Structural Risk.** Enforce and update local ordinances, and comply with regional orders, that would reduce the risk of storm-induced flooding.

**SAF-3.3 Reestablish Full Compliance and Good Standing Under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).** The City will coordinate with FEMA Region IX and DWR to address all identified issues from the open September 2017 Community Assistance Visit (CAV) to reestablish the City’s full compliance and good standing under the NFIP.

**SAF-3.4 Flood Control Coordination.** Continue to coordinate with FEMA, the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ACFCWCD), and the State Division of Safety of Dams on flood-control-related projects.

**SAF-3.5 Green Stormwater Infrastructure.** Fund and implement a green infrastructure program for the installation and maintenance of projects and existing civic resources such as the parks system and public spaces, to improve stormwater management, support biodiversity, reduce air pollution exposure, improve water quality, and increase access to natural spaces, including trees. Prioritize green stormwater infrastructure investment in frontline communities, particularly in residential neighborhoods dominated by concrete and asphalt with limited green space and elevated air pollution; in Priority Conservation Areas; and in areas where green infrastructure, including trees and other types of vegetated buffers, can effectively address stormwater management issues and reduce air pollution exposure among sensitive populations. This policy is cross-listed as Action EJ-A.13 in the Environmental Justice Element.

#### GOAL SAF-4: PROACTIVELY PLAN FOR IMPACTS OF SEA LEVEL RISE ON PEOPLE, PROPERTY, AND ESSENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

**SAF-4.1 Sea Level Rise and Community Engagement.** As recommended in the Sea Level Rise Roadmap and ECAP, develop a plan for continuing collaboration with community groups and local organizations working to address sea level rise adaptation and building resilience of vulnerable communities. Work with communities to use community-generated data critical to future SLR mapping and community education efforts.

**SAF-4.2 Current Development and Sea Level Rise.** Use in planning and development reviews, as applicable, the best available science about projected sea level rise and other climate change-related environmental changes when addressing flooding, potential for groundwater contamination, and other hazards associated with sea level rise.

**SAF-4.3 New Development and Sea Level Rise.** Develop sea-level rise standards/horizon that will guide adaption and resiliency planning as part of the updated Sea Level Rise Roadmap, including consideration of recommendations and regulations for a suite of shoreline protection measures that prioritize ecologically-friendly adaptation options, protective setbacks, and other adaptation strategies, to be incorporated into future development projects.

**SAF-4.4 Contaminated Sites.** New and/or substantial construction on contaminated sites shall account for impacts of rising shallow groundwater on contaminant mobilization in project design and all steps of the site remediation process. This shall be documented in a vulnerability assessment and adaptation plan, which will also include a groundwater data monitoring plan. Groundwater data from the site should be used for the most accurate water level on-site; however, if groundwater wells are not present at the project site, databases such as GeoTracker can be used to access water table elevations nearby, using U.S. Geological Survey, California Department of Water Resources, or other sources.

**SAF-4.5 Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment.** Require applicants proposing to develop in a future inundation area (as depicted in a SLR scenario to be determined in subsequent administrative regulations or documents) to conduct a Sea Level Rise vulnerability assessment for the project, prepare a Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan for implementation as part of the project designs, and submit the assessment, adaptation plan, and conceptual design to the City for review and approval.

**SAF-4.6 Evaluating Bay/Watershed Flooding Potential.** In partnership with other agencies, including the Port of Oakland, the Bay Area Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and the ACFCWCD, re-evaluate both Bay flooding and watershed flooding potential at key milestones in the Safety Element’s implementation horizon, to manage for changing sea level rise projections.

**SAF-4.7 Sea Level Rise Regional Strategy.** As part of the Sea Level Rise Roadmap update, continue to work with regional entities to address rising water levels in the San Francisco Bay and coordinate with the City’s other climate adaptation efforts.

<!-- page 37 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 38 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# 3. Human-Made Hazards

As an urban city, the day-to-day operations of industry and human activity often also mean use, handling, or production of hazardous materials or environments. Human-made hazards discussed in this section include sites affected by hazardous materials and cleanup sites, issues related to climate change, airport hazards, and public safety. Air quality and pollution, including toxic air contaminants, are discussed in the Environmental Justice Element, as the geographic distribution of polluting facilities and inequitable impacts to communities of color and lower-income communities is a distinct environmental justice issue. This section concludes with a discussion of goals and policies intended to equitably address human-made hazards and minimize risks to human health and environmental quality.

## 3.1 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

### HAZARDOUS SITES/CLEANUP SITES

Exposure to hazardous materials can result in lung damage, cancer, cardiovascular disease, low birth weight infants, and other negative health outcomes that reduce life expectancy. Hazardous sites and materials threaten environmental quality and can result in soil and groundwater contamination. This is especially true of sites that used hazardous materials before adoption of current environmental regulations. Exposure to hazardous materials can also result in lung damage, cancer, cardiovascular disease, low birth weight infants, and other negative health outcomes that reduce life expectancy.[^p38-1] A review of the online regulatory databases (EnviroStor and GeoTracker) reveals that there are approximately 1,700 documented hazardous materials sites currently identified within the city.[^p38-2],[^p38-3] As shown in **Figure SAF-8** a vast majority of these sites are concentrated in areas with industrial land uses in East and West Oakland. About 57 percent of sites have been "closed" to indicate that they have completed remediation and/or have demonstrated that existing site uses do not present a significant risk to human health or the environment. Almost a quarter of all sites are actively being remediated and five percent of these sites are operational facilities that are currently certified to handle hazardous materials.[^p38-4]

Risks associated with hazardous sites, closed or not, may be worsened by seismic activity, flooding, groundwater intrusion, or new development. Excavation and grading work that occur during construction have the possibility to expose the public to

[^p38-1]: 2045 general Plan Update: Oakland Map Atlas, 2022 https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Map-Atlas_Revised.pdf

[^p38-2]: More information about CalEnvirostor and hazardous site determinations in Oakland is available in the Oakland Map Atlas.

[^p38-3]: 2045 general Plan Update: Oakland Map Atlas, 2022 https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Map-Atlas_Revised.pdf

[^p38-4]: Environmental Justice and Racial Equity Baseline. City of Oakland, CA, Mar. 2022, https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Equity-Baseline_revised4.15.22.pdf.

<!-- page 39 -->
# Figure SAF-8: Hazardous Materials and Sites, 2021

<<FIGURE>>

SOURCE: ESA, 2022; City of Oakland, 2021; ALAMEDA COUNTY GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022

<!-- page 40 -->
contaminated materials either through physical contact or hazardous vapors. Mismanagement or mishandling of contaminated groundwater and soil may spread contamination through surface water runoff or airborne dust, increasing the public’s exposure to these hazards.

### Cortese List – DTSC Hazardous Waste and Substance Sites

The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) is required by State law to maintain an annually updated list of Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites, known as the Cortese List. The Cortese List provides information on the location of hazardous materials release sites, including hazardous waste and substance sites identified by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor Database, Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites (LUSTs) from the California Water Resource Control Board (WRCB), and the list of solid waste disposal sites identified by the WRCB. Within the city, hazardous waste and substances from the DTSC EnviroStor Database are listed in **Table SAF-2**.

**Figure SAF-10** shows CalEnviroScreen data for DTSC Cleanup Sites within the city. The data depicted in **Figure SAF-10** represents DTSC EnviroStor records of active hazardous materials sites (represented on the figure as yellow points). Each census tract is assigned a “Cleanup Site Percentile” (a score) based on the amount and types of Cleanup Sites present; each score fits into a range of percentiles. Each range of percentiles is assigned a corresponding color (shade of red), the darkest red representing the highest score (and highest hazard). A high score indicates that a census tract is more vulnerable than one with a lower score. In the case of Cleanup Sites, a high score indicates a census tract is more vulnerable to exposure to hazardous materials that can affect human health and the environment. Areas that are most affected by hazardous sites are shown in **Table SAF-3**. More information on Hazardous materials can also be found in the Environmental Justice Element.

### Cortese List - Underground Storage Tanks and Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

Underground storage tanks (USTs) and leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) are an additional component of the CalEPA

#### Table SAF-2: Hazardous Waste and Substances Cortese List Sites

| FACILITY NAME | PROGRAM TYPE | STATUS | ADDRESS |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Hard Chrome Engineering** | State Response | Active | 750 107th Avenue |
| **E-D Coat Inc** | State Response | Active | 715 4th Street |
| **Port Of Oakland, Berth 25 And 26** | State Response | Certified / Operation & Maintenance – Land Use Restrictions | 2500 7th Street |
| **Dutch Boy #3** | State Response | Certified / Operation & Maintenance – Land Use Restrictions | 4825 San Leandro Street |
| **Harris Dry Cleaners** | State Response | Active | 2801 Martin Luther King Jr. Way |
| **Southern Pacific – West Oakland Rail Yard** | State Response | Certified / Operation & Maintenance – Land Use Restrictions | Cypress Corridor |
| **General Electric – Oakland** | State Response | Active – Land Use Restrictions | 5441 International Boulevard |
| **Amco Chemical** | Federal Superfund – Listed | Active | 1414 Third Street |
| **Port Of Oakland – Embarcadero Cove** | State Response | Certified / Operation & Maintenance – Land Use Restrictions | Dennison And Embarcadero Streets |
| **Howard Marine Terminal Site** | State Response | Active – Land Use Restrictions | Embarcadero West and Market Streets |
| **Action Plating (2w)** | State Response | Certified / Operation & Maintenance – Land Use Restrictions | 10132 Edes Avenue |
| **Cal Tech Metal Finishers** | State Response | Active | 825, 829, 841 31st Street |
| **Commercial Buildings** | State Response | Active | 1250-1276, 1284 W. Grand & 2232 Poplar |

*Source: CalEPA Cortese Sites List, Department of Toxic Substances EnviroStor Database*

Cortese List. An underground storage tank (UST) is defined by law as “any one or combination of tanks, including pipes connected thereto, that is used for the storage of hazardous substances and that is substantially or totally beneath the surface of the ground.” Leaking underground fuel storage tanks (LUSTs) are a significant source of petroleum impacts to groundwater. USTs may impact health and safety via exposure from impacts to soil and/or groundwater, contaminated drinking water aquifers, contaminated public or private drinking water wells, or vapors inhalation.[^p40-5] The California Water Resources Control Board administratively categorizes LUSTS by their cleanup status; LUST sites are considered “open” if the site is currently in use and no remediation has taken place while “closed” sites are no longer in use and have gone through environmental remediation. Shown in **Figure SAF-9**, there are currently 114 open LUSTs in Oakland. Many of these sites are concentrated in downtown and West Oakland.

[^p40-5]: Underground Storage Tank Program - Cleanup | California State Water Resources Control Board. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ust/cleanup/. Accessed 9 Sept. 2022.

<!-- page 41 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# Figure SAF-9: Open Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

SOURCE: ESA, 2022; BCDC, 2020; City of Oakland, 2021; ALAMEDA COUNTY GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022

<!-- page 42 -->
# Figure SAF-10: CalEnviroScreen based on DTSC Cleanup Sites

<<FIGURE>>

| | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| ○ | Cleanup Site | | BART Stations |
| **Cleanup Sites Percentile** | | | Ferry Terminals |
| | 0 - 10 | ======= | BART Lines |
| | 10 - 20 | ------- | BART Airport Connector |
| | 20 - 30 | ======= | Bus Rapid Transit Line |
| | 30 - 40 | ....... | Ferry Routes |
| | 40 - 50 | +++++++ | Railroads |
| | 50 - 60 | ——————— | Major Highways |
| | 60 - 70 | ——————— | Major Roads |
| | 70 - 80 | | Parks |
| | 80 - 90 | | City of Oakland |
| | 90 - 100 | | Alameda County |

<!-- page 43 -->
### Table SAF-3 Top 10th Percentile Tracts by Indicator — Hazardous Materials

| CLEANUP SITES | | HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES | | TOXIC RELEASES | | SOLID WASTE SITES[^p43-1] | | PROXIMITY TO INDUSTRIAL ZONES[^p43-2] | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Tract Name** | **Score** | **Tract Name** | **Score** | **Tract Name** | **Score** | **Tract Name** | **Score** | **Tract Name** | **Score** |
| **Port Upper** | **1.00** | Acorn Industrial* | **1.00** | **Fitchburg** | **1.00** | **Melrose** | **1.00** | **Melrose** | **0.92** |
| **Prescott/Mandela Peralta** | **0.99** | **Jack London Square** | **0.99** | **Lockwood/Coliseum/ Rudsdale** | **0.99** | **Port Upper** | **0.99** | **Port Upper** | **0.92** |
| **Oakland Estuary** | **0.98** | Paradise Park/Golden Gate | 0.98 | Paradise Park/ Golden Gate | 0.98 | **Lockwood/Coliseum/ Rudsdale** | **0.98** | **Brookfield Village/ Hegenberger** | **0.92** |
| Acorn Industrial* | 0.97 | Piedmont Ave South | 0.97 | Bushrod/North Oakland | 0.97 | **Brookfield Village/ Hegenberger** | **0.97** | **Fitchburg** | **0.92** |
| **DeFremery/Oak Center** | **0.96** | **Brookfield Village/ Hegenberger** | **0.96** | Panoramic Hill | 0.96 | **Prescott** | **0.96** | **Sobrante Park** | **0.92** |
| **McClymonds** | **0.96** | **New Highland** | **0.96** | **Brookfield Village/ Hegenberger** | **0.96** | Chabot Park | 0.95 | **McClymonds** | **0.92** |
| **Clawson/Dogtown** | **0.95** | **Oakland/Harrison West** | **0.95** | Santa Fe/North Oakland | 0.95 | Sequoyah | 0.95 | **DeFremery/Oak Center** | **0.92** |
| **Prescott** | **0.94** | **Acorn** | **0.94** | Upper Telegraph/Fairview Park | 0.94 | **Fitchburg** | **0.94** | **Jack London Square** | **0.92** |
| **Melrose** | **0.93** | **Port Upper** | **0.93** | **New Highland** | **0.93** | **Prescott/Mandela Peralta** | **0.93** | Port Lower | 0.92 |
| **Jingletown/ Kennedy** | **0.92** | **Pill Hill** | **0.92** | Bushrod/Children's Hospital | 0.92 | **Jingletown/Kennedy** | **0.92** | Acorn Industrial* | 0.92 |
| **Hoover/Foster** | **0.91** | **Jack London Gateway** | **0.91** | **Sobrante Park** | **0.91** | **New Highland** | **0.91** | **Prescott/Mandela Peralta** | **0.91** |
| **Jack London Square** | **0.90** | Downtown/Old Oakland | 0.90 | Rockridge | 0.90 | | | **Jingletown/ Kennedy** | **0.90** |

Note: Bolded census tracts in green are EJ Communities. * Indicates census tract with low population.
1. Only includes 11 tracts in top decile due to ties. Next highest score is 0.88.
2. Maximum score is 0.92 due to ties.

### SOCIAL VULNERABILITY

Many of the most vulnerable census tracts in Oakland are also in areas with the highest density of hazardous materials sites. CalEnviroscreen 4.0 identifies higher concentrations of BIPOC communities in Oakland living in tracts that have higher pollution burden scores, meaning that they are more at risk than white populations. Alameda County of Public Health (ACPHD) data show that average life expectancy can vary by as much as 15 years across one mile, from Oakland’s flatlands to Oakland’s Hills, depending on race.[^p43-6]

The density of chemical and fuel release sites in high-poverty neighborhoods is four times higher than in affluent neighborhoods. Oakland’s Department of Race and Equity (DRE) found in 2018 that Black children in Oakland were 10 times more likely than white children to be admitted to the emergency department for asthma-related conditions.[^p43-7] Contaminants and corresponding public health hazards are particularly prevalent from West to East Oakland along the I-880 freeway. Environmental Justice Communities are also often found closest to Oakland’s shoreline, placing them at increased risk of groundwater intrusion and flooding.[^p43-8]

It is no accident that Environmental Justice Communities in East and West Oakland are most exposed to hazardous sites and bear the greatest pollution burdens; decades of racialized land-use decisions systematically concentrated industrial uses and pollution hazards in BIPOC communities. Because of these discriminatory practices, Oaklanders with the least ability to pay for and recover from environmental health threats are also the most impacted.

Goals and policies developed by the City will work to mitigate the effects of pollution and hazardous materials while prioritizing adaptation for socially vulnerable groups through compliance with state laws, pollution regulations, and local policies and programs. Several of these goals and policies are included in the EJ Element, including close collaboration with the Port of Oakland.

***

[^p43-6]: Oakland 2030 Equitable Climate Action Plan (ECAP). City of Oakland. (n.d.). https://www.oaklandca.gov/projects/2030ecap
[^p43-7]: Ibid.
[^p43-8]: See the Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for the City of Oakland for further discussion of the cascading impacts of flooding and groundwater intrusion.

<!-- page 44 -->
### INSTITUTIONAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Interagency coordination and collaboration will be essential to address the complex and frequently cascading challenges presented by human-made hazards. Though state and federal agencies are often responsible for establishing pollution standards, regional and local agencies may implement more context-specific regulations that reflect the needs and priorities of local communities. This Element emphasizes interagency coordination and planning efforts between the City of Oakland and the following agencies to best minimize risk from human-made hazards.

#### Responsible Agencies

The following is a review of relevant agencies with the capacity to address human-made hazards presented in this section. It lists federal, state, regional and local agencies and also describes programs, plans, and tools provided at the state and federal level that the City can leverage to address human-made hazards. In addition, the City aims to closely consult and coordinate with community-based organizations in order to best engage residents about hazardous materials and other environmental justice issues. Such community groups may include the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project, Communities for a Better Environment, Trees for Oakland, and the East Oakland Collective.

**The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)** tracks six common air pollutants, called "criteria air pollutants" that are found all over the U.S. and have been shown to harm human and environmental health as well as cause property damage. These include ground-level ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide (CO), lead, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). EPA calls these pollutants "criteria" air pollutants because it sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for them based on the latest scientific information regarding their effects on human health or welfare.

**California Air Resources Board (CARB)** is a state agency that establishes emission standards for mobile air pollution sources in conjunction with federal agencies such as the EPA. CARB has developed statewide programs to encourage cleaner cars and cleaner fuels such as California’s cleaner-burning gasoline regulation, which has reduced smog-forming emissions from motor vehicles by 15 percent and cancer risk from exposure to motor vehicle toxics by about 40 percent since the regulation was implemented in 1996.[^p44-9]

CARB also maintains California’s air toxics program, which is based on state legislation that requires CARB to identify and control toxic air pollutants. On February 10, 2022, the California Air Resources Board designated East Oakland for the development of an AB 617 Community Emission Reduction Plan which began in September 2022 and continues for a year-long planning process followed by implementation. As the Environmental Justice Element describes, AB 617 builds off the groundwork laid by East Oakland community leaders, who have urged attention towards air pollution issues in their communities for decades.

**California’s Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)** is a department within the California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that coordinates the state’s recycling and waste management programs. CalRecycle maintains the Solid Waste Information System (SWIS), a database containing information on solid waste facilities, operations, and disposal sites throughout the State of California.

**The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)** tracks facilities that are authorized to handle hazardous waste through the EnviroStor database and includes sites such as Federal Superfund (National Priority List) and State Superfund sites, military facilities, voluntary cleanup sites, and school sites being evaluated for possible contamination. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) maintains the GeoTracker database to regulate leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs), Department of Defense facilities, spills-leaks-investigations-cleanups, and landfills.

**The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)** is the lead State agency for the assessment of health risks posed by environmental contaminants. It assesses the health effects of toxic air contaminants and conducts research tracking the impacts of climate change on California’s weather, water, ecosystems, agriculture, and public health. The office developed and updates CalEnviroScreen, a screening methodology that can be used to help identify California communities that are disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution.

**The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)** has regulatory responsibility for protecting the water quality of nearly 1.6 million acres of lakes, 1.3 million acres of bays and estuaries, 211,000 miles of rivers and streams, and about 1,100 miles of California coastline. “Geotracker” is the State Water Board’s Internet-accessible database system used to track and archive compliance data related to authorized and unauthorized discharges. The GeoTracker online database contains regulatory data about leaking underground storage tanks (LUST), Department of Defense, Cleanup Program Sites, spills-leaks-investigations, cleanups, and landfill sites. The GeoTracker database also contains information about public drinking water wells.

**The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD or “Air District”)** regulates toxic air contaminants (TACs) by using a risk-based approach as opposed to establishing a concentrations standard. This risk-based approach utilizes a health risk assessment to determine the specific sources and TACs to control as well as the level of control necessary to reduce risk to acceptable levels. A health risk assessment analyzes exposure to toxic substances and human health risks based on the dose and potency of the toxic substances. In 2000, CARB approved a comprehensive Diesel Risk Reduction Plan to reduce diesel emissions from both new and existing diesel-fueled vehicles and engines (CARB, 2000). Subsequent regulations apply to new trucks and diesel fuel.

The UST Cleanup Fund (Fund) reimburses responsible parties for expenses associated with cleanup of leaking underground storage tanks (USTs), with over 72% of open UST cleanup cases currently receiving financial assistance through the Fund. The Fund also provides money to the Regional Water Boards and local regulatory agencies to abate emergency situations or to cleanup abandoned sites that pose a threat to human health, safety, and the environment, as a result of a UST petroleum release.

[^p44-9]: California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2019. Cleaner Burning Gasoline: An Update, 2019. Available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/cleaner-burning-gasoline-update/printable/print.

<!-- page 45 -->
**San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board** enforces waterway protection and pollution control regulations in Oakland. The primary goal of enforcement is to stop on-going problems and cleanup as necessary to preserve the beneficial uses of the Bay Area’s water resources. The SF Regional Water Quality Board operates many programs related to water quality, including a UST cleanup program, to monitor, investigate, and remove pollutant sources.

**The Alameda County Waste Management Authority** provides refuse and recycling collection services for the County of Alameda and is responsible for preparation of the Alameda County Integrated Waste Management Plan and Alameda County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The Authority manages a long-range program for development of solid waste facilities and offers many programs in the areas of source reduction and recycling, market development, technical assistance, and public education. Funding is provided by per-ton disposal and waste import mitigation fees.

**The Alameda County Department of Environmental Health (ACDEH)** Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) coordinates and enforces numerous local, state, and federal hazardous materials management and environmental protection programs in the county. The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) has designated ACDEH as the CUPA for the City of Oakland. All CUPA programs within the City of Oakland that were previously under the jurisdiction of the City of Oakland have been transferred to ACDEH.

CUPA is the lead program for permitting installations of new UST systems, UST repairs, and UST piping removals within its jurisdiction. ACDEH CUPA inspects over 250 UST facilities annually.[^p45-10] ACDEH CUPA ensures that businesses and facilities with ongoing UST operations are properly permitted and meet the monitoring requirements applicable to their type of equipment. ACDEH CUPA staff inspect businesses for compliance with the Hazardous Waste Control Act and applicable regulations and issue permits and inspect businesses that treat hazardous waste.

In addition, businesses storing hazardous materials (including hazardous waste) or extremely hazardous substances at reportable quantities, are required to prepare and electronically submit a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP). The purpose of the HMBP is to prevent or minimize harm to public health and the environment from a release or threatened release of a hazardous material. Finally, when a facility is closing or ceasing to generate waste, they must notify ACDEH 30 days before the final closure. Large quantity Generators and Tiered Permitting Facilities are required to submit a closure plan for approval.

<<FIGURE>>

[^p45-10]: “Underground Storage Tank Program: Environmental Health Department: Alameda County.” Alameda County Department of Environmental Health, https://deh.acgov.org/hazmat/ust.page.

<!-- page 46 -->
### GOALS AND POLICIES

#### GOAL SAF-5: MINIMIZE HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS RELATED TO THE USE, STORAGE, MANUFACTURE, AND TRANSPORT OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.

**SAF-5.1 Risks from Hazardous Materials Facilities.** Review proposed facilities that would produce or store hazardous materials, gas, natural gas, or other fuels to identify, and require feasible mitigation for, any significant risks. Regulations and enforcement of activities should be disclosed in a set of findings. The review shall consider, at a minimum, the following:

*   Presence of seismic or geologic hazards;
*   Presence of other hazardous materials;
*   Proximity to residential development and areas in which substantial concentrations of people exist, particularly environmental justice communities already overburdened by pollution, including toxic releases from facilities, cleanup sites, groundwater threats/threats from sea level rise, and other sources; and
*   Nature and level of risk and hazard associated with the proposed project.

**SAF-5.2 Hazardous Materials.** Through partnerships, programs, and regulations, minimize the potential risks to human and environmental health and safety associated with the past and present use, handling, storage and disposal of hazardous materials. Toxic materials removed as part of cleanup efforts should be disposed of in the least harmful manner so that the impact is not shifted from one vulnerable community to another.

**SAF-5.3 Site Contamination.** Through enforcement of standard conditions of approval, ensure buildings and sites are or have been investigated for the presence of hazardous materials and/or waste contamination prior to development or if there is reason to believe an existing building or site may contain hazardous materials that pose a threat to possible users. Continue to require remediation and construction techniques for adequate protection of construction workers, future occupants, adjacent residents, and the environment are adequately protected from hazards associated with contamination.

**SAF-5.4 Hazardous Materials Accidents.** Seek to prevent industrial and transportation accidents involving hazardous materials, and enhance the City’s capacity to respond to such incidents. Continue to enforce regulations limiting truck travel through certain areas of the city to designated routes, and consider updating OMC 10.52.010 to establish time-based restrictions on truck travel on certain routes to reduce the risk and potential impact of accidents during peak traffic hours.

**SAF-5.5 Study Options to Provide Financing for the Remediation of Environmentally Contaminated Sites, with Priority for Affordable Projects.** As grant and loan funding sources are secured, support property owners through technical assistance and financing of characterization and/or remediation of environmentally contaminated sites. Prioritize bioremediation techniques to remove contamination from water sources.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 47 -->
## 3.2 OTHER PUBLIC SAFETY AND HAZARD ISSUES

### AIRPORT HAZARDS

The Oakland International Airport (OAK) is owned by the Port of Oakland and is located along the San Francisco Bay, just 10 miles south of downtown Oakland. The Airport is 2,600 acres, including 327 acres of wetlands under jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. OAK is a primary commercial service airport with four runways: one primary air carrier runway at South Field and three runways at North Field. The Airport is served by several passenger and cargo airlines. In 2021, Oakland International Airport accommodated 8,142,320 passengers. This is an increase of 76.2 percent from 2020 and a decrease of 39.1 percent from 2019 due to the Covid-19 pandemic.[^p47-11]

In 1971, the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) was created to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by promoting the orderly expansion of airports and adoption of land use measures by local public agencies to minimize exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards near airports. The 2010 Oakland International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) is the primary document used by the Alameda County ALUC to help promote land use compatibility between Oakland International Airport (OAK) and its surrounding environments.

The Airport Influence Area (AIA) is defined by the ALUC based on political boundaries, noise contours, and flight tracks. The northernmost boundary of OAK’s AIA begins at High Street in the City of Alameda and extends eastward to San Leandro Street. The AIA follows San Leandro Street south until it reaches Lewelling Boulevard in the City of Hayward, where it turns west. The AIA continues to follow Lewelling Boulevard westward until it reaches the Union Pacific Railroad tracks and turns south. The AIA boundary follows the tracks until it turns east on West Winton Avenue, and continues south on Hesperian Boulevard. The AIA turns west on HWY 92 to the San Francisco Bay. The AIA includes portions of the cities of Oakland, San Leandro, Alameda, Hayward, and small unincorporated areas of Alameda County in the vicinity of the Airport, including San Lorenzo, located southeast of the Airport.

The ALUCP establishes a total of seven different safety compatibility zones around the airport, which delineate acceptable land uses in order to minimize the risks to people and property on the ground as well as those people in an aircraft in the event of an accident or emergency landing occurring outside the airport boundary. These zones are:

4. **Zone 1:** Runway Protection Zones
5. **Zone 2:** Inner Approach / Departure Zones
6. **Zone 3:** Inner Turning Zones
7. **Zone 4:** Outer Approach / Departure Zones
8. **Zone 5:** Sideline Zones
9. **Zone 6:** Traffic Pattern Zone
10. **Zone 7:** Other Airport Environs

Each of these zones imposes different development conditions and prohibits certain land uses based on the individual zone’s proximity to the airport. The closer the zone is to the airport, the stricter the development conditions are due to the greater the risk of accident and increased noise impacts. For the purposes of the ALUCP, the primary measure of risk exposure for people on the ground in the event of an aircraft accident is based in the number of people concentrated in areas most susceptible to the risk of aircraft accidents.

For new residential land uses, no new dwellings shall be constructed in Safety Zone 1. In Safety Zones 2, 3, 4, and 5, new dwellings are not recommended within the zone boundaries. However, due to the existing urban nature of the surrounding environments and the existing residential land use, infill may be allowed up to an average of the surrounding residential use (except for high density residential), provided that other safety criteria are satisfied. In Safety Zones 6 and 7, residential development is not restricted. These zones are shown in Figure SAF-11.

Land uses which pose the greatest concern are those in which the occupants have reduced effective mobility or are unable to respond in emergency situations. Children’s schools, day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes, and other uses in which the majority of occupants are children, elderly, and/or people with disabilities shall be prohibited within Zones 1 through 5.[^p47-12] See the Oakland International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for a full list of compatible land uses within each safety zone.

### PUBLIC SAFETY

Public safety, perception of safety, and response to crime are complex issues. For example, public safety and crime reduction can be a health issue, with ample evidence showing that access to healthcare, public services, and community violence intervention programs can help reduce crime. Youth who may be at risk of violence are often those who are most disconnected from school, employment, or social connection. Many institutions that are supposed to keep people safe are underlain by systemic racism or may be inherently violent to begin with and have resulted in inequitable or harmful outcomes, especially for Black Oaklanders and people of color.

Violent crime, gun violence, and homicides are particularly impacting the lives of people of color in Oakland, whether they are directly harmed or their ability to feel safe going to school or a park or walking down the street. Of the 12 indicators with the greatest level of racial disparity in the City of Oakland Equity Indicators Report, six were in the category of public safety. With national, state, and local attention on police reform, Oakland communities and City departments are exploring other ways to reimagine and reconstruct the public safety system in Oakland by developing recommendations to increase community safety through alternative responses to calls for assistance, and investments in programs that address the root causes of violence and crime.[^p47-13]

[^p47-11]: Oakland International Airport, Press Releases, 2022, https://www.oaklandairport.com/oak-airport-2021-statistics-release/#:~:text=Annually%2C%20passenger%20traffic%20at%20OAK,8.7%20percent%20from%20last%20year.&text=In%202021%2C%20Oakland%20International%20Airport,of%2039.1%20percent%20from%202019.
[^p47-12]: Alameda County, Oakland International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, December 2010, https://www.acgov.org/cda/planning/generalplans/documents/OAK_ALUCP_122010_FULL.pdf.
[^p47-13]: See Oakland’s Reimagining Public Safety page: https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/reimagining-public-safety and the Mobile Assistance Community Responders of Oakland (MACRO) Program at https://www.oaklandca.gov/projects/macro-mobile-assistance-community-responders-of-oakland

<!-- page 48 -->
<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 49 -->
The prevalence of violent and property crime, including assault (misdemeanors and felonies), homicide, rape, other sex offenses, burglary, or theft, also negatively impacts the perception of public safety and impedes community connection. Homicides have a devastating effect that extends beyond just the victim to the victim’s family, friends, and broader community. As stark racial disparities in violent crimes demonstrate, these effects are not felt evenly across Oakland communities. Residents in majority Hispanic/Latinx tracts experienced the greatest rate of violent crimes per 1,000 people over the five-year period from 2016 to 2020, nearly double the overall average. Moreover, all other racial groups were under the average, with majority white tracts having the lowest rate.

While other documents address issues like safety programming and crime response, the General Plan focuses on the ways that city land use, environments, and community services can create neighborhood environments that feel safe. The General Plan also addresses other contributing factors to safety, including housing and job stability, economic opportunity, access to healthy food, a neighborhood’s social connections, and the physical structure/location of health-promoting resources in a community.

### Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) is a crime prevention philosophy based on the theory that the proper design and effective use of the built environment, can lead to a reduction in the fear of crime as well as an improvement in the quality of life. CPTED works by decreasing a criminal’s ability to commit a crime and increasing the chances that the crime will be seen and reported. CPTED goes beyond traditional security

<<FIGURE>>

methods by naturally integrating security measures into the community. The goal of all CPTED applications is to increase the quality of life, decrease the fear of crime, and decrease crime.[^p49-14] Because different people or groups may have varying perceptions of what makes a community feel safe, CPTED guidelines should be tailored to response to a community’s context, diversity and unique safety issues. CPTED principles should also be coupled with acknowledgement of racial profiling that results in disproportionate harm and violence to Black, Indigenous, Latinx, and Asian communities.

The City of Oakland has released guidelines for CPTED in the form of checklists for residential, commercial, and civic projects.[^p49-15] Specific criteria include reference to lighting, line of sight, and other visibility issues; clearly defined spaces; and access. For example, building exteriors, parking lots, and parking garages should be well lit. Property lines and private areas should be defined with plantings, pavement treatments, short walls, or fences. Further, landscaping should be maintained and trimmed to avoid creating blind spots or hiding spots. The City of Oakland will continue to apply these CPTED principles in the design of new development in order to enhance public safety and reduce calls for service and will explore opportunities to more intentionally integrate context-specific recommendations in partnership with community.

<<FIGURE>>

### Interagency Coordination, Social Determinants of Health and Crime

Health inequities are differences in health outcomes “that are a result of systemic, avoidable, and unjust social and economic policies and practices that create barriers to opportunities.”[^p49-16] Environments where real or perceived violence and crime also affect health. For example, those who grow up and live in environments with limited social, educational, and economic opportunities and where violence, racism, and community and domestic instability are daily stressors are at increased risk of multiple forms of violence.[^p49-17] Therefore, in order to prevent violent crime, the City of Oakland needs to address the root causes of social and economic inequalities, as well as the underlying social determinants of health.

In response to systemic inequities that contribute to the underlying causes of public safety issues and crime, the City of Oakland developed the Reimagining Public Safety Taskforce in September 2020. The purpose of the Reimagining Public Safety Taskforce (active from September 2020 through March 2021) is to rapidly reimagine and reconstruct the public safety system in Oakland by developing recommendations for Council consideration to increase community safety through alternative responses to calls for assistance, and investments in programs that address the root causes of violence and crime (such as housing, jobs, etc.) The final report emphasized investment in alternatives in policing through other governmental and community-based organizations. Further, recommendations address the immediate and urgent need to signal to the community and members of the Oakland Police Department (OPD) that, even amidst the consideration of significant organizational change, there will be a doubling down on the commitment to officer accountability, ground zero for public trust and confidence in the Department.

[^p49-14]: City of Oakland. 2021. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). Available at https://www.oaklandca.gov/resources/crime-prevention-through-environmental-design-cpted.
[^p49-15]: Ibid.
[^p49-16]: Rudolph, L., Caplan, J., Ben-Moshe, K., & Dillon, L. (2013). Health in All Policies: A Guide for State and Local Governments. Washington, DC and Oakland, CA: American Public Health Association and Public Health Institute.
[^p49-17]: California Department of Public Health, 2020. Violence and Social Determinants of Health. Available at https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DCDIC/SACB/Pages/Violence%20Prevention%20Initiative/ViolenceandSocialDeterminantsofHealth.aspx.

<!-- page 50 -->
### Department of Violence Prevention (Formerly the ‘Oakland Unite’ division of the City of Oakland’s Human Services Department)

In 2017, the City Council approved the creation of the Department of Violence Prevention (DVP) with the desire to better align, amplify and elevate Oakland’s violence prevention efforts (Ordinance No. 13451 C.M.S.). The DVP focuses on the three forms of violence named in the Safety and Services Act: gun violence, family/domestic violence, and commercial sexual exploitation. The DVP’s public health approach focuses on the root causes of violence -at the individual, peer, family, and community levels- and uses data to understand how frequently violence occurs, when and where it occurs most, and who is most vulnerable of being impacted (both those harmed and those causing harm) and then engages community leaders in the collaborative development of community solutions to prevent violence, promote healing, and restore communities.

The DVP applies this public health approach to:

1. Focus on **specific places** in Oakland **with underlying conditions** that generate the highest rates of violence;
2. Support **specific people** determined to be: at the center of violence, in-risk or at-risk for violence, and exposed/adjacent to violence;
3. Direct interventions to the **individual, peer, family, and community levels**; and
4. Provide services at the **times and days of the week when violence occurs most.**

The DVP focuses efforts with those at the center of violence- who have been harmed and have caused harm- to reduce gun/group/gang and gender-based violence and to support healing in communities exposed to violence to end the cycle of trauma. DVP coordinates with other city departments and the community to apply a citywide, comprehensive strategy to the City’s shared safety approach to violence intervention and prevention. Guided by an explicit equity framework, the DVP prioritizes individuals and communities most impacted by violence and trauma. DVP programs primarily serve the African American and Latinx community between 14-35 years old. The DVP’s strategic interventions are framed within a trauma-informed approach that focuses on healing and deep, long-term relationships with trusted service providers and advocates.

Additionally, the DVP and its funded agencies respond to all shootings and gun-related homicides across the city (Triangle Incident Response) to provide support to victims, families, and community members. Beginning in Spring 2021, the Triangle Incident Response is a 24/7 real-time, coordinated crime scene response that aims to reduce retaliatory group/gang related violence, reduce the levels of trauma experienced by individuals, families, and impacted community members, and improve police-community relationships. The triangle partners, staffed by professionals with different orientations and responsibilities, include: a) violence interrupters, b) DVP Crime-scene Response Advocates with expertise in crisis intervention principles, and c) law enforcement with knowledge of the geographic areas in which the triangle is implemented. The expertise of all three partners is equally valued. Crime-scene Response Advocates are DVP staff members who provide immediate support for family and peers, as well as communication and coordination of DVP Violent Incident Crisis Response efforts.

The DVP also hosts community Town Nights events at parks across the city in areas that experience a high level of violence. Town Nights is a community-driven, multi-generational violence prevention and intervention strategy that involves outreach to community members, employment opportunities, free recreational activities and food, and violence interruption dialogues facilitated by violence interrupters and community engagement teams, those with lived experience and familiarity in neighborhoods of focus that share outreach messages and service connections. Though not causal, analysis indicates that there may be a relationship between days when Town Nights events occur and a reduced number of shootings with injury.

At the June 29, 2022 City Council meeting, Council approved approximately 60 grant agreements with over 30 non-profit and public agencies for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 to serve an estimated 11,775 people at the center of, at risk, and exposed to violence in Oakland. **Table SAF-4** describes the strategies, sub-strategies, and activities funded for Fiscal Year 2022-2023, including the number of awards and the amount of funding allocated.

### Responsible Agencies

There are several other agencies responsible for public health and public safety in the Bay Area. This Element emphasizes interagency coordination and planning efforts between the City of Oakland and the following agencies to best prioritize public health and safety in the face of environmental inequities, airport

#### Table SAF-4: DVP Grant Awards Fiscal Year 2022-2023

| STRATEGY AREA/ SUB-STRATEGY | # AWARDS | FUNDING |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Gun/Group/Gang Violence Response** | | |
| Violent Incident Crisis Response | 8 | $3.1 million |
| Youth Diversion And Youth And Adult Life Coaching | 11 | $3.2 million |
| Youth And Adult Employment & Education Support Services | 7 | $1.8 million |
| School-Site Violence Intervention And Prevention Teams | 7 | $2.4 million |
| Subtotal | 33 | $10.5 million |
| **Gender-Based Violence Response** | | |
| Crisis Response | 3 | $900,000 |
| Housing | 4 | $1.1 million |
| Wraparound Services | 8 | $2.4 million |
| Subtotal | 15 | $4.4 million |
| **Community Healing And Restoration** | | |
| Neighborhood And Community Teams With Town Nights | 6 | $2.4 million |
| Healing/Restorative Activities | 4 | $1 million |
| Therapeutic Supports | 1 | $200,000 |
| Community Capacity-Building And Mini-Grants | 2 | $850,000 |
| Subtotal | 13 | $4.5 million |
| **Grand Total** | **61** | **$19.4 million** |

<!-- page 51 -->
hazards, crime, and other community stressors. In addition, the City aims to closely consult and coordinate with community-based organizations in order to best engage residents about public health and safety measures. Such community groups may include the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project, Oakland Climate Action Coalition, HOPE Collaborative, East Oakland Collective, Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, and Youth UpRising.

**The California Department of Public Health** contains the Emergency Preparedness Office, which maintains and manages the Medical and Health Coordination Center, distributes funds to local health departments for disaster planning, and operates the California Health Alert Network. The Department also manages the Climate Change & Health Equity Program, whose goal is to systematically integrate work from climate change planning and public health planning with policies and principles that promote equity. The Department works with local, State, and national partners to assure that climate change mitigation and adaptation activities have beneficial effects on health while not exacerbating preexisting health disparities.

**The Alameda County Sheriff's Office** is a full-service law enforcement agency accredited through the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) and the American Correctional Association (ACA). The mission of the Sheriff's Office is to enforce the law fairly without bias, commit to professionalism, service the community with integrity and trust, and oblige to duty with honor and pride.

**The BART Police Department** is actively focused on implementing progressive and equitable policing practices. Their mission is to ensure a safe environment within our transit system, reduce crime through a highly visible police presence, and proactive enforcement of the law, and to promote public confidence by working in partnership with stakeholders and the communities they serve.

**The Port of Oakland** owns the Oakland International Airport. Under the direction of the Port Commission, the Port has broad regulatory authority over trust lands granted pursuant to the Burton Act. The Port has its own land use and development code and oversees the permitting of new construction and rehabilitation projects in its jurisdiction. Jurisdictional authority of the Port includes 20 miles of waterfront, and includes ground, commercial, retail, office, industrial, and maritime industrial leases, and landmarks such as Jack London Square.

<<FIGURE>>

### GOALS AND POLICIES

#### GOAL SAF-6: PROTECT OAKLANDERS FROM AIRPORT LAND USE HAZARDS.

**SAF-6.1 ALUCP Updates.** Periodically review and coordinate with the Oakland Airport Land Use Commission on updates and modifications to ALUCPs conducted for airport facilities within Alameda County.

**SAF-6.2 Land Use Compatibility.** Require land uses surrounding the Oakland International Airport to be compatible with the operation of the airport and restrict development of potentially hazardous obstructions or other hazards to flight. Discourage uses that may impact airport operations or do not meet Federal or State aviation standards.

#### GOAL SAF-7: FOSTER FEELINGS OF SAFETY IN ALL OAKLAND NEIGHBORHOODS.

**SAF-7.1 Reimagining Public Safety.** Support recommendations made in Oakland's Reimagining Public Safety program, including through land use policies that promote more housing, living wage jobs, revitalization of commercial corridors, improved access to healthy food facilities, restorative justice centers, civic engagement, and arts and culture. As funding becomes available, support community-based violence prevention programs.

**SAF-7.2 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design.** Continue to apply Crime Prevention through Environmental Design principles in the design of new development and encourage the provision of adequate public lighting; windows overlooking streets or parking lots; and paths to increase pedestrian activity within private development projects and public facilities in order to enhance public safety and reduce calls for service.

**SAF-7.3 Prioritize Mental Health in Emergency Planning.** Consider mental health interventions and programs in any updates to the city's emergency services planning process. Partner with the County and other relevant agencies and community groups to ensure people have access to mental health services and resources in the aftermath of disasters, prioritizing services for frontline communities.

<!-- page 52 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# 4. Emergency Preparedness and Response

This section includes information about the City’s Emergency Preparedness and Response programs, agencies, and operations. It also provides information on Oakland’s emergency alert systems, an analysis of evacuation routes, and describes current capital improvement needs relevant to emergency preparedness and response. Goals and policies developed by the City will work to address the needs of all Oakland residents during times of emergency, prioritizing support for socially vulnerable groups through emergency response programs and preparedness strategies that account for Oakland’s diverse population.

<<FIGURE>>

## 4.1 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE

### EXISTING PROGRAMS, AGENCIES, AND OPERATIONS

The Oakland Fire Department is the primary emergency response service provider for the city and provides comprehensive strategies and training in fire prevention, fire suppression, emergency medical services, emergency preparedness, 911 services, and community-based fire services. Through Communities of Oakland Respond to Emergencies (known as the CORE program), the Oakland Fire Department provides free emergency preparedness and response training for individuals, neighborhood groups, and community-based organizations in Oakland. Similarly, the Fire Department also offers Community Emergency Response Training (CERT) programs, which train volunteers in basic disaster response skills until professional first responders arrive. OFD operates 25 fire stations throughout the City (shown in Figure SAF-12, along with other emergency service infrastructure and existing municipal resilience hubs) and employs approximately 500 sworn full-time fire fighters. The OFD aims to provide emergency service within seven minutes of notification 90 percent of the time—this emergency response time can be met throughout the entire city and there are no areas in Oakland where there is a lack of adequate fire service.

The Emergency Management Services Division (EMSD) exists within the Oakland Fire Department and is the primary agency responsible for responding to, recovering from, and mitigating any hazard that affects the City of Oakland. In 2021, EMSD updated the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), a document providing a roadmap for emergency response personnel in performance of their duties before, during, and through initial emergency recovery. The EOP also provides a comprehensive overview of the roles and responsibilities of City departments in the event of an emergency, as well as plans for coordination between city, county, state, and federal agencies.

EMSD also administers the development of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, which is updated every five years and was most recently published in 2021. The 2021-2026 LMHP is intended to serve as a guide to increase Oakland community’s resilience in the face of natural disasters, such as earthquakes, floods, extreme heat, and fires, and proactively prepare the community for emergency events. The LHMP also provides an assessment of risk from a variety of hazards and proposes strategies for mitigation and adaptation.

<!-- page 53 -->
# Figure SAF-12: Emergency Service Network

<<FIGURE>>

| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| ![Fire Station Icon] | Fire Stations |
| ![Police Station Icon] | Police Stations |
| ![Hospital Icon] | Oakland Area Hospitals |
| ![Resilience Hub Icon] | Resilience Hubs |
| ![BART Station Icon] | BART Stations |
| ![Ferry Terminal Icon] | Ferry Terminals |
| ![BART Line Icon] | BART Lines |
| ![BART Airport Connector Icon] | BART Airport Connector |
| ![Bus Rapid Transit Line Icon] | Bus Rapid Transit Line |
| ![Ferry Route Icon] | Ferry Routes |
| ![Railroad Icon] | Railroads |
| ![Major Highway Icon] | Major Highways |
| ![Major Road Icon] | Major Roads |
| ![City of Oakland Boundary Icon] | City of Oakland |
| ![Alameda County Boundary Icon] | Alameda County |
| ![Parks Icon] | Parks |

SOURCE: City of Oakland, 2021; ALAMEDA COUNTY GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021

<!-- page 54 -->
### Terrorism

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force or violence committed by a group or individual against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." It could also include use of weapons of mass destruction, cyber terrorism (communications and information systems), or agroterrorism (disruption to food supplies). In April 2021, the City of Oakland prepared a Terrorism Annex to the Emergency Operations Plan to facilitate an effective local response to a terrorist attack on the city. As part of the next update of the Integrated Preparedness Plan and LHMP, the City will incorporate policy recommendations from the Terrorism Annex to protect against potential terrorist attacks.

### Public Health Crises

Climate scientists and public health experts warn that climate change will increase the risk of infectious disease transmission and potential pandemics.[^p54-1] The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the indispensable role of cooperation and coordination across a wide range of sectors, including city departments, public organizations, businesses, nonprofits, and the community, in effectively responding to and planning for future public health emergencies.

In the event of a public health emergency, the coordination and acquisition of medical/health mutual aid resources involves federal, state, and local agencies as well as the private sector (hospitals, medical supply vendors, ambulance companies, etc.). The Oakland Fire Department and Oakland Department of Human Services will work with the Alameda County Department of Public Health to coordinate medical and health responses.

At the State level, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) responds to and aids in the recovery from emergencies within the State of California under the authority of the California Services Act, California Disaster Assistance Act, and the Stafford Act. Cal OES is responsible for managing disaster recovery and aiding local governments, special districts, certain nonprofit organizations, individuals, businesses, and agricultural communities impacted by disasters.

The California Department of Public Health contains the Emergency Preparedness Office, which maintains and manages the Medical and Health Coordination Center, distributes funds to local health departments for disaster planning, and operates the California Health Alert Network. The Department also manages the Climate Change & Health Equity Program, whose goal is to systematically integrate work from climate change planning and public health planning with policies and principles that promote equity. To plan for an effective, coordinated response, the City is also preparing a Pandemic Annex of the Emergency Operations Plan, which provides an overview of considerations for City response to a global pandemic affecting the Bay Area. One of the key assumptions of any pandemic planning model is that vulnerable populations, including people of color, will tend to experience worse health outcomes because of historic and current impacts of systemic racism. As part of the next update of the Integrated Preparedness Plan and LHMP, the City will incorporate the best available data on racial disparities and policy recommendations from the Pandemic Annex to keep Oaklanders safe and healthy.

### COMMUNITY RESILIENCE AND RESPONSE

The 2045 General Plan Update is an opportunity to enhance community resilience for all Oakland communities with policies in support of ECAP innovations. For example, the ECAP includes Action A-1, Fund the Creation and Operation of Resilience Hubs, as key to successful climate adaptation. Other tools to strengthen community resilience and safety include emergency power sources to rely on in the event of power outages, accessible emergency alerts and information systems, and improved evacuation strategies and routes that reach all Oakland communities. The General Plan Update will incorporate these ECAP recommendations into its goals and policies to ensure their implementation.

#### Resilience Hubs

Resilience hubs are defined as "community-serving facilities that support residents year-round and support resource distribution and onsite services before, during, or after a natural hazard event." General Plan policies will further support resilience hubs to protect frontline communities during climate crises, earthquakes

### Building Resilience: Oakland’s 2030 Equitable Climate Action Plan (ECAP)

The ECAP illustrates Oakland’s approach to equity in building climate resiliency. It identifies ambitious actions to combat climate change while also ensuring that frontline communities – those that have been harmed by environmental injustice and who are likely to be hurt first and worst by the impacts of climate change – will benefit first and foremost from climate action. The accompanying Racial Equity Impact Assessment and Implementation Guide supports equitable implementation of the ECAP by providing in-depth guidance for City staff in each 2030 ECAP implementing department in order to maximize equitable outcomes, including robust frontline community participation.

<<FIGURE>>

[^p54-1]: National Science Foundation. (2022). Study finds that climate change could spark the next pandemichtips://beta.nsf.gov/news/study-finds-climate-change-could-spark-next

<!-- page 55 -->
or other shocks, and chronic stressors. Resilience hubs address the unique cultural and situational needs of the communities in which they are located. They also provide critical disaster preparedness, response, and recovery functionalities. Minimum characteristics include all-electric buildings with microgrids (onsite renewable and backup electricity with islanding capability), refrigeration, gathering and shelter capacity, emergency communications, and cooling and air filtration.

Resilience-building policies will also support companion approaches, such as expanding green infrastructure to mitigate flood hazards and urban heat islands, protecting key facilities to ensure community energy resilience, and adaptively reusing structures to create indoor spaces resilient to climate change impacts.

Communities and community-based organizations have been a mainstay of local resilience and adaptive capacity in Oakland. The General Plan offers an opportunity for the City to identify and partner with these communities, organizations, and networks by funding and otherwise supporting community-based resilience hubs to enhance the adaptive capacity and resilience of vulnerable groups and reach a broader and more diverse network of Oakland residents.

### Essential Public Facilities

Public facilities operated by the City such as libraries, senior centers, cultural centers, parks, and recreational centers may function as essential service facilities and play an important role in emergency response as resilience hubs, respite centers, and local assistance centers. These essential public facilities also play an important role as neighborhood hubs where Oakland residents can go to build and strengthen community networks.

Currently, the Alameda County Office of Emergency Services publishes information on cooling centers, clean air facilities, and warming centers open to the public in Alameda County on its website. Generally, public respite facilities are identified as need arises, such as in the event of a heat wave, and at present, these facilities are not located according to a geographic assessment of vulnerability. Community inclement weather respite facilities in public buildings are located throughout the city, such as libraries and recreation centers. Table SAF-5 lists public air-conditioned facilities, which residents are encouraged to visit during extreme heat events. A data driven approach is recommended during the placement of future respite facilities to equitably distribute supportive resources to Oakland communities.

### Emergency Power

Due to increased wildfire risk, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Oakland’s public utility electricity transmission and distribution as well as gas provider, has instituted Public Safety Power Shut-offs (PSPS) and Enhanced Power Safety Shutoffs (EPSS) when forecasts indicate the potential for extreme weather and wildfire risk. Although PG&E endeavors to provide multiple days’ notice and warning to those who may be affected, these events are still disruptive to many residents, especially in rural areas of the unincorporated county. Power outages may be especially hazardous to residents who use prescribed medications and treatments that rely on electricity and refrigeration and may exacerbate food insecurity due to lack of refrigeration.[^p55-2]

In 2016, Alameda County and 11 of its cities, including Oakland, entered into a Joint Powers Agreement to launch East Bay Community Energy (EBCE), an independent public agency. EBCE secures electrical energy supply for residents and businesses and leads energy-related climate programs, including transportation electrification. As the nonprofit public power provider, EBCE delivers electricity with high renewable energy content, at a reduced cost to customers, through PG&E’s transmission and distribution system.[^p55-3]

To mitigate the effects of power outages, East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) is exploring the feasibility of solar and/or battery backup systems at critical municipal facilities in Alameda County. The goal of this project is to enable EBCE and its local government partners to better support the community during a grid outage. The project is intended to equip critical facilities, resilience hubs, respite centers and other facilities that support vulnerable populations such as low-income, medically dependent, and elderly populations with onsite renewable energy and storage capacity. Additional energy saving measures, such as the

### Table SAF-5: Public Air-Conditioned Facilities

| FACILITY NAME | ADDRESS |
| :--- | :--- |
| 81ˢᵗ Ave Branch Library | 1021 81ˢᵗ Avenue<br>Oakland, California 94621 |
| Asian Branch Library | 659 14ᵗʰ Street<br>Oakland, California 94612 |
| Brookfield Branch Library | 9255 Edes Avenue<br>Oakland, California 94603 |
| César E. Chávez Branch Library | 3301 East 12ᵗʰ Street, Suite 271<br>Oakland, California 94601 |
| Dimond Branch Library | 3565 Fruitvale Avenue<br>Oakland, California 94602 |
| Eastmont Branch Library | 7200 Bancroft Ave., Suite 211<br>Oakland, California 94605 |
| Piedmont Ave. Library | 80 Echo Avenue<br>Oakland, California 94611 |
| Rockridge Branch Library | 5366 College Avenue<br>Oakland, California 94618 |

<<FIGURE>>

[^p55-2]: LA County Climate Vulnerability Assessment. Oct. 2021. https://ceo.lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/LA-County-Climate-Vulnerability-Assessment-1.pdf
[^p55-3]: Zero Emission Vehicle Action Plan.” City of Oakland, https://www.oaklandca.gov/projects/zero-emission-vehicle-action-plan. Accessed 9 Sept. 2022.

<!-- page 56 -->
installation of heat-pumps rather than stand-alone AC units, help conserve energy and reduce strain on the electricity grid in addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

## ALERTS AND EVACUATION

Evacuation procedures are most effective when residents are aware of the emergencies that are most likely to affect them and have ample time and support to prepare their own emergency plans. The City of Oakland, in conjunction with Alameda County, has a variety of systems and procedures in place to protect residents and visitors to plan for, avoid, and respond to a hazard event. Emergency alert and assistance systems include city-wide emergency sirens, fire and law enforcement vehicle loudspeakers, emergency response phone numbers such as 9-1-1, agency websites, and digital tools.

In 2021, the City of Oakland launched an evacuation software system called Zonehaven, to provide residents with real-time maps and information online to guide evacuation in the event of an emergency. AC alert, the Mass Notification System used by City and County agencies throughout Alameda County, rapidly disseminates emergency alerts to people who live, work in, or visit Alameda County. AC Alert can send alerts by voice, text, and email, as well as messaging Nixle subscribers, posting to social media pages, and sending FEMA Wireless Alerts (WEA).

### Equitable Response, Notifications, and Preparation

Local hazard mitigation and emergency response policies should be tailored to the needs of the communities they serve. Some populations are at greater risk from hazard events because of decreased resources or because they have a disability.[^p56-4] Linguistically isolated households (residents who do not speak or read English as a first language or at all) may not hear or understand important information when there is an emergency like a fire, earthquake, or extreme heat waves. Persons with disabilities may require communications in alternative, accessible formats to ensure effective communication- particularly individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, blind or low-vision, or those with intellectual disabilities. Additionally, lack of familiarity with local government and planning processes may present barriers to community engagement and accessing key government-provided resources.[^p56-5]

Some of the most direct means of access to emergency operations and response information are available to residents through online resources. However, 94,000 residents in Oakland currently do not have access to the internet and may be at a disadvantage during emergency events. According to the 2018 Equity Indicators Report, Black individuals were the most likely to not have high speed internet access at home (40.8 percent), followed by Hispanic/Latinx individuals (33.5 percent). White individuals were least likely to lack high speed internet access at home (14.6 percent).[^p56-6]

Participation in emergency response training programs such as CORE and CERT is another important way for communities to build resilience and adaptive capacity. However, low-income residents with limited free time, linguistically isolated residents, and residents who may lack familiarity with government processes may be unable to participate in emergency preparedness training programs. A more detailed discussion of barriers to participation is provided in the Environmental Justice Element.

<<FIGURE>>

### Emergency Evacuation

Evacuation occurs only when a serious threat to public safety exists. The Oakland Fire and Police departments are responsible for the authorization, direction, routing, and relocation of people from their homes, schools, and places of business. During emergency evacuations, these departments will coordinate transportation support for evacuated populations as well as populations with disabilities and others with access or functional needs. The City is committed to providing specialized supports to these populations during emergency evacuations and mass shelter scenarios and should ensure compliance with all City plans that take these needs into account.[^p56-7],[^p56-8] Public transit agencies will also play a role in emergency evacuation strategies. According to the Emergency Operations Plan, the Oakland Department of Transportation (OakDOT) will be responsible for traffic restrictions, civilian transportation support, transportation safety, and coordination with the transportation industry (federal, state, and local, including private and public).

The I-580, I-880, and I-980 are the primary regional routes in Oakland. In a disaster, they would be assessed first for damage and debris, as they are the main arteries moving resources throughout the region. Secondary routes, mainly state roads and larger roadways, enable flow of resources to the City. Primary and secondary local routes, as well as the overall local street network, are identified in **Figure SAF-13a**. Recent investigations utilizing modeling software have shown that current road and intersection capacity is not adequate for the existing population in the event of a mass evacuation.[^p56-9] Additionally, city infrastructure sur-

[^p56-4]: 2021 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan [LHMP]." City of Oakland, https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/2021-local-hazard-mitigation-plan. Accessed 9 Sept. 2022.
[^p56-5]: Thomas, K., Hardy RD., Lazrus H., Mendez M., Orlove B., Rivera-Collazo, I., Roberts JT., Rockman M., Warner BP., Winthrop R., Explaining differential vulnerability to climate change: A social science review (December 2018). Oct 29 2019: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.565.
[^p56-6]: 2018 Oakland Equity Indicators Report." City of Oakland, https://www.oaklandca.gov/documents/equity-indicators-community-briefing-documents. Accessed 9 Sept. 2022.
[^p56-7]: https://oaklandca.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/w/DOWD007854.pdf
[^p56-8]: file:///Users/emilyseelenfreund/Documents/EOP-v4-Council-DRAFT_20211112.pdf, 3.11. Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act Addressing the Needs of Individuals and others with Access and Functional Needs
[^p56-9]: 2045 General Plan Update: Oakland Map Atlas, 2022 https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Map-Atlas_Revised.pdf

<!-- page 57 -->
# Figure SAF-13a: Emergency Assessment, Primary and Secondary Routes

<<FIGURE>>

| Priority Routes | |
| :--- | :--- |
| — Regional Route | ● BART Stations |
| — Local Route - Primary | ⛴ Ferry Terminals |
| — Local Route - Secondary | ━━ BART Lines |
| — Oakland Street Network | ━━━━ BART Airport Connector |
| Parks | ━━ Bus Rapid Transit Line |
| | ---- Ferry Routes |
| | ── Railroads |
| | — Major Highways |
| | — Major Roads |
| | ╌╌ City of Oakland |
| | ━━ Port of Oakland |
| | ── Alameda County |

SOURCE: City of Oakland, 2021; ALAMEDA County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021

<!-- page 58 -->
veys have shown that many streets in the VHFHSZ in the Oakland Hills are not built to current Municipal Code Standards and have narrow streets with dead ends that only allow for one route of escape. Because many streets in the hills are in steep areas without off-street parking, many residents park on the street making the streets even narrower and less accessible for emergency responders. Considering these factors, conditions related to emergency response and evacuation are currently inadequate to serve the population living in the VHFHSZ. Illustrated in Figure SAF-13b, almost all the residential parcels with limited access for evacuation are in the Oakland Hills. Similarly, most of the residential parcels located in high hazard areas are also located in the hills, where fire risk is greatest in Oakland. There are also a small number of residential parcels located along the estuary shoreline in the Coliseum area and near flood zones adjacent to creek channels where residents may have limited evacuation access.

Additional traffic volumes could be expected with the construction of more housing anywhere in fire-threatened areas of the city. To assess constraints on roadway capacity, a range of emergency scenarios, including three wildfire scenarios, modeled the expected weekday afternoon peak-hour roadway congestion. While much congestion occurs as part of regular commuting, the model determined that fire-related evacuation traffic would have an impact on area roadways. Table SAF-6 summarizes the main roadways that would be congested or over-capacity under each scenario. Impacted roadways are shown in red in Figures SAF-11a through 11d. While specific actions to keep evacuation routes clear during an emergency are largely dependent upon the circumstances of the event, there are a number of general actions that the City may take. The City must also balance identification of emergency access route improvements to ensure they do not negatively affect traffic, bicyclist, and pedestrian safety under regular operating conditions. Infrastructure-related strategies can aid in efficient and expeditious flow of evacuation traffic, which is the most critical and challenging element in a successful evacuation and are described in the callout box. As part of the next update to the LHMP, various City departments and officials will collaborate to ensure State requirements (e.g., Assembly Bill 747) are met.

### ROADWAY MANAGEMENT

| Strategy | Description and Outcome |
| :--- | :--- |
| Limited/unlimited contra flow on highways | Reverse one or more lanes of highway to accommodate an increased flow of traffic in one direction, or redirect all lanes of a designated evacuation route to accommodate rapid evacuation. |
| Limited/unlimited contra flow on unlimited access arterials | Temporarily close inbound travel lanes on selected unlimited access arterials (such as parkways and boulevards) to allow outbound traffic to utilize these lanes during evacuation. |
| Phased releases as major parking centers | Implement a coordinated release of evacuation traffic from parking facilities that would reduce congestion on evacuation routes, especially in the downtown area. A phased release protocol would be developed for each parking facility, depending on size, location, and other relevant factors. |
| Closure of inbound lanes | Close inbound lanes on highways utilized for evacuation routes to prevent drivers on these routes from entering the City while evacuation is underway. |
| Restrict left-turn movements | Minimize left-turn movements along evacuation routes/roads leading to evacuation routes. |
| Signage | Use variable message board equipment and targeted installation of permanent dynamic message signs on evacuation routes to improve communication and reduce public confusion. |
| Stage tow trucks | Stage tow trucks at key bottleneck locations along evacuation routes to help detect and clear minor crashes and maintain traffic flow. |
| Adjust signal timing | Increase the green time and/or progression band for through movements leading out of an evacuation zone. |
| Signal operation during power outage | Install signal battery backups in case signal operations need to be maintained during a power outage. Consider using channeling devices, static signs, and coning strategies to manage intersection flow during power outage if the signals lack power. |
| Additional access routes | Identify and communicate with communities that have at least two access points. Prioritize adding additional access to communities which are currently served by only one or two access points. |
| Bus system | Develop transportation solutions such as the use of a bus system for evacuating individuals with special needs (such as those with mobility limitations). |
| Traffic control points | Establish traffic control points (i.e., locations along designated evacuation routes with emergency management personnel) to maintain a greater degree of evacuation management. These locations could enhance the efficiency of an evacuation, reduce public confusion, and allow increased operational flexibility during an evacuation. |

<!-- page 59 -->
### Table SAF-6: Summary of Roadway Congestion and Over-Capacity Conditions under Wildfire Scenarios in Evacuation Zones (2030)

| Normal Commute Peak-Hour Congestion | Northern Hills Wildfire Evacuation Scenario: Peak-Hour Congestion/Evening Congestion | Central Hills Wildfire Evacuation Scenario: Peak-hour Congestion | South Oakland Hills Wildfire Evacuation Scenario Peak-Hour Congestion |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| * Southbound I-880 (towards San Jose)<br>* Southbound I-580 (towards Dublin and San Ramon)<br>* Southbound I-80 (from Berkeley towards Oakland)<br>* Fruitvale Avenue, between International Boulevard and MacArthur Boulevard<br>* Northbound SR 24 between Telegraph Avenue to Broadway<br>* Parts of SR 13 between Lincoln Ave and SR 24<br>* Tunnel Road<br>* West Grand Avenue, between Market Street and Frontage Road<br>* High Street, between Foothill Boulevard and MacArthur Boulevard | **Peak PM Congestion**<br>* Lincoln Avenue, from Alida Street to Lincoln Way<br>* Claremont Avenue, from Tanglewood Road to Grizzly Peak Boulevard<br>* Grizzly Peak Boulevard, from Scotts Peak Trailhead 0.4 mi. S of SR-24<br>* Centennial Drive, from Lower Fire Trailhead to 1300 feet E of Stadium Rim Way<br>* Mountain Boulevard, from La Salla Road to Broadway Terrace<br>* SR-24, from Grizzly Peak Boulevard to SR-13 intersection<br>* Moraga Avenue, from Thornhill Drive to La Salla Avenue<br>* Skyline Boulevard, from Burton Avenue to Joaquin Miller Road<br>* Broadway Terrace, from Mountain Boulevard to Pinewood Road<br>* SR-13, from Thornhill Drive to SR-24/Grizzly Peak Boulevard<br>* Snake Road, from Shepherd Canyon Road to Colton Boulevard<br>* Snake Road/Shepherd Canyon Road, from Mountain Boulevard to 1,000 feet east of Snake Road<br>**Nighttime Congestion**<br>* Claremont Avenue, from Tanglewood Road to Alvarado Road<br>* Grizzly Peak Boulevard, from Fish Ranch Road to 0.4 mi. south of SR-24<br>* Centennial Drive, from Lower Fire Trailhead to 1300 feet E of Stadium Rim Way<br>* Monterey Boulevard, S of Park Boulevard<br>* Moraga Avenue, from Thornhill Drive to La Salla Avenue<br>* Skyline Boulevard, from Burton Drive to Joaquin Miller Road<br>* SR-13, parallel to Glenwood Glade<br>* Mountain Boulevard, from Pinewood Road to La Salla Avenue<br>* Snake Road, from Armour Drive to Skyline Boulevard<br>* Thornhill Drive, between Moraga Avenue and Gouldin Road | * SR-13, from Carson Street to Mountain Boulevard<br>* Joaquin Miller Road, from Mountain Boulevard to Butters Drive<br>* Campus Drive, from Keller Avenue to Redwood Road<br>* Keller Avenue, from Greenridge Drive to Campus Drive<br>* I-580, from Seminary Avenue to Edwards Avenue/Leona Drive<br>* Edwards Ave, from Hillmont Drive to Sunnymere Avenue<br>* Mountain Boulevard, from SR-13 off-ramp to Kearney Avenue | * Malcolm Avenue, from 106ᵗʰ Avenue to Leamont Court<br>* I-580, from Golf Links Road to 106ᵗʰ Avenue<br>* 98ᵗʰ Avenue, from MacArthur Boulevard to Golf Links Road |

<!-- page 60 -->
# Figure SAF-13b: Residential Areas with Less Than Two Access Points To Evacuation and Combined Hazard Zone

<<FIGURE>>

**Legend**

| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| ■ | Residential parcels with limited access for evacuation |
| ■ | Residential parcels in hazard areas |
| ■ | Other residential parcels |
| ■ | Combined Hazard Area |
| **Priority Routes** | |
| — | Regional Route |
| — | Local Route - Primary |
| — | Local Route - Secondary |
| — | Oakland Street Network |
| ■ | Parks |
| ● | BART Stations |
| ⛴ | Ferry Terminals |
| ⸬⸬⸬ | BART Lines |
| ⸬⸬⸬ | BART Airport Connector |
| — | Bus Rapid Transit Line |
| ┉ | Ferry Routes |
| ⸬⸬⸬ | Railroads |
| — | Major Highways |
| — | Major Roads |
| ⬚ | City of Oakland |
| ⬚ | Alameda County |

SOURCE: City of Oakland, 2021; ALAMEDA COUNTY GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021

<!-- page 61 -->
# Figure SAF-13c: Evacuation Scenario, Wildfire in Northern Hills (PM Peak Traffic)

<<FIGURE>>

**Volume to Capacity (V/C) Conditions**
| | |
|---|---|
| — | Over Capacity (V/C > 1.0) |
| -- | Congested (V/C 0.9 to 1.0) |
| — | Railroads |
| — | Major Roads |
| |---| City of Oakland |
| |---| Alameda County |
| | Destinations |
| | Evacuation Scenario Location |

SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, 2023; City of Oakland, 2021; ALAMEDA COUNTY GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023

<!-- page 62 -->
# Figure SAF-13d: Evacuation Scenario, Wildfire in Northern Hills (Night)

<<FIGURE>>

| Volume to Capacity (V/C) Conditions |
| :--- |
| — Over Capacity (V/C > 1.0) |
| -- Congested (V/C 0.9 to 1.0) |
| -- Railroads |
| — Major Roads |
| [ ] City of Oakland |
| [ ] Alameda County |
| [ ] Destinations |
| [ ] Evacuation Scenario Location |

SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, 2023; City of Oakland, 2021; ALAMEDA COUNTY GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023

<!-- page 63 -->
# Figure SAF-13e: Evacuation Scenario, Wildfire in Central Hills (PM Peak Traffic)

<<FIGURE>>

**Volume to Capacity (V/C) Conditions**
| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| — | Over Capacity (V/C > 1.0) |
| -- | Congested (V/C 0.9 to 1.0) |
| --- | Railroads |
| — | Major Roads |
| [...] | City of Oakland |
| [_] | Alameda County |
| [ ] | Destinations |
| [ ] | Evacuation Scenario Location |

SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, 2023; City of Oakland, 2021; ALAMEDA COUNTY GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023

<!-- page 64 -->
# Figure SAF-13f: Evacuation Scenario, Wildfire in Eastern Hills (PM Peak Traffic)

<<FIGURE>>

**Volume to Capacity (V/C) Conditions**
*   **—** Over Capacity (V/C > 1.0)
*   **— - —** Congested (V/C 0.9 to 1.0)
*   **—** Railroads
*   **—** Major Roads
*   **---** City of Oakland
*   **—** Alameda County
*   ■ Destinations
*   ■ Evacuation Scenario Location

SOURCE: Kittelson & Associates, 2023; City of Oakland, 2021; ALAMEDA COUNTY GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023

<!-- page 65 -->
### Vulnerable Populations

Individuals who cannot afford access to private transportation and services such as hotels may be disadvantaged during emergency evacuation events. Approximately 15 percent of Oakland’s households lack access to a household vehicle and may be at greater risk of harm because they lack the capacity to evacuate.[^p65-10] It should be noted that this statistic does not reflect a complete picture of vulnerability during emergency evacuation; personal vehicle ownership is tied to a variety of factors that vary across income levels. Low-income residents who cannot afford personal vehicles may be less likely to live in neighborhoods that are served by a variety of transit amenities. Alternatively, moderate- and high-income residents may be more likely to live in neighborhoods well-connected by transit and choose not to own personal vehicles in spite of their ability to afford them. Homeowners who are underinsured may also be at risk—increasingly, homes in high-fire-risk areas and high-flood-risk areas have fewer options for companies that will insure them, and higher premiums, making it harder to rebuild in cases of disaster.

While the Oakland Police, Fire, and Transportation departments are the primary agencies responsible for emergency evacuation operations, community programs like Communities of Oakland Respond to Emergencies (CORE) can help equip residents with the tools to provide additional mutual aid, resources, and support during emergencies, particularly in harder-to-reach neighborhoods. Beyond the CORE program, additional partnerships with community-based organizations may help expand the City’s evacuation transportation options during emergency events.

### CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT NEEDS

The backlog of maintenance and limited financial resources has resulted in a growing list of capital needs throughout the City. A number of these unfunded capital improvement needs are related to emergency preparedness and response, such as emergency services facilities. As the Oakland 2021-2023 Capital Improvement program details, there are several capital projects for which a funding source is not presently known, including projects that replace or renovate assets that are either structurally or functionally obsolete or have deferred maintenance issues.

Currently, the Police Administration Building and certain fire stations do not meet the mandate of essential service facilities (fully operational after an earthquake or similar disaster) or have significant deferred maintenance items that impact their operational status. Fire station facility improvements, described by departments as urgent, are considered critically unfunded; a 2021 informational report indicated approximately 25 stations and one training center were in need of maintenance.

One station targeted for priority replacement is Fire Station 4. Since 2019, the City has been searching for a viable site for relocation of Fire Station 4. Located at 1235 International Boulevard and designed in 1909, Fire Station 4 is one of the oldest public buildings in the city. It is also one of the busiest, responding to nearly 4,000 calls a year, with one Fire Engine and one Ladder truck. Currently, the station does not meet modern fire service, accessibility, or occupational safety standards. A modern replacement station will help better serve the community and improve public health and safety. Fire Station 4 is currently unfunded; it is estimated that land acquisition will cost $9 million, and cost for the facility is $25 million.

Another station targeted for priority replacement is Fire Station 29. The City is currently engaged with the community in a master planning process for a new state-of-the-art fire station, fire training center and community complex located at 905 66th Avenue. The relocation of Fire Station 29 to this site is a top priority to replace the existing aging and outdated station at 10166 66th Avenue. The new Fire Station 29 facility will be funded by the City’s Measure KK Infrastructure Bond (see Table SAF-7), and built in the first phase of the site master plan. The new Fire Station will include a community room and classroom.

The overall Master Plan for Fire Station 29’s new location at 905 66th Avenue will include relocation of the obsolete OFD fire training facilities, fire training classrooms, Support Services Division and the Urban Search and Rescue Task Force #4 (USAR) Warehouse. A portion of the site will be dedicated to a community-oriented business or facility to be determined through an inclusive planning and community engagement process.

Table SAF-7 lists capital improvements for the Oakland Fire Department and Police Department funded by the Measure KK Infrastructure Bond.

As noted previously, access to internet and online information plays a critical role in modern emergency response operations

### Table SAF-7: Police and Fire Station Capital Improvement Projects funded by Measure KK Infrastructure Bond

| STATION | PURPOSE | BUDGET | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| | | **FY 2021-22** | **FY 2022-23** | **FY 2021-23** |
| Fire Station #20 | Repaving | 0 | $1,000,000 | $1,000,000 |
| Fire Station #29 | New Station & Training Resiliency | 0 | $14,000,000 | $14,000,000 |
| Fire Station #6 | Building Shell Repair | 0 | $645,000 | 0 |
| Fire Station #7 | Structural Assessment | $652,500 | 0 | $652,500 |
| Fire Stations #13, #15, #17 | HVAC Replacement | 0 | $815,625 | $815,625 |
| Eastmont Police Station | Security Improvements | $655,500 | 0 | $655,500 |

Source: City of Oakland, CA, FY 2021-23 Adopted Capital Improvement Program. Revised July 9, 2021

[^p65-10]: US Census Bureau ACS 5-year 2016-2020

<!-- page 66 -->
and communications. It is estimated that 94,000 residents in Oakland currently don’t have access to the internet, barring them from emergency communications information shared digitally. The OakWiFi Initiative provides free wireless internet to Oakland residents to help close the digital divide at access points throughout the city. The OakWiFi Initiative is listed in the 2021-2023 Capital Improvements program as an unfunded capital improvement with an anticipated cost of $20,000,000.

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

### GOALS AND POLICIES

**GOAL SAF-8: MAINTAIN AN EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE NETWORK THAT KEEPS ALL OAKLANDERS INFORMED, CONNECTED, AND SAFE BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER AN EMERGENCY.**

#### Emergency Preparedness

**SAF-8.1 Emergency Response.** Maintain and enhance the City’s capacity for emergency response, fire prevention, and fire-fighting.

**SAF-8.2 Emergency Services Review.** Continue to engage the Police and Fire departments in the development review process to ensure that projects are designed and operated in a manner that minimizes the potential for public safety and fire hazards and maximizes the potential for responsive police and fire services.

**SAF-8.3 Hazard and Management Plans.** Maintain and update as necessary the Oakland Emergency Operations Plan, Annex of Emergency Support Functions, and Integrated Preparedness Plans, which describes how the City will prepare for, prevent, respond to, recover from and mitigate the effects of all types of hazard and threats. Incorporate EOP policy recommendations for terrorism and public health crises as part of these documents' future planning cycles.

**SAF-8.4 Data-Driven Equity Approach.** To support implementation of and future updates to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, and other safety-related plans, utilize the best available local data to identify racial disparities in the City of Oakland that can be used by the City to rank risk and prioritize mitigation strategies that incorporate a racial equity lens.

**SAF-8.5 Cohesive Evacuation Routes Network.** Ensure the evacuation routes network is interconnected with adequate capacity and reflects ability to evacuate for multiple threats.

* Maintain adequate capacity along evacuation routes through methods such as limiting street parking where capacity may be needed.
* Maintain a higher level of tree and vegetation maintenance along evacuation routes and remove flammable trees adjacent to these routes.
* Collaborate with other City Officials upon the next update to the LHMP to ensure AB 747 requirements are met.

**SAF-8.6 Vegetation Clearance.** Prioritize and maintain vegetation clearance along evacuation routes and public roads, and encourage property owners to maintain private roadways free from excessive vegetation.

#### Power Loss

**SAF-8.7 Emergency Power.** Participate in East Bay Community Energy’s Critical Municipal Facility program with the goal of increasing resilience to power losses, including Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS), and climate-driven extreme weather events for low income, medically dependent, and elderly populations through installation of renewable energy and onsite energy storage with islanding capabilities (such as microgrids).

#### Equitable Response, Notifications, and Preparedness Training

**SAF-8.8 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.** To comply with federal and state law, follow and annually update the Oakland Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Use the LHMP to guide mitigating actions to protect the whole community and environment from natural and humanmade hazards.

**SAF-8.9 Risk Reduction Models.** Integrate new risk reduction

<!-- page 67 -->
models (such as sea level rise modeling, wildfire mapping tools, etc.), tools, and methods into existing plans such as the General Plan, neighborhood and area plans, green infrastructure planning processes, etc., as may be appropriate.

**SAF-8.10 Community Training and Awareness.** Continue to offer community training on emergency prevention, preparedness and response as part of the CORE program. Partner with community organizations to target harder-to-reach populations, such as the unhoused, or linguistically isolated populations. Training and educational materials should build capacity among residents to respond to an emergency.

### Infrastructure Resilience/Resilience Hubs

**SAF-8.11 Public Facilities for Resilience & Relief.** Prioritize capital improvements and maintenance of public facilities such as fire stations, libraries, senior centers, cultural centers, parks, and recreation centers to ensure that they can function as essential service facilities, respite centers, and local assistance centers providing emergency social and medical services in times of distress (cooling and clean air stations, free air filtration mask distribution, food and vaccine distribution, clean water, testing centers, evacuation/disaster shelters, etc.), and as resilience hubs that empower communities to build resilience. Create and distribute education materials regarding access and utilization of resilience hubs. Clean energy microgrids should be prioritized at all community-serving facilities that are deemed critical during emergency events. In alignment with the ECAP, a minimum of three resilience hubs will be constructed in frontline communities by 2030. The City will continue pursuing resources to increase the number of resilience hubs beyond the minimum required, and to ensure that all frontline community members have access to a Resilience Hub.

**SAF-8.12 Critical Facilities Locations.** Locate critical facilities, such as hospitals and health care facilities, emergency shelters, fire stations, police stations, emergency command centers, and other emergency service facilities and utilities so as to minimize exposure to flooding, seismic, geologic, wildfire, and other hazards, except those facilities that provide frontline access, such as fire stations in areas of fire hazard. If critical facilities must be located in hazard zones, require building construction and materials that minimize hazard, safe access for emergency response vehicles, visible street signs, and adequate infrastructure for emergency scenarios, such as flooding, backup power and water supplies.

**SAF-8.13 Critical Facilities Funding.** Continue to explore funding sources for capital improvements necessary for emergency response, with priority given for fire station improvements.

**SAF-8.14 Facilities and Climate Impacts.** Consider climate impacts, risk, and uncertainty in designing and evaluating capital improvement program design and adjust infrastructure design standards and project locations to address asset- and site-specific vulnerabilities.

**SAF-8.15 Heat Pumps.** Equip community-serving facilities with heat pumps instead of energy-intensive air conditioning units. Prioritize community-serving facilities in neighborhoods with a high urban heat island index and higher social vulnerability.

### Alerts and Evacuation

**SAF-8.16 Emergency Notification.** Use early warning notification systems (Zonehaven, text messages, etc.) to notify residents by wireless emergency alert of the need to evacuate in the event of an emergency and the location of evacuation routes, points, and critical facilities such as schools and day care centers, particularly residents of vulnerable areas and neighborhoods with constrained emergency access. Continue to collaborate with adjoining jurisdictions on the network of outdoor warning sirens, and to test the sirens on a monthly basis.

**SAF-8.17 Traffic Signaling.** Prioritize the connection of trafficsignals along evacuation routes to the City’s Traffic Management Center to allow for real-time modifications to signal timing that can speed evacuation in the event of an emergency.

**SAF-8.18 Priority Route Coordination.** Partner with Caltrans and neighboring jurisdictions on measures to protect critical evacuation routes and work with local agencies to develop contingency plans that address disconnected routes and explore roadway improvements that can provide better emergency access under emergency evacuation scenarios. Work with emergency response teams and transit providers to identify and support Oakland residents without access to transportation in the event of an emergency. Create evacuation strategies for all residents, with a focus on low-income and unhoused residents.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 68 -->
# 5. Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures

The following table includes **specific actions** that address Oakland’s safety issues as identified in the prior sections. Each of the actions includes a “Responsibility” field, which indicates departments or agencies that will lead and/or coordinate on implementing the action, as well as a “Timeframe” field, which indicates the general period of time in which the action will be targeted for completion. The timeframes are defined as follows:

*   Short: 0-5 years
*   Medium: 5-10 years
*   Long: 10+ years
*   Ongoing: Efforts currently underway that the City will continue to implement

| POLICY | | ACTION |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **GOAL SAF-1: MINIMIZE THE RISK TO LIFE AND PROPERTY CAUSED BY SEISMIC AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS.** | | |
| **SAF-1.1** | **Seismic Hazards.** Develop and continue to enforce and carry out regulations and programs to reduce seismic hazards and hazards from seismically triggered phenomena. Prioritize programs in areas of highest seismic risk and seismic vulnerability. | **SAF-A.1.** Continue to require site-specific geologic reports for development proposals in the Hayward Fault Special Studies Zone, or Zones of Required Investigation, as shown in **Figure SAF-1**. Restrict development within 50 feet of the fault trace.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Planning & Building<br>**Timeframe:** Ongoing |
| **SAF-1.2** | **Structural Hazards.** Continue, enhance or develop regulations and programs designed to minimize seismically related structural hazards from new and existing buildings. | |
| **SAF-1.3** | **Limit Development in Hazardous Areas and Minimize Erosion.** Minimize threat to structures and humans by limiting development in areas subject to landslides or other geologic threat and undertake efforts to limit erosion from new development. | **SAF-A.2.** Ensure on a continual basis that the City’s geologic-hazard mapping is up-to-date.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Planning & Building<br>**Timeframe:** Ongoing |
| **SAF-1.4** | **Seismic Hazard Coordination.** Work with other public agencies to reduce potential damage from earthquakes to “lifeline” utility, economic, and transportation systems, including Caltrans; BART; PG&E, EBMUD, and other utilities providers, the Port of Oakland, and others. | **SAF-A.3.** Regulate development by slope categories and continue to enforce provisions that require geotechnical reports and soil hazards investigations be made in areas prone to landslides as shown in **Figure SAF-2** as part of project proposals.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Planning & Building<br>**Timeframe:** Ongoing |
| | | **SAF-A.4.** Continue to enforce ordinances for grading, erosion, and sedimentation; provisions under the creek protection, storm water management and discharge control ordinance; and regulations for site-design and source control techniques for peak stormwater runoff flows and landslide and erosion impacts from increased runoff volumes as shown in **Figure SAF-2**.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Planning and Building for project requiring permits, including Creek Protection Permits, Public Works, Watershed and Stormwater Management Division for non-permitted work.<br>**Timeframe:** Ongoing |

<!-- page 69 -->
| POLICY | ACTION |
| :--- | :--- |
| **GOAL SAF-1: MINIMIZE THE RISK TO LIFE AND PROPERTY CAUSED BY SEISMIC AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS.** | |
| | **SAF-A.5.** Design fire-preventive vegetation-management techniques and practices for creeksides and high-slope areas that align with practices designed to stabilize hillsides, prevent erosion and sedimentation to help prevent landslide and erosion hazards.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Fire Department, Public Works<br>**Timeframe:** Medium |
| | **SAF-A.6.** Continue implementation of the Mandatory Soft Story Retrofit Program and explore expansion of the retrofit program to include an inventory of buildings with non-ductile and tilt-up concrete construction, and further consider a recommendation to develop a new Ordinance or amend the existing Ordinance. Invest in and seek grant funding to support the seismic retrofit structures within the city, prioritizing socially vulnerable neighborhoods shown in **Figure SAF-1**. Within these areas, prioritize low-income homeowners and landlords that provide affordable housing.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Planning & Building, Housing and Community Development<br>**Timeframe:** Ongoing |
| **GOAL SAF-2: PROACTIVELY PREVENT URBAN FIRES AND EXPOSURE TO WILDFIRE AND PROTECT COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND PROPERTY FROM FIRE DANGER.** | |
| **SAF-2.1 Structural Fires.** Continue, enhance, or implement programs that seek to reduce the risk of structural fires. Prioritize programs in frontline communities at highest seismic and fire risk. | **SAF-A.7.** Undertake a program to reduce fire load in VHFHSZ, such as through removal of non-native, highly combustible trees such as eucalyptus in fire susceptible areas. Consider methods—such as establishment of a progressive special vegetation management zone fees—to provide ongoing revenue for additional efforts for vegetation management, including building and maintaining community fire breaks. The City will work with local Fire Safe Councils and other community organizations to educate the public and implement this program.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Fire Department<br>**Timeframe:** Medium |
| **SAF-2.2 Vegetation and Urban Forest Management.** Manage vegetation and the urban forest to reduce combustible load, erosion, and other risks exacerbated by climate change.<br><ul><li>Adopt and fully implement a Vegetation Management Plan for high-fire risk areas. Continue to update and enforce the Oakland Fire Code to require building owners in high-risk areas to maintain defensible space and implement fire prevention measures. As part of the Vegetation Management Plan, build partnerships with and consult indigenous groups on sacred burning, selective harvest, non-commercial thinning, and other traditional fire suppression techniques.</li><li>Implement the Urban Forest Master Plan, a comprehensive, area-wide urban canopy and vegetation plan that identifies locations where trees can be added and maintained, such as parks, streets, and rights-of-way. As a follow-up action, proactively address soil sequestration of carbon and water in frontline communities most affected by wildfire and other climate risks. *See Environmental Justice Element policy EJ-6.16 for other urban forest objectives.*</li><li>Prioritize the use of greenbelts as a nature-based solution to reduce the risk of wildfire by identifying strategic locations for new greenbelts, especially in frontline communities.</li></ul> | **SAF-A.8.** Adopt and amend as needed updated versions of the California building and fire codes (including Fire Safe Regulations) and local housing code so that optimal fire-protection standards are used in new development and renovation projects. Projects in Very High Fire Hazard Severity zones and the Wildland Urban Interface are required to include higher fire-rated construction.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Planning & Building<br>**Timeframe:** Medium |
| | **SAF-A.9.** Continue to review development proposals to ensure that they incorporate required and appropriate fire-mitigation measures, including adequate provisions for occupant evacuation, and access by fire-fighting personnel and equipment.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Planning & Building, Fire Department<br>**Timeframe:** Ongoing |

<!-- page 70 -->
| POLICY | ACTION |
| :--- | :--- |
| **SAF-2.3 Development in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).** Prioritize development in areas with existing adequate road networks, evacuation routes, and water infrastructure. Require any new development in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone to prepare a Fire Protection Plan that minimizes risks by:<br><br>• Assessing site-specific characteristics such as topography, slope, vegetation type, wind patterns, etc., as part of risk analysis.<br>• Determination of fire response capability, including the assistance of local fire protection agencies, and availability of local resources.<br>• Siting and designing development to avoid hazardous locations (e.g., through community fire breaks) to the extent feasible.<br>• Incorporating fuel modification and brush clearance techniques in accordance with applicable fire safety requirements (including fuel breaks and their maintenance) and carried out in a manner which reduces impacts to environmentally sensitive habitat to the maximum feasible extent.<br>• Using fire-resistant building materials and design features, such as visible signage, consistent with the adopted Municipal Code and Fire and Building Code standards (including Fire Safe Regulations as minimum standard).<br>• Using fire-retardant, native plant species in landscaping.<br>• Complying with established standards and specifications for fuel modification, visible home and street addressing and signage, defensible space, access and egress, and water facilities.<br>• Banning generators and fuel storage (e.g., for generators) in VHFHSZ.<br>• Requiring street improvements to comply with minimum fire road access standards.<br>• Disallowing new residential development/subdivisions in areas with less than two evacuation routes (as shown in **Figure SAF-13b**), unless a development were to be able to provide additional connections to ameliorate this condition.<br>• Following the most recent California Fire Code as adopted and amended.<br>• Participating in the City’s fire safety and public education efforts related to requirements for development, property maintenance, and emergency preparedness. | **SAF-A.10.** Compile a list of high-rise and high-occupancy buildings which are deemed to be particularly susceptible to fire hazards, due to their age or construction materials. Determine an expeditious timeline for the fire safety inspection of all such structures. Prioritize areas and financial assistance for fire safety retrofits based on racial equity and vulnerability criteria, including lower income households, mobility-impaired residents, families with small children, and older adults.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Planning & Building, Fire Department<br>**Timeframe:** Medium<br><br>**SAF-A.11.** Continue to conduct periodic fire-safety inspections of commercial, multi-family, and institutional buildings. Prioritize inspections among areas at high risk and high vulnerability, including lower-income households, areas with greater percentages of mobility-impaired residents, families with small children, and older adults.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Planning & Building, Fire Department<br>**Timeframe:** Ongoing<br><br>**SAF-A.12.** Explore grant opportunities to create a program that provides residents of EJ communities with portable indoor air filters during wildfires.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Planning & Building, Fire Department<br>**Timeframe:** Ongoing<br><br>**SAF-A.13.** Adopt an ordinance requiring local development standards to meet or exceed SRA Fire Safe Regulations and Fire Hazard Reduction Around Buildings and Structures Regulations in the SRA and VHFHSZ. Ensure all new development and/or redevelopment in the SRA, LRA, and VHFHSZ meets or exceeds the California Fire Code (CFC), California Building Code (CBC), and Board of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire Safe Regulations.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Planning & Building, Fire Department, OakDOT<br>**Timeframe:** Short<br><br>**SAF-A.14.** Continue to provide fire safety and public education efforts related to requirements for development, property maintenance, and emergency preparedness in the VHFHSZ and target the most vulnerable populations in these areas.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Fire Department<br>**Timeframe:** Ongoing |
| **SAF-2.4 Slope-Density Regulations.** Reduce permitted development densities and intensities by slope tiers—such as between 15 and 30 percent slope, and greater than 30 percent slope—in hills/hillside areas. *This consideration would be reflected as part of the LUTE update.* | |
| **SAF-2.5 Financial Assistance.** In high hazard areas, identify or develop programs to provide financial incentives or assistance to low-income households without vehicles and mobility-impaired residents for defensible space maintenance, home hardening, and situational-specific training for evacuation procedures to reduce risk to people and property. | |
| **SAF-2.6 Agency Coordination.** Continue to participate not only in general mutual-aid agreements but also in agreements with adjoining jurisdictions and other public agencies for proactive prevention of and cooperative response to wildfires, including multi-jurisdictional programs and task forces. | |

<!-- page 71 -->
| POLICY | ACTION |
| :--- | :--- |
| **SAF-2.7 Protect Against Smoke and Wildfire.** Improve access to better indoor air quality to protect against smoke and wildfire through methods such as requiring installation of MERV filters in new developments and identifying additional clean air centers and resilience spaces within residential areas. Additionally, the City will explore funding mechanisms such as available grants, to assist residents of EJ communities in purchasing indoor air filters. | |
| **SAF-2.8 Water Infrastructure.** In partnership with EBMUD, plan for the ongoing maintenance and long-term integrity of planned and existing water supply infrastructure, including peak load water supply. | |
| **GOAL SAF-3: PROTECT PEOPLE AND PROPERTY FROM FLOODING.** | |
| **SAF-3.1 Minimize Storm-Induced Flooding.** Continue or strengthen city programs that seek to minimize the storm-induced flooding hazard. | **SAF-A.15.** As part of creek "naturalization" or restoration efforts, undertake ecologically-sensitive solutions that align with integrated open space/flooding solutions where feasible. Continue leveraging Measure AA funding for these wetland restoration efforts. As staff resources are available, explore these solutions in partnership with community organizations, such as partners involved in the East Oakland Neighborhood Initiative, Save the Bay, Mycelium Youth, Shoreline Leadership Academy, and other groups already implementing climate-resilient solutions.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Public Works<br>**Timeframe:** Ongoing |
| **SAF-3.2 Storm-Induced Flooding Structural Risk.** Enforce and update local ordinances, and comply with regional orders, that would reduce the risk of storm-induced flooding. | |
| **SAF-3.3 Reestablish Full Compliance and Good Standing Under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).** The City will coordinate with FEMA Region IX and DWR to address all identified issues from the open September 2017 Community Assistance Visit (CAV) to reestablish the City's full compliance and good standing under the NFIP. | **SAF-A.16.** Continue to provide sandbags and plastic sheeting to residents and businesses in anticipation of rainstorms, and to deliver those materials to people with disabilities and older adults upon request.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Public Works<br>**Timeframe:** Ongoing |
| **SAF-3.4 Flood Control Coordination.** Continue to coordinate with FEMA, the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ACFCWCD), and the State Division of Safety of Dams on flood-control-related projects. | **SAF-A.17.** Ensure that new construction and major improvements to existing structures within flood zones are in compliance with federal requirements and, thus, remain a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).<br><br>**Responsibility:** Public Works, Planning & Building<br>**Timeframe:** Short |
| | **SAF-A.18.** Continue to coordinate with FEMA, the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and the State Division of Safety of Dams on flood-control-related projects.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Public Works, Planning & Building<br>**Timeframe:** Ongoing |

<!-- page 72 -->
| POLICY | ACTION |
| :--- | :--- |
| **SAF-3.5 Green Stormwater Infrastructure.** Fund and implement a green infrastructure program for the installation and maintenance of projects and existing civic resources such as the parks system and public spaces, to improve stormwater management, support biodiversity, reduce air pollution exposure, improve water quality, and increase access to natural spaces, including trees. Prioritize green stormwater infrastructure investment in frontline communities, particularly in residential neighborhoods dominated by concrete and asphalt with limited green space and elevated air pollution, in Priority Conservation Areas, and in areas where green infrastructure, including trees and other types of vegetated buffers, can effectively address stormwater management issues and reduce air pollution exposure among sensitive populations. *This policy is cross-listed as Action EJ-A.13 in the Environmental Justice Element.* | |
| **GOAL SAF-4: PROACTIVELY PLAN FOR IMPACTS OF SEA LEVEL RISE ON PEOPLE, PROPERTY, AND ESSENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE.** | |
| **SAF-4.1 Sea Level Rise and Community Engagement.** As recommended in the Sea Level Rise Roadmap and ECAP, develop a plan for organizations working to address sea level rise adaptation and building resilience of vulnerable communities. Work with communities to use community-generated data critical to future SLR mapping and community education efforts. | **SAF-A.19.** Continue to repair, maintain, and make structural improvements to storm drains to enable them to perform to their design capacity in handling water flows.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Public Works, Planning & Building<br>**Timeframe:** Ongoing |
| **SAF-4.2 Current Development and Sea Level Rise.** Use in planning and development reviews, as applicable, the best available science about projected sea level rise and other climate change-related environmental changes when addressing flooding, potential for groundwater contamination, and other hazards associated with sea level rise. | **SAF-A.20.** Work with property owners to develop cohesive areawide flooding prevention strategies in the two areas most susceptible to 100-year floods – the shoreline near the mouth of the Oakland Estuary, and the Coliseum and areas north extending through to the Flea Market.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Public Works<br>**Timeframe:** Short |
| **SAF-4.3 New Development and Sea Level Rise.** Develop sea-level rise standards/horizon that will guide adaption and resiliency planning as part of the updated Sea Level Rise Roadmap, including consideration of recommendations and regulations for a suite of shoreline protection measures that prioritize ecologically-friendly adaptation options, protective setbacks, and other adaptation strategies, to be incorporated into future development projects. | **SAF-A.21.** Study compounding impact of sea level rise on groundwater threats in areas with hazardous facilities. Coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions as appropriate to create a Shallow Groundwater Rise Vulnerability Assessment to establish a detailed understanding of the effects of rising shallow groundwater on people, the built environment, and water supply. This includes buoyancy, seepage, infiltration, liquefaction, corrosion, and contaminant mobilization hazards. The assessment should have an interactive map component that will be updated based on site-specific geotechnical and topographic data submitted by new developments. Continue to comply with performance standards pursuant to the Alameda countywide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System municipal stormwater permit.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Sustainability and Resilience Division, City Administrator’s Office, Planning & Building, Public Works<br>**Timeframe:** Short |
| **SAF-4.4 Contaminated Sites.** Contaminated Sites. New and/or substantial construction on contaminated sites shall account for impacts of rising shallow groundwater on contaminant mobilization in project design and all steps of the site remediation process. This shall be documented in a vulnerability assessment and adaptation plan, which will also include a groundwater data monitoring plan. Groundwater data from the site should be used for the most accurate water level on-site; however, if groundwater wells are not present at the project site, databases such as GeoTracker can be used to access water table elevations nearby, using U.S. Geological Survey, California Department of Water Resources, or other sources. | |
| **SAF-4.5 Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment.** Require applicants proposing to develop in a future inundation area (as depicted in a SLR scenario to be determined in subsequent administrative regulations or documents) to conduct a Sea Level Rise vulnerability assessment for the project, prepare a Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan for implementation as part of the project designs, and submit the assessment, adaptation plan, and conceptual design to the City for review and approval. | **SAF-A.22.** Continue to enforce the grading, erosion, and sedimentation ordinance and provisions under the creek protection, storm water management and discharge control ordinance to keep watercourses free of obstructions and protect drainage facilities.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Planning & Building<br>**Timeframe:** Ongoing |

<!-- page 73 -->
| POLICY | ACTION |
| :--- | :--- |
| **SAF-4.6 Evaluating Bay/Watershed Flooding Potential.** In partnership with other agencies, including the Port of Oakland, the Bay Area Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and the ACFCWCD, re-evaluate both Bay flooding and watershed flooding potential at key milestones in the Safety Element's implementation horizon, to manage for changing sea level rise projections. | **SAF-A.23.** By 2025, conduct a regional and citywide community engagement effort to determine planning thresholds and appropriate sea level rise mitigation strategies.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Sustainability and Resilience Division, City Administrator's Office, Planning & Building<br>**Timeframe:** Short |
| **SAF-4.7 Sea Level Rise Regional Strategy.** As part of the Sea Level Rise Roadmap update, continue to work with regional entities to address rising water levels in the San Francisco Bay and coordinate with the City's other climate adaptation efforts. | |
| **GOAL SAF-5: MINIMIZE HEALTH AND SAFETY IMPACTS RELATED TO THE USE, STORAGE, MANUFACTURE, AND TRANSPORT OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.** | |
| **SAF-5.1 Risks from Hazardous Materials Facilities.** Review proposed facilities that would produce or store hazardous materials, gas, natural gas, or other fuels to identify, and require feasible mitigation for, any significant risks. Regulations and enforcement of activities should be disclosed in a set of findings. The review shall consider, at a minimum, the following:<br><br><ul><li>Presence of seismic or geologic hazards;</li><li>Presence of other hazardous materials;</li><li>Proximity to residential development and areas in which substantial concentrations of people exist, particularly Environmental Justice communities already overburdened by pollution, including toxic releases from facilities, cleanup sites, groundwater threats/threats from sea level rise, and other sources; and</li><li>Nature and level of risk and hazard associated with the proposed project.</li></ul> | **SAF-A.24.** As part of the LUTE, the City of Oakland will include policy recommendations from the West Oakland Truck Management Plan. These include: 1) traffic calming measures to keep truck traffic off residential streets; 2) improved signage regarding existing truck routes; 3) preferred routes to use when destinations are not located on truck routes; and 3) modifications to truck routes and prohibited streets.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Planning & Building, OakDOT<br>**Timeframe:** Short |
| | **SAF-A.25.** Continue to coordinate with ACDEH, the unified-program agency responsible for issuance of permits for and inspection of certain industrial facilities, monitoring the filing of disclosure forms and risk-management plans, hazardous-materials assessment reports and remediation plans, and closure plans by such facilities.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Public Works , Planning & Building<br>**Timeframe:** Ongoing |
| **SAF-5.2 Hazardous Materials.** Minimize the potential risks to human and environmental health and safety associated with the past and present use, handling, storage and disposal of hazardous materials. Toxic materials removed as part of cleanup efforts should be disposed of in the least harmful manner so that the impact is not shifted from one vulnerable community to another. | **SAF-A.26.** Continue to rely on, and update, the City's hazardous materials area plan to respond to emergencies related to hazardous materials.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Emergency Management Services Division, Fire Department<br>**Timeframe:** Ongoing |
| **SAF-5.3 Site Contamination.** Through enforcement of standard conditions of approval, ensure buildings and sites are or have been investigated for the presence of hazardous materials and/or waste contamination before development or if there is reason to believe an existing building or site may contain hazardous materials that pose a threat to possible users. Continue to require remediation and construction techniques for adequate protection of construction workers, future occupants, adjacent residents, and the environment are adequately protected from hazards associated with contamination. | **SAF-A.27.** Continue to offer basic emergency-response education and training to local businesses.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Emergency Management Services Division, Fire Department<br>**Timeframe:** Ongoing |

<!-- page 74 -->
| POLICY | ACTION |
| :--- | :--- |
| **SAF-5.4 Hazardous Materials Accidents.** Seek to prevent industrial and transportation accidents involving hazardous materials, and enhance the City’s capacity to respond to such incidents. Continue to enforce regulations limiting truck travel through certain areas of the city to designated routes and consider updating OMC 10.52.010 to establishing time-based restrictions on truck travel on certain routes to reduce the risk and potential impact of accidents during peak traffic hours. | **SAF-A.28.** Continue to participate in the Alameda County Waste Management Authority and, as a participant, continue to implement policies under the county’s hazardous-waste management plan to properly dispose of hazardous wastes. <br><br> **Responsibility:** Environmental Services Division, Public Works <br> **Timeframe:** Ongoing |
| | **SAF-A.29.** Continue to apply for and manage EPA or other federal grants for the cleanup of Brownfield sites. <br><br> **Responsibility:** Public Works, Economic & Workforce Development Dept. <br> **Timeframe:** Ongoing |
| **SAF-5.5 Study Options to Provide Financing for the Remediation of Environmentally Contaminated Sites, with Priority for Affordable Projects.** As grant and loan funding sources are secured, support property owners through technical assistance and financing of characterization and/or remediation of environmentally contaminated sites. Prioritize bioremediation techniques to remove contamination from water sources. | **SAF-A.30.** Outreach and engage with the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, and the Regional Water Resources Control Board to ensure the public has access to a database with detailed site information on all brownfields and contaminated sites in the city and the existing restrictions placed on those sites. <br><br> **Responsibility:** Environmental Services Division, Public Works <br> **Timeframe:** Ongoing |
| | **SAF-A.31.** As part of an ongoing education and outreach effort by the City, establish a program that continually educates the general public of current enforcement policies and practices, and the roles of responsible agencies or departments for enforcement and assessing fines and/or penalties. <br><br> **Responsibility:** Environmental Services Division <br> **Timeframe:** Ongoing |

<!-- page 75 -->
| POLICY | ACTION |
| :--- | :--- |
| **GOAL SAF-6: PROTECT OAKLANDERS FROM AIRPORT LAND USE HAZARDS.** | |
| **SAF-6.1 ALUCP Updates.** Periodically review and coordinate with the Oakland Airport Land Use Commission on updates and modifications to ALUCPs conducted for airport facilities within Alameda County. | **SAF-A.32.** Incorporate land use compatibility considerations in LUTE as part of Phase 2.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Planning & Building<br>**Timeframe:** Short |
| **SAF-6.2 Land Use Compatibility.** Require land uses surrounding the Oakland International Airport to be compatible with the operation of the airport and restrict development of potentially hazardous obstructions or other hazards to flight. Discourage uses that may impact airport operations or do not meet Federal or State aviation standards. | |
| **GOAL SAF-7: FOSTER FEELINGS OF SAFETY IN ALL OAKLAND NEIGHBORHOODS.** | |
| **SAF-7.1 Reimagining Public Safety.** Support recommendations made in Oakland’s Reimagining Public Safety program, including through land use policies that promote more housing, living wage jobs, revitalization of commercial corridors, improved access to healthy food facilities, restorative justice centers, civic engagement, and arts and culture. As funding becomes available, support community-based violence prevention programs. | **SAF-A.33.** Work with community groups to ensure CPTED guidelines account for unique neighborhood and cultural considerations. Include representation from youth and formerly incarcerated individuals.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Planning & Building<br>**Timeframe:** Medium |
| **SAF-7.2 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design.** Continue to apply Crime Prevention through Environmental Design principles in the design of new development and encourage the provision of adequate public lighting; windows overlooking streets or parking lots; and paths to increase pedestrian activity within private development projects and public facilities in order to enhance public safety and reduce calls for service. | **SAF-A.34.** Through grant funding from the California Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) Department of Violence Intervention and Prevention Grant Program (CalVIP), staff from Oakland’s Department of Violence Prevention (DVP), Neighborhood Services Division (NSD), Public Works (OPW), and Department of Transportation, (OakDOT) will engage community members in identifying environmental contributors to violence specific to their communities, identify possible CPTED strategies proposed by the community engagement team members and residents familiar with target neighborhoods, identify sources of additional funding for implementation if needed, and implement at least one CPTED strategy.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Violence Prevention, Neighborhood Services, OPW, OakDOT<br>**Timeframe:** Ongoing |
| **SAF-7.3 Prioritize Mental Health in Emergency Planning.** Consider mental health interventions and programs in any updates to the city's emergency services planning process. Partner with the County and other relevant agencies and community groups to ensure people have access to mental health services and resources in the aftermath of disasters, prioritizing services for frontline communities. | |

<!-- page 76 -->
| POLICY | ACTION |
| :--- | :--- |
| **GOAL SAF-8: MAINTAIN AN EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE NETWORK THAT KEEPS ALL OAKLANDERS INFORMED, CONNECTED, AND SAFE BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER AN EMERGENCY.** | |
| **SAF-8.1 Emergency Response.** Maintain and enhance the City’s capacity for emergency response, fire prevention, and fire-fighting. | **SAF-A.35.** Maintain adequate capacity along evacuation routes as shown in **SAF-13a**, e.g., by limiting street parking where capacity may be needed.<br><br>**Responsibility:** OakDOT<br>**Timeframe:** Ongoing |
| **SAF-8.2 Emergency Services Review.** Continue to engage the Police and Fire departments in the development review process to ensure that projects are designed and operated in a manner that minimizes the potential for public safety and fire hazards and maximizes the potential for responsive police and fire services. | **SAF-A.36.** Following the State Attorney General’s guidance and using available quantitative modeling tools, conduct a study of evacuation times from which a set of recommendations for minimum standards for evacuation of residential areas in VHFHSZs shall be considered for adoption.<br><br>**Responsibility:** OakDOT, Emergency Management Services Division, Fire Department<br>**Timeframe:** Short term |
| **SAF-8.3 Hazard and Management Plans.** Maintain and update as necessary the Oakland Emergency Operations Plan, Annex of Emergency Support Functions, and Integrated Preparedness Plans, which describes how the City will prepare for, prevent, respond to, recover from and mitigate the effects of all types of hazard and threats. Incorporate EOP policy recommendations for terrorism and public health crises as part of these documents’ future planning cycles. | **SAF-A.37.** Maintain a higher level of tree and vegetation maintenance along evacuation routes (including public and private roads) and remove flammable trees and others that could fall and block access adjacent to these routes.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Fire Department<br>**Timeframe:** Ongoing |
| **SAF-8.4 Data-Driven Equity Approach.** To support implementation of and future updates to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, and other safety-related plans utilize the best available local data to identify racial disparities in the City of Oakland that can be used by the City to rank risk and prioritize mitigation strategies that incorporate a racial equity lens. | **SAF-A.38.** As part of the LUTE update, project future emergency service needs for planned land uses and evaluate capital improvement and staffing plans accordingly.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Public Works, Planning & Building<br>**Timeframe:** Short |
| **SAF-8.5 Cohesive Evacuation Routes Network.** Ensure the evacuation routes network is interconnected with adequate capacity and reflects ability to evacuate for multiple threats.<br><ul><li>Maintain adequate capacity along evacuation routes through methods such as limiting street parking, where capacity may be needed.</li><li>Maintain a higher level of tree and vegetation maintenance along evacuation routes and remove flammable trees adjacent to these routes.</li><li>Collaborate with other City Officials upon the next update to the LHMP to ensure AB 747 requirements are met.</li></ul> | **SAF-A.39.** Periodically assess the need for new or relocated fire stations, facilities, programs, and technologies.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Public Works<br>**Timeframe:** Ongoing |
| | **SAF-A.40.** Strive to meet a goal of responding to fires and other emergencies within seven minutes of notification 90 percent of the time.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Fire Department<br>**Timeframe:** Ongoing |
| **SAF-8.6 Vegetation Clearance.** Prioritize and maintain vegetation clearance along evacuation routes and public roads, and encourage property owners to maintain private roadways free from excessive vegetation. | **SAF-A.41.** Continue to participate in multi-jurisdictional programs and task forces, such as the Hills Emergency Forum and Diablo FireSafe Council, that work to reduce the threat of wildfires.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Fire Department, Fire Prevention Bureau<br>**Timeframe:** Ongoing |
| **SAF-8.7 Emergency Power.** Participate in East Bay Community Energy’s Critical Municipal Facility program with the goal of increasing resilience to power losses, including Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS), and climate-driven extreme weather events for low income, medically dependent, and elderly populations through installation of renewable energy and onsite energy storage with islanding capabilities (such as microgrids). | **SAF-A.42.** Implement at least three resilience hubs, including in West Oakland, East Oakland, and at the Lincoln Square Recreation Center.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Sustainability and Resilience Division of the City Administrator’s Office, Public Works<br>**Timeframe:** Short |

<!-- page 77 -->
| POLICY | ACTION |
| :--- | :--- |
| **SAF-8.8 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.** To comply with federal and state law, follow and annually update the Oakland Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Use the LHMP to guide mitigating actions to protect the whole community and environment from natural and humanmade hazards. | **SAF-A.43.** Identify ways the City can help support decentralized community facilities to serve residents unable to travel to centralized resilience hubs.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Sustainability and Resilience Division, City Administrator’s Office, Public Works<br>**Timeframe:** Ongoing |
| **SAF-8.9 Risk Reduction Models.** Integrate new risk reduction models (such as sea level rise modeling, wildfire mapping tools, etc.), tools, and methods into existing plans such as the General Plan, neighborhood and area plans, green infrastructure planning processes, etc., as may be appropriate. | **SAF-A.44.** In partnership with OakDOT, the Human Services Department, AC Transit, healthcare, and other community organizations, explore organization of a network to transport those without vehicles to these centralized resilience hubs during times of emergency. As part of the LUTE update in Phase 2, explore use of electrified buses as “mobile resilience centers”.<br><br>**Responsibility:** OakDOT, Human Services Department, Emergency Management Services Division, Planning & Building<br>**Timeframe:** Short |
| **SAF-8.10 Community Training and Awareness.** Continue to offer community training on emergency prevention, preparedness and response as part of the CORE program. Partner with community organizations to target harder-to-reach populations, such as the unhoused, or linguistically isolated populations. Training and educational materials should build capacity among residents to respond to an emergency. | **SAF-A.45.** Establish neighborhood-level communication networks to inform residents of the location and directions to the nearest cooling center and coordinate transportation to these centers for limited-mobility residents during extreme heat events.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Emergency Management Services Division<br>**Timeframe:** Ongoing |
| **SAF-8.11 Public Facilities for Resilience & Relief.** Prioritize capital improvements and maintenance of public facilities such as fire stations, libraries, senior centers, cultural centers, parks, and recreational centers to ensure that they can function as essential service facilities, respite centers, and local assistance centers providing emergency social and medical services in times of distress (cooling and clean air stations, free air filtration mask distribution, food and vaccine distribution, clean water, testing centers, evacuation/disaster shelters, etc.), and as resilience hubs that empower communities to build resilience. Create and distribute education materials regarding access and utilization of resilience hubs. Clean energy microgrids should be prioritized at all community-serving facilities that are deemed critical during emergency events. In alignment with the ECAP, a minimum of three resilience hubs will be constructed in frontline communities by 2030. The City will continue pursuing resources to increase the number of resilience hubs beyond the minimum required, and to ensure that all frontline community members have access to a resilience hub. | **SAF-A.46.** Evaluate capital improvement projects in the Infrastructure and Facilities Element and LUTE in Phase 2 using climate impacts, risk, and uncertainty. Evaluate CIP projects as part of short- and long-term CIP reports.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Planning & Building, Economic and Workforce Development, Public Works, OakDOT, Sustainability and Resilience Division, City Administrator’s Office, All Asset Owning Deparment<br>**Timeframe:** Short |
| **SAF-8.12 Critical Facilities Locations.** Locate critical facilities, such as hospitals and health care facilities, emergency shelters, fire stations, police stations, emergency command centers, and other emergency service facilities and utilities so as to minimize exposure to flooding, seismic, geologic, wildfire, and other hazards, except those facilities that provide frontline access, such as fire stations in areas of fire hazard. If critical facilities must be located in hazard zones, require building construction and materials that minimize hazard, safe access for emergency response vehicles, visible street signs, and adequate infrastructure for emergency scenarios, such as flooding, backup power and water supplies. | **SAF-A.47.** Develop prioritized list of community-serving facilities and complete heat pump installation.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Public Works, Sustainability and Resilience Division, City Administrator’s Office<br>**Timeframe:** Medium |
| | **SAF-A.48.** Continue to collaborate with adjoining jurisdictions on the network of outdoor warning sirens, and to test the sirens on a monthly basis.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Emergency Management Services Division<br>**Timeframe:** Ongoing |

<!-- page 78 -->
| POLICY | ACTION |
| :--- | :--- |
| **SAF-8.13 Critical Facilities Funding.** Continue to explore funding sources for capital improvements necessary for emergency response, with priority given for fire station improvements. | **SAF-A.49.** Consider roadway improvements for better emergency access as part of the LUTE and identify any possible tradeoffs for everyday street safety.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Planning & Building, OakDOT, Fire Department<br>**Timeframe:** Short |
| **SAF-8.14 Facilities and Climate Impacts.** Consider climate impacts, risk, and uncertainty in designing and evaluating capital improvement program design and adjust infrastructure design standards and project locations to address asset- and site-specific vulnerabilities. | **SAF-A.50.** Consider adoption of a disaster reconstruction overlay zone. As part of this action, re-evaluate all development scenarios and requirements following a hazard event such as a wildfire, landslide, flood, earthquake; explore funding sources and create a low-interest construction loan program for income-qualified owners who are recovering from a disaster. *This action is cross-referenced with 2023-2031 Housing Action Plan, Action 5.2.7.*<br><br>**Responsibility:** Oakland Planning and Building<br>**Timeframe:** Medium |
| **SAF-8.15 Heat Pumps.** Equip community-serving facilities with heat pumps instead of energy-intensive air conditioning units. Prioritize community-serving facilities in neighborhoods with a high urban heat island index and higher social vulnerability. | **SAF-A.51.** Consider an ordinance requiring installation and periodic inspection and maintenance of gas shut-off valves in existing buildings at the time of sale, transfer of title, and when upgrades are planned for gas piping to minimize the risk of post-earthquake fires due to gas pipeline ruptures.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Planning and Building Department<br>**Timeframe:** Medium |
| **SAF-8.16 Emergency Notification.** Use early warning notification systems (Zonehaven, text messages, etc.) to notify residents by wireless emergency alert of the need to evacuate in the event of an emergency and the location of evacuation routes, points, and critical facilities such as schools and day care centers, particularly residents of vulnerable areas and neighborhoods with constrained emergency access. Continue to collaborate with adjoining jurisdictions on the network of outdoor warning sirens, and to test the sirens on a monthly basis. | |
| **SAF-8.17 Traffic Signaling.** Prioritize the connection of traffic signals along evacuation routes to the City's Traffic Management Center to allow for real-time modifications to signal timing that can speed evacuation in the event of emergency. | |
| **SAF-8.18 Priority Route Coordination.** Partner with Caltrans and neighboring jurisdictions on measures to protect critical evacuation routes and work with local agencies to develop contingency plans that address disconnected routes and explore roadway improvements that can provide better emergency access under emergency evacuation scenarios. Work with emergency response teams and transit providers to identify and support Oakland residents without access to transportation in the event of an emergency. Create evacuation strategies for all residents, with a focus on low-income and unhoused residents. | |

<!-- page 79 -->
This page intentionally left blank.

<!-- page 80 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# OAKLAND 2045
# GENERAL PLAN

---

## Environmental Justice — Environmental Justice Element (Adopted 9/26/23)

- Source: https://www.oaklandca.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/planning-amp-building/documents/sp/gp/ej-element/ej-element_adopted-9.26.23_89907-c.m.s.pdf
- Pages: 125
- Covers: ej
- **Transcription findings were recorded for this document;** check figures against the source.

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

<<FIGURE>>

# Oakland 2045

# Oakland Environmental Justice Element

**Adopted September 26, 2023**

**Resolution #: 89907 C.M.S**

<!-- page 2 -->
**Prepared by:**

**DYETT & BHATIA**
Urban and Regional Planners

**With Contributions From:**

E/J Solutions
PolicyLink

<!-- page 3 -->
# Table of Contents

**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... ES-1**

### 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1-1
#### 1.1 Purpose and Requirements........................................................................................................ 1-1
Statutory Requirements ......................................................................................................................................................1-1
Racial Equity Goals for the City of Oakland + Previous Ongoing Efforts .................................................... 1-2
Relationship to Oakland’s General Plan Elements.................................................................................................. 1-3
Connection to Vision and Guiding Principles ...........................................................................................................1-6
#### 1.2 Environmental Justice Planning Process.................................................................................... 1-7
Environmental Justice and Racial Equity Baseline Report ................................................................................. 1-7
EJ Element Racial Equity Impact Analysis .................................................................................................................1-8
Revision of EJ Communities Mapping..........................................................................................................................1-8
#### 1.3 Community Outreach ................................................................................................................... 1-9

### 2. ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM AND HEALTH INEQUITIES IN OAKLAND................................................................................................................................ 2-1
#### 2.1 Historical Context / Root Causes..................................................................................................2-1
Environmental Racism as a Historical Process.........................................................................................................2-1
#### 2.2 Land Use and Health ................................................................................................................... 2-8
Health Inequities................................................................................................................................................................... 2-8
How Planning and Land Use Impact Health .......................................................................................................... 2-9
#### 2.3 Identifying Environmental Justice Communities...................................................................... 2-11
Purpose and Definition...................................................................................................................................................... 2-11
Methodology.........................................................................................................................................................................2-12
Results .....................................................................................................................................................................................2-15

### 3. REDUCING POLLUTION EXPOSURE AND IMPROVING AIR QUALITY ...... 3-1
#### 3.1 Issues and Disparities .................................................................................................................. 3-1
Pollution Burden ................................................................................................................................................................... 3-1
Sensitive Land Uses............................................................................................................................................................. 3-2
Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................................................... 3-2
Water Quality....................................................................................................................................................................... 3-10
Solid Waste Sites ................................................................................................................................................................ 3-14
Illegal Dumping .................................................................................................................................................................. 3-14
#### 3.2 Goals and Policies........................................................................................................................ 3-19

### 4. SAFE, HEALTHY, AND AFFORDABLE HOMES....................................................... 4-1
#### 4.1 Issues and Disparities .................................................................................................................. 4-1
Cost Burden and Evictions................................................................................................................................................ 4-1
Code Enforcement ............................................................................................................................................................. 4-2
Older Housing....................................................................................................................................................................... 4-2
Lead............................................................................................................................................................................................ 4-4
Indoor Air Quality................................................................................................................................................................ 4-4
Healthy Housing Locations.............................................................................................................................................. 4-6
#### 4.2 Goals and Policies........................................................................................................................ 4-8

### 5. EXPANDING HEALTHY FOOD ACCESS..................................................................... 5-1
#### 5.1 Issues and Disparities .................................................................................................................. 5-1
Food Access............................................................................................................................................................................ 5-2
Food Distribution and Recovery................................................................................................................................... 5-2
Food Assistance and Education ................................................................................................................................... 5-2
#### 5.2 Goals and Policies........................................................................................................................ 5-6

<!-- page 4 -->
## 6. EQUITABLE PUBLIC FACILITIES ............................................................................ 6-1
### 6.1 Issues and Disparities ................................................................................................................... 6-2
Community Facilities .............................................................................................................................................. 6-2
Public Art, Cultural Infrastructure, and Facilities ............................................................................................. 6-2
Public Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................................ 6-2
Public Services and Utilities.................................................................................................................................... 6-5
### 6.2 Goals and Policies........................................................................................................................... 6-6

## 7. PROMOTING PHYSICAL ACTIVITY.......................................................................7-1
### 7.1 Issues and Disparities ...................................................................................................................7-1
Mobility and Safety.....................................................................................................................................................7-1
Park Access and Maintenance .............................................................................................................................. 7-8
Urban Forest and Urban Greening...................................................................................................................... 7-8
### 7.2 Goals and Policies.......................................................................................................................... 7-13

## 8. ENGAGED COMMUNITIES....................................................................................... 8-1
Engagement Best Practices .................................................................................................................................. 8-1
### 8.1 Issues and Disparities ................................................................................................................... 8-2
Linguistic Isolation ................................................................................................................................................... 8-2
Internet Access .......................................................................................................................................................... 8-2
Economic Well-Being ............................................................................................................................................... 8-5
### 8.2 Goals and Policies...........................................................................................................................8-8

## 9. IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS AND PROGRAMS ..................................................9-1
### 9.1 Prioritizing Improvements and Programs that Meet the Needs of EJ
### Communities ................................................................................................................................ 9-1

<!-- page 5 -->
# List of Figures

**Figure EJ-1:** Racial Concentration 1940-2019 ........................................................................................................ 2-5
**Figure EJ-2:** Median Household Income 1940-2019 ......................................................................................... 2-6
**Figure EJ-3:** Prevalence of Poverty ........................................................................................................................ 2-7
**Figure EJ-4:** Life Expectancy .................................................................................................................................... 2-10
**Figure EJ-5:** CalEnviroScreen Score Components ............................................................................................. 2-11
**Figure EJ-6:** Structure of EJ Communities Screening Indicators .................................................................. 2-12
**Figure EJ-7:** Environmental Justice Communities ............................................................................................ 2-17
**Figure EJ-8:** Sensitive Land Uses, 2021 ................................................................................................................... 3-3
**Figure EJ-9:** BAAQMD Modeled Diesel Emissions ........................................................................................... 3-6
**Figure EJ-10:** BAAQMD Modeled PM2.5 Emissions ......................................................................................... 3-7
**Figure EJ-11:** NO2 and Health Effects ................................................................................................................... 3-8
**Figure EJ-12:** Air Quality Topic Score .................................................................................................................... 3-9
**Figure EJ-13:** Groundwater Threats, 2021 ............................................................................................................ 3-11
**Figure EJ-14:** Hazardous Materials Sites ............................................................................................................. 3-16
**Figure EJ-15:** Calls for Illegal Dumping ................................................................................................................ 3-17
**Figure EJ-16:** Pollution Exposure of Sensitive Uses ......................................................................................... 3-18
**Figure EJ-17:** Code Enforcement Complaints ................................................................................................... 4-3
**Figure EJ-18:** Childhood Lead Risk .......................................................................................................................... 4-5
**Figure EJ-19:** Food Access .......................................................................................................................................... 5-3
**Figure EJ-20:** Head Start Locations ........................................................................................................................ 6-3
**Figure EJ-21:** Healthcare Locations ........................................................................................................................ 6-4
**Figure EJ-22:** Oakland Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network, 2019 ........................................................ 7-2
**Figure EJ-23:** Oakland Transit Network, 2017 ..................................................................................................... 7-4
**Figure EJ-24:** Sidewalk Gaps in Oakland (2004-2007) .................................................................................... 7-5
**Figure EJ-25:** Crashes in Oakland 2016-2020 .................................................................................................... 7-6
**Figure EJ-26:** Parks Walkability ................................................................................................................................ 7-9
**Figure EJ-27:** Urban Tree Canopy .......................................................................................................................... 7-10
**Figure EJ-28:** Climate Change Category Score ................................................................................................ 7-12
**Figure EJ-29:** Community Engagement Spectrum ............................................................................................. 8-1
**Figure EJ-30:** Limited English-Speaking Ability, Population Ages 5 and Over, 2019 .......... 8-3
**Figure EJ-31:** Internet Access at Home, 2019 ....................................................................................................... 8-4
**Figure EJ-32:** High-Wage Jobs by Census Block Group, 2017 (EPA Smart Location
Database 3.0) ......................................................................................................................................................................... 8-6

# List of Tables and Charts

**Table EJ-1:** Relationship of other Element Policies to Environmental Justice Topic Areas ... 1-4
**Chart EJ-1:** Citywide Differences in Health Outcomes by Race, 2020 .............................................. 2-9
**Table EJ-2:** Environmental Justice Communities Summary ....................................................................... 2-15
**Chart EJ-2:** Citywide Census Tract Average of CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Pollution Burden
Score by Race, 2021 ........................................................................................................................................................... 3-1
**Table EJ-3:** Top 10th Percentile Tracts by Indicator — Air Quality ......................................................... 3-5
**Table EJ-4:** Top 10th Percentile Tracts by Indicator — Water Quality .................................................. 3-12
**Table EJ-5:** Top 10th Percentile Tracts by Indicator — Hazardous Materials/
Illegal Dumping ................................................................................................................................................................... 3-15
**Chart EJ-3:** Code Enforcement Complaints by Census Tract Racial Majority, 2020 ................ 4-2
**Table EJ-6:** Top 10th Percentile Tracts by Indicator — Safe, Healthy, and
Affordable Homes ............................................................................................................................................................... 4-7
**Table EJ-7:** Top 10th Percentile Tracts by Indicator — Expanding Healthy Food Access ..... 5-5
**Chart EJ-4:** Median Percent of Household Income Spent on Energy Costs by Race, 2018 ... 6-5
**Table EJ-8:** Top 10th Percentile Tracts by Indicator — Equitable Public Facilities ......... 6-5
**Chart EJ-5:** High Injury Network Crashes by Census Tract Racial Majority, 2018 ........... 7-7
**Table EJ-9:** Top 10th Percentile Tracts by Indicator — Promoting Physical Activity ...... 7-11
**Table EJ-10:** Top 10th Percentile Tracts by Indicator — Civic Engagement .................................... 8-7
**Table EJ-11:** Implementation — Goals, Policies, and Actions .................................................................... 9-2

<!-- page 6 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 7 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# Executive Summary

Historical and ongoing governmental and industrial practices have led to, and continue to generate racially inequitable outcomes, and longstanding environmental injustices in Oakland. This General Plan outlines actions to work toward undoing the impacts of these past practices and creating a fair and just city. An environmental justice approach seeks to rectify these issues, improving the environmental health of those most harmed by pollution burdens and impacted by historic disinvestment and disenfranchisement by investing in these communities to create opportunities that will allow its residents to live long, healthy lives.

**This document, the Environmental Justice Element of the City of Oakland’s General Plan, serves as the foundation for achieving equity and environmental justice when planning for future growth and development in Oakland.** The Environmental Justice Element identifies communities that are disproportionately impacted by inequitable and unjust environmental harms, and proposes goals, policies, and objectives to reduce the unique or compounded health risks in these communities, referred to as Environmental Justice Communities.

This document builds upon Oakland’s current regulatory setting for equity and environmental justice, including Oakland Municipal Code Section 2.29.170, which specifies that “the City of Oakland will intentionally integrate, on a Citywide basis, the principles of ‘fair and just’ in all the City does in order to achieve equitable opportunities for all people and communities,” as well as City Council Resolution 89249: Declaring Racism A Public Health Crisis, which states “That the City of Oakland declares racism a public health crisis and recognizes the severe impact of racism on the well-being of Oakland residents and the City overall.”

California law requires that each city and county adopt a general plan to guide its physical growth and development. A jurisdiction’s general plan is its official policy document to create a blueprint for the future of the jurisdiction and guide its development. In California, all cities must adopt a General Plan composed of at least seven elements, including either an Environmental Justice Element or Environmental Justice goals and policies integrated into related elements. Because environmental justice is a cross-cutting topic, Oakland has chosen to adopt a standalone Environmental Justice Element, while integrating environmental justice strategies into policies, goals, and actions across other elements of the General Plan. This approach will enable the City to coordinate interdepartmental efforts to effectively address environmental justice and racial equity. The Environmental Justice Element, as do the other General Plan Elements, uses an equity lens throughout its analysis and focuses on burdened census tracts in the development of its goals, policies, and actions. Therefore, the Environmental Justice Element is rooted in an equity framework in accordance with the General Plan’s Vision Statement and Guiding Principles.

The Environmental Justice Element contains nine chapters. Following the introduction and history sections, the Environmental Justice Element summarizes baseline conditions within Oakland’s communities through the lens of six environmental factors. In general, each of these six chapters contains an overview of an environmental condition, a summary of disparities and communities vulnerable to the factor, and a set of goals and policies specific to that factor. The communities that are highlighted in

<!-- page 8 -->
each chapter are the highest-scoring census tracts identified by the Environmental Justice Communities screening analysis and Environmental Justice Element Racial Equity Impact Assessment processes as the places that experience the greatest disparities and/or vulnerabilities. Chapter 9 concludes with a comprehensive table of actions to achieve the goals and policies set forth in the preceding chapters. Below are brief descriptions of the contents under each chapter:

*   **Chapter 1, “Introduction,”** presents the background and purpose of the Environmental Justice Element, including statutory requirements. It also outlines the City of Oakland’s process and community engagement efforts undertaken to develop the Element. Further, the chapter outlines the racial equity goals of the Environmental Justice Element and considers the Element’s relationship to other elements of the City’s General Plan and guiding principles.

*   **Chapter 2, “Environmental Racism and Health Inequities in Oakland,”** provides an overview of the historical development and planning decisions of Oakland which have shaped current conditions of environmental disparities. This chapter includes a description of health inequities that have resulted from past planning decisions and defines Oakland-specific Environmental Justice Communities (disadvantaged communities).

*   **Chapter 3, “Reducing Pollution Exposure and Improving Air Quality,”** analyzes the pollution burden, especially on sensitive land uses, in Oakland from air pollution, water contamination, hazardous materials and toxics, and illegal dumping.

*   **Chapter 4, “Safe, Healthy, and Affordable Homes,”** details housing disparities in the City of Oakland, including code enforcement, age of housing stock, and indoor air quality.

*   **Chapter 5, “Expanding Healthy Food Access,”** analyzes Oakland’s food network, including availability of food outlets, food availability, and food quality.

*   **Chapter 6, “Equitable Public Facilities,”** details the distribution of and investment in Oakland’s public facilities, such as infrastructure, school facilities, parks, and transportation and emergency services.

*   **Chapter 7, “Promoting Physical Activity,”** analyzes the barriers to physical activity and health in the city, such as mobility and safety, park access maintenance, and urban forest and greening.

*   **Chapter 8, “Engaged Communities,”** details the City of Oakland’s community engagement efforts and challenges experienced, including an overview of the community engagement spectrum, linguistic isolation, internet access, and employment.

*   **Chapter 9, “Implementation Actions and Programs,”** provides a summary table of the goals, policies, and actions relevant to each of the environmental factors that address the unique needs of Environmental Justice Communities as identified in this Element.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 9 -->
# 1. Introduction

Oakland strives to be a city where all neighborhoods thrive, and community members have what they need to lead healthy and productive lives. This includes clean air, land, and water; quality, affordable housing located near jobs and amenities; an enjoyable, accessible network of parks, recreation, and community facilities; access to nutritious food; and other community assets distributed equitably throughout the city. To achieve this goal, the city must respond effectively to the resounding consequences of institutional and systemic discrimination that are reflected in Oakland’s uneven geography of opportunity. This has largely meant that predominantly lower-income neighborhoods and communities of color unfairly and disproportionately experience higher exposure to pollution, greater negative health impacts, and less access to health-promoting resources.

To chart a path forward toward a more equitable city, Oakland has created its first Environmental Justice Element (EJ Element) for the Oakland 2045 General Plan Update. The Environmental Justice movement arose to address our history of unjust governmental actions, find remedies to disproportionate impacts, and builds decision-making power among groups most affected by these harms.[^p9-1] Consistent with State requirements, the EJ Element addresses community-identified environmental justice issues related to reducing pollution exposure and improving air quality; promoting safe, healthy, and affordable homes; providing equitable public facilities; expanding healthy food access; promoting physical activity; improving civic engagement; and prioritizing improvements and programs that meet the needs of Environmental Justice Communities (EJ Communities).

<<FIGURE>>

## 1.1 PURPOSE AND REQUIREMENTS

### STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

The City of Oakland is updating its General Plan, a visionary blueprint for the City’s future over the next 20 years. Senate Bill (SB) 1000,[^p9-2] the Planning for Healthy Communities Act, requires general plans to “identify objectives and policies to reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities” by means that include, but are not limited to:

*   Reducing pollution exposure, including the improvement of air quality;
*   Promoting equitable access to public facilities,[^p9-3] healthy food, safe and sanitary homes, and physical activity;
*   Reducing barriers to inclusive engagement and participation in the public decision-making process; and
*   Prioritizing improvements and programs that address the needs of disadvantaged communities.

[^p9-1]: To read more about the Principles of Environmental Justice, please visit https://www.ejnet.org/ej/principles.html
[^p9-2]: SB 1000 is an act to amend Section 65302 of the California Government Code.
[^p9-3]: As defined in subdivision (d) of California Government Code Section 66000, "public facilities" includes public improvements, public services, and community amenities.

<!-- page 10 -->
### How are “Disadvantaged Communities” defined?

SB 1000 defines a “disadvantaged community” as “an area identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 39711 of the Health and Safety Code or an area that is a low-income area that is disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation.”[^p10-4]

Further, SB 1000 defines “Low-Income” as “an area with household incomes at or below 80 percent of the statewide median income or with household incomes at or below the threshold designated as low income by the Department of Housing and Community Development’s list of state income limits adopted pursuant to Section 50093.

### What is Equity?

In Oakland, equity means all people have full and equal access to opportunities that enable them to attain their full potential. It means that identity—such as race, ethnicity, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation or expression—has no detrimental effect on the distribution of resources, opportunities, and outcomes for Oakland’s residents. Equity differs from equality, which focuses on giving everyone the same thing, regardless of outcomes.

<<FIGURE>>

SB 1000 requires that jurisdictions with “disadvantaged communities” adopt environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives as either a stand-alone Environmental Justice Element or as a set of objectives and policies integrated into other elements. In recognition of the cross-cutting nature of environmental justice topics and the interaction between various elements of the General Plan, the City of Oakland has opted to pursue a combination of both options by creating a standalone element as well as interweaving environmental justice into the policies, goals, and actions of all elements.

While State law uses the term “disadvantaged communities,” the City of Oakland has opted to use the term “Environmental Justice Communities,” (or “EJ Communities”) in line with recommendations from the California Environmental Justice Alliance.[[^p10-5]](#footnote-5) This is based on the recognition that, in addition to identifying the problems and areas that are unfairly impacted (i.e., “disadvantaged”) by cumulative burdens, gaining equitable access to environmental benefits, investments, and other resources for low-income communities and communities of color is also an important aspect of environmental justice.

### RACIAL EQUITY GOALS FOR THE CITY OF OAKLAND + PREVIOUS ONGOING EFFORTS

A guiding principle of Oakland’s General Plan update is to advance the City’s mission to “intentionally integrate, on a Citywide basis, the principle of ‘fair and just’ in all the City does in order to achieve equitable opportunities for all people and communities.”[^p10-6] This means working to eliminate the root causes of inequity, understanding barriers to achieving greater equity in communities, and working with these communities to develop solutions for long-term and systemic changes. That process begins by undertaking a full acknowledgment of the systemic racial inequities that have shaped the City of Oakland.

The EJ Element builds on the City’s ongoing efforts to achieve racial equity in Oakland. It is based on the frameworks established by the City’s 2018 Oakland Equity Indicators Report, the 2020 Racial Equity Impact Assessment and Implementation Guide for Oakland’s 2030 Equitable Climate Action Plan (ECAP), and other previous studies that have laid the foundation to ensure that the City integrates equity and social justice into its policies, practices, and actions.

In 2016, the City established the Department of Race and Equity to advance racial equity, with a mission “to create a city where diversity has been maintained, racial disparities have been eliminated, and racial equity has been achieved.”[^p10-7] The Department of Race and Equity is particularly concerned with making a difference in the determinants of equity that lead to creation of a fair and just society – including community economic development, community and public safety, the law and justice system, early childhood development, education, equity in City practices, food systems, health and human services, healthy built and natural environments, housing, job training and job opportunities, neighborhoods, and parks and natural resources. The Department of Race and Equity’s goals are:

1. Eliminate systemic causes of racial disparities in City government;
2. Promote inclusion and full participation for all residents of the city; and
3. Reduce race-based disparities in Oakland’s communities.

[^p10-4]: Leyva, Connie M. SB-1000 Land use: general plans: safety and environmental justice., Government Code § 65302 (2016). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1000
[^p10-5]: California Environmental Justice Alliance/PlaceWorks, SB 1000 Implementation Toolkit: Planning for Healthy Communities, October 2017, available for download at http://www.caleja.org/sb1000-toolkit.
[^p10-6]: Oakland Municipal Code Section 2.29.170.1
[^p10-7]: City of Oakland, “Learn More About the Department of Race and Equity,” January 20, 2021, https://www.oaklandca.gov/resources/race-matters, accessed February 2022.

<!-- page 11 -->
These goals are based on the following race and equity working assumptions. These assumptions are adapted from the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Race Matters Toolkit,[^p11-8] and lay the framework for the Department of Race and Equity’s Race and Equity Change Process.[^p11-9]

* Race matters: Almost every indicator of well-being shows troubling disparities by race.
* Disparities are created and maintained through institutionalized policies and practices that contain barriers to opportunity.
* It’s possible, and only possible, to close equity gaps by using strategies determined through an intentional focus on racial disparities and their root causes.
* If opportunities in all key areas of well-being are equitable, then equitable results will follow.
* Given the right message, analysis, and tools, people will work toward racial equity.

The City recognizes that determinants of equity are the drivers of achieving a fair and just society. Access to the determinants of equity is necessary to have equity for all people regardless of race, class, gender, or language spoken. Inequities are created when barriers exist that prevent individuals and communities from accessing these conditions and reaching their full potential.

### RELATIONSHIP TO OAKLAND’S GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS

The City of Oakland’s General Plan Update project is being undertaken in two phases. Phase 1 focuses on the creation of this new EJ Element, as well as updates to the Housing and Safety Elements, and preparation of a Racial Equity Impact Assessment, Zoning Code and Map update. Subsequently, Phase 2 will update the Land Use and Transportation; Open Space, Conservation and Recreation; and Noise Elements, as well as create a new Infrastructure and Facilities Element. Phase 2 is slated to be completed by 2025.

Because environmental justice topics touch all aspects of Oaklanders’ daily lives, the EJ Element serves as a foundational roadmap to the city becoming a more equitable and healthier place for all. The EJ Element will also inform and give direction to all other elements. The following **Table EJ-1** illustrates the EJ topics included in Phase 1 elements and those that will inform policies in the Phase 2 elements. This means Phase 2 is an opportunity to develop additional implementation actions and programs, as well as conduct more in-depth analysis on EJ issues as they relate to the Phase 2 elements and refine the policies in the EJ Element with further study. For example, this Element identifies community needs for additional healthy food outlets, solutions to address pedestrian collisions, and ways to reduce impacts of industrial pollution. In addition to the goals and policies in this EJ Element, the Land Use and Transportation Element could include several additional policies and actions to incentivize grocery store development, improve roadway safety through specific design, and address land use compatibility to protect residents and reduce pollution.

While the EJ Element will be adopted in Phase 1, any additional EJ issues or solutions that arise during Phase 2 can be addressed through follow-up amendments to the EJ Element in Phase 2.

<<FIGURE>>

[^p11-8]: The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Race Matters Toolkit: User’s Guide, December 12, 2006, https://assets.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/aecf-racemattersusersguide-2006.pdf.
[^p11-9]: City of Oakland, “Race & Equity Change Process,” August 31, 2018 (last updated January 20, 2021): https://www.oaklandca.gov/resources/race-equity-theory-of-change, accessed December 2022.

<!-- page 12 -->
### Table EJ-1: Relationship of other Element Policies to Environmental Justice Topic Areas

| ELEMENT | SAFE AND SANITARY HOUSING | PUBLIC FACILITIES AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY | HEALTHY FOOD ACCESS | AIR QUALITY, WATER QUALITY, AND POLLUTION EXPOSURE | CIVIC ENGAGEMENT, INVESTMENT PRIORITIZATION, AND IMPROVED HEALTH OUTCOMES |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Housing (Phase I)** | • Building more affordable housing<br>• Addressing homelessness<br>• Avoiding displacement and keeping people in their homes<br>• Affirmatively furthering fair housing<br>• Improving housing quality issues<br>• Encouraging climate-resilient and earthquake-resilient housing | • Encouraging new affordable housing in higher resource areas | • Encouraging new affordable housing in higher resource areas | • Protecting against smoke and wildfire<br>• Studying options to provide financing for remediation of contaminated sites<br>• Eliminating methane gas combustion in all homes by 2040 | • Protecting residents from displacement<br>• Preserving and improving existing housing stock<br>• Promoting neighborhood stability and health<br>• Provide accountability measures for housing programs |
| **Safety (Phase I)** | • Protecting housing from environmental and human-made hazards | • Improving bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure<br>• Roadway improvements and auto safety<br>• Augmenting urban greening and urban forestry to mitigate flooding, heat, and pollution | • N/A | • Reducing exposure to toxic air contaminants<br>• Protecting the public from hazardous materials<br>• Promoting green infrastructure and climate resilience measures<br>• Addressing climate change inequity | • Encouraging coordination across departments and with community groups to support community safety<br>• Creating a responsive, inclusive emergency response network<br>• Coordinating with existing groups on sea level rise planning |
| **Land Use and Transportation (LUTE) (Phase 2)** | • Finding more locations and facilitating additional housing in Oakland<br>• Creating complete, walkable, bikeable, and transit-accessible neighborhoods, with access to everything people need close to home<br>• Locating homes away from pollution sources | • Making it safer, easier, and more comfortable to walk, bike, and get around without a car<br>• Improving connectivity between important community destinations including public facilities | • Creating incentives, finding more locations, and facilitating food access in Oakland | • Ensuring land use compatibility between polluting uses and sensitive populations<br>• Reducing number of cars on the road, improving other means of getting around | • Shaping economic development and future of jobs<br>• Creating cultural districts/ corridors<br>• Creating complete neighborhoods with access to healthcare and health-promoting services and facilities |

<!-- page 13 -->
### Table EJ-1: Relationship of other Element Policies to Environmental Justice Topic Areas

| ELEMENT | SAFE AND SANITARY HOUSING | PUBLIC FACILITIES AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY | HEALTHY FOOD ACCESS | AIR QUALITY, WATER QUALITY, AND POLLUTION EXPOSURE | CIVIC ENGAGEMENT, INVESTMENT PRIORITIZATION, AND IMPROVED HEALTH OUTCOMES |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation (OSCAR) (Phase 2)** | • Ensuring all housing has adequate, equitable access to open space and recreational facilities | • Creating a comprehensive network of accessible, well-maintained parks and facilities for all neighborhoods | • Supporting and providing access to more community gardens | • Preserving natural spaces and habitat that also supports cleaner air, water, land, and soil | • Ensuring culturally appropriate parks, recreation, and arts programming<br>• Investing in existing parks and recreational facilities in EJ Communities |
| **Noise (Phase 2)** | • Protecting homes from excessive noise and improving community noise environments | • Ensuring public spaces do not experience excessive noise while also supporting community events | • N/A | • Reducing noise pollution and exposure | • Prioritizing investments in EJ Communities that reduce noise |
| **Infrastructure and Facilities (Phase 2)** | • Ensuring homes have adequate, equitable access to quality infrastructure and facilities | • Supporting infrastructure financing mechanism for improvements identified in other elements | • N/A | • Building climate-resilient infrastructure<br>• Adding additional green stormwater infrastructure to the City's storm drainage network to clean and infiltrate stormwater<br>• Reducing embodied carbon in infrastructure and facilities | • Prioritizing infrastructure investments in EJ Communities<br>• Promoting industries and businesses that support a local circular economy, including repair and reuse businesses/activities |

<!-- page 14 -->
### CONNECTION TO VISION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES

The Environmental Justice Element seeks to create a city where all people have a chance to live a healthy and opportunity-filled life, no matter their identity. The purpose of this Element ties closely with the following portions of the General Plan’s Vision Statement:

**We are housed, healthy, and safe.** Oakland has high-quality accessible housing for everyone who needs it, and each person is housed with dignity. Every neighborhood, home, school, and park has clean air and fresh water, and Oakland’s children breathe that fresh, clean air as they run, play, and grow. Cool shade from mature trees, scents of flowers, and sounds of birds chirping and bees buzzing enrich lush residential areas. The city’s many grocery stores, farmer’s markets, and garden farmstands offer fresh, healthy food to nurture tables and bodies in all different cultural traditions. Oakland’s homes and communities have healed from historic violence, and crime-free, clean streets and public spaces are safe for people to walk and linger.

**We see ourselves reflected in Oakland.** Residents shape and craft the City’s processes and outcomes through equitable, transparent, and inclusive processes. The City of Oakland works for its residents, prioritizing their quality-of-life concerns, recognizing and celebrating the contributions of Oakland’s multiple distinct communities of color, including Black, Latinx, Asian, and Indigenous peoples, and actively partnering with community groups and residents. Youth, elders, people with disabilities, immigrants, and people who speak different languages actively participate in government and are empowered to craft a city that meets the needs of all residents; community members can see progress towards their goals through continuous monitoring and feel a sense of ownership of their culturally rich city. The built environment responds to and reflects this richness: its public art, play spaces, and buildings showcase Oakland’s unique diversity and multicultural histories.

<<FIGURE>>

**We support meaningful opportunities for residents and businesses to prosper and contribute.** Oakland is a beautiful city where people want to live and work, with thriving local businesses and a growing equitable economy that offers high-quality, climate-positive jobs for many different skillsets. New businesses are welcome, and Oakland is a hub for entrepreneurs and companies attracted to Oakland’s skilled workforce and its location at the geographic center of the Bay Area. The city is an incubator of new ideas and green solutions, training the next generation of business leaders through robust workforce development programs. Throughout Oakland, flourishing neighborhood commercial streets are lined with trees and greenery, small businesses, restaurants, and services residents patronize daily, and visitors come from all over to enjoy the local food, art, sports, natural environment, and culture.

**We are rooted in Oakland and all neighborhoods have what we need to grow.** Oakland’s public facilities are hubs of community activity, as schools, libraries, parks, and open spaces spark connections and inspiration and bring people together for learning, play, growth, and resilience. Children play in clean, safe and accessible parks and spend summers splashing in sparkling lakes, pools, and beaches. Neighborhoods thrive as small villages within the city, where neighbors can support each other, children grow up, elders age in place, and those that were displaced return to their communities. Diverse arts and culture flourish in Oakland, from art and music to food and festivals, and a sense of belonging permeates public spaces filled with gatherings, celebration, and wellness. As residents walk down the street they can hear many languages, see different places of worship, and feel the swell of many people coming together to build something greater. The City’s roots grow stronger every day.

<!-- page 15 -->
The EJ Element furthers the following General Plan Guiding Principles:

**We are housed, healthy, and safe.**

1. Facilitate housing production and maintenance throughout Oakland to meet the housing needs of people at all income levels including low- and very-low incomes, workforce and moderate-income households, and shelter for the unhoused.
2. Ensure that every home, neighborhood, school, and park has clean air, water, and land.
3. End community violence and crime through a collaborative and community-led public health approach to violence and healing.
4. Design streets that are safe for walking, biking, rolling, and playing.
5. Ensure that people have access to fresh food, water, and restrooms.
6. Foster quiet neighborhoods that are not impacted by excessive noise from streets, highways, and machinery.

**We see ourselves reflected in Oakland.**

7. Use equity and results-based accountability to drive decision-making and investments in Oakland, working to overcome intentional and unintentional barriers to fairness, justice, and opportunity.
8. Co-develop solutions with community groups, community members, and the Ohlone people, such that all people of Oakland feel ownership of the city.
9. Fully integrate youth, elders, and persons with disabilities into the community, ensuring that they can access resources and represent their own interests.

**We support meaningful opportunities for residents and businesses to prosper and contribute.**

10. Promote a thriving and sustainable economy that attracts and retains a diversity of jobs and future-oriented industries that provide opportunities for all Oaklanders.
11. Foster local small businesses as the heartbeat of Oakland.

**We are rooted in Oakland and our roots run deep.**

12. Strengthen schools, libraries, childcare, and community spaces to support, inspire, and partner with families.
13. Cultivate lush active parks, recreation areas, and quiet green spaces that are accessible, safe, clean, drought-resistant, and well-maintained.
14. Foster Oakland’s neighborhoods as villages within the city that enrich residents with resources, culture, and strong social ties.
15. Work toward a reversal of historic and ongoing displacement.
16. Promote Oakland’s diverse cultural richness, allowing it to thrive and grow through its people, music, gardens, art, history, murals, languages, food, and festivals.

## 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PLANNING PROCESS

### ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND RACIAL EQUITY BASELINE REPORT

The City of Oakland prepared an Environmental Justice and Racial Equity Baseline (EJ Baseline Report) to identify and delineate existing social, economic, and environmental disparities by race and geography that can be influenced directly or indirectly by the General Plan. The findings of the EJ Baseline Report serve to establish a baseline of existing conditions pertaining to environmental justice and racial equity to inform conversations throughout the General Plan Update process between City staff and members of the public, particularly those in communities most impacted by racial inequities that make them vulnerable to the consequences of climate change and other environmental effects.

The EJ Baseline Report is consistent with Oakland’s Results-Based Accountability framework, “a disciplined way of thinking and taking action” to create measurable change in people’s lives. “Results-Based Accountability” is a data-driven decision-making process oriented toward actionable outcomes. This framework starts by defining desired results or goals and works backwards, step by step, toward those means to set a clear path to achieve those outcomes. Indicators measure the extent to which a result is being achieved and help keep track of the City’s progress over time.

<!-- page 16 -->
The Results-Based Accountability framework is an important aspect of the City’s Race and Equity Change Process, which requires establishing baseline disparity data, targets/benchmarks, and processes to track and report outcomes. The EJ Baseline Report synthesizes recent efforts to paint a comprehensive picture of where the City currently stands along its trajectory toward environmental justice and racial equity and helps to define where policies in the EJ Element can further those objectives.

### EJ ELEMENT RACIAL EQUITY IMPACT ANALYSIS

The City of Oakland conducts a racial equity impact analysis (REIA) alongside all emerging or revised plans and policies to support development of equitable, concrete, data-driven, outcome-oriented, and problem-solving actions. The REIA educates about racial disparities; informs about root causes of disparities; engages impacted communities; provides a set of specific recommendations for achieving equitable outcomes; and includes a framework for evaluating the equity impacts of implementation over time.

<<FIGURE>>

A REIA has been prepared in parallel with the EJ Element to guide practices and inform policies that effectively advance racial equity in Oakland. The first stage of the EJ Element REIA focused on the SB 1000 Screening Analysis methodology and results of the EJ Baseline Report. The assessment grades the indicators included in the screening analysis from A, most equitable, to F, most disparate/inequitable to highlight the issues with the most racially disparate outcomes and the neighborhoods facing the greatest disparities within each issue. Applying the REIA to the screening analysis resulted in recommendations for refining the methodology and adjusting indicators to better reflect:

*   The City’s top equity issues,
*   Community priorities that have been identified through the outreach process,
*   Actionable metrics that directly inform planning decisions, and
*   Availability of data.

Further, the REIA and recommendations helped determine a more suitable threshold for identifying EJ Communities, as discussed in the following section.

### REVISION OF EJ COMMUNITIES MAPPING

Identifying low-income communities most impacted by environmental justice issues (EJ Communities) is a core component of SB 1000 and one of the primary objectives of an EJ Element. The EJ Baseline Report was an important first step in presenting a preliminary screening methodology to identify EJ Communities. This kicked off the iterative process of modifying and refining the methodology to ensure that the final EJ Communities map in this Element is representative of the on-the-ground conditions people experience in their daily lives. In addition, the methodology has been revised using the recommendations from the REIA (described above). The changes that have been incorporated into the final analysis include minor adjustment or replacement of certain indicators from the preliminary screening analysis in the EJ Baseline Report, addition of new indicators, restructuring of indicators into new categories or topics, and removal of two indicators due to data inconsistencies. Section 2.3: Identifying Environmental Justice Communities describes the final methodology and provides a full discussion of the changes that were made to the indicators. A full description of the final indicators is included in **Appendix A**.

In addition, the criteria and threshold for identifying EJ Communities were expanded to increase the final number of EJ Communities. Using recommendations from the REIA and based on community feedback, including from the West Oakland Community Action Plan (WOCAP) Steering Committee, EJ communities include: (1) census tracts in the top quartile (25 percent) of the screening methodology composite score; (2) census tracts in the top decile (10 percent) of the Pollution Burden, Climate Change, Sensitive Population, and Built Environment category scores; and (3) any Disadvantaged Communities designated by CalEPA pursuant to SB 535. More than one of these criteria may apply to an EJ Community. The results of the EJ Communities mapping process are presented in Section 2.3: Identifying Environmental Justice Communities.

**Note:** The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), in partnership with Communities for a Better Environment and community members from East Oakland, initiated the first Community Steering Committee meeting for the East Oakland AB 617 Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP) process on September 15, 2022. The committee will meet monthly to develop a CERP to improve air quality and public health in the impacted communities of East Oakland. Once the community boundary for the East Oakland CERP is defined by the committee, the EJ Communities Map will be updated to include those communities.

<!-- page 17 -->
### Environmental Justice Communities: A Note on Terminology

The State defines “disadvantaged communities” as “an area identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency, pursuant to Section 39711 of the Health and Safety Code, or an area that is a low-income area that is disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation.”

In this EJ Element, we opt to use the term “Environmental Justice Communities” to refer to “disadvantaged communities.”

Although “Environmental Justice Communities” are identified and mapped in the EJ Element to help the City focus on where and how to implement EJ policies and actions, this distinction does not mean EJ issues do not exist in communities elsewhere in the city. The term “EJ Communities” is used in this Element to refer only to census tracts that have been identified as EJ Communities through the SB 1000[^p17-1] screening analysis. Communities that experience EJ issues (and may or may not be an EJ Community) are separately referred to as “impacted communities” in this Element.

## 1.3 COMMUNITY OUTREACH

Proactive and meaningful community engagement from the start of a planning process to the implementation of goals and policies is critical to achieving the goals of environmental justice. A key environmental justice (EJ) principle is involving the communities most impacted by environmental justice issues, and those who could be adversely impacted from policy implementation, so that they can have a say in the decisions that impact their health and well-being. Community engagement in developing this Element included a range of activities intended to meet people where they were. In many instances, community members shared their firsthand knowledge of environmental issues in their neighborhoods, as well as existing community-led efforts and strategies to address these issues. Engagement activities included:

* **Community Organization Interviews.** Equity facilitators from E/J Solutions interviewed 12 environmental justice advocacy organizations for input on draft actions and the Environmental Justice Element’s topic areas of focus:
  1. Asian Pacific Environmental Network (APEN)
  2. Communities for a Better Environment (CBE)
  3. Cocina del Corazón
  4. The Greenlining Institute (GLI)
  5. New Voices Are Rising (NVR)
  6. Oakland Parks & Recreation Foundation (OPRF)
  7. Oakland Climate Action Coalition (OCAC)
  8. Saba Grocers Initiative
  9. Save the Bay (STB)
  10. Sugar Freedom Project (SFB)
  11. The Village in Oakland (The Village)
  12. West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project (WOEIP)

<<FIGURE>>

[^p17-1]: Senate Bill 1000 (Leyva, 2016)

<!-- page 18 -->
*   **Neighborhood Workshops.** On April 30 and May 28, 2022, staff held General Plan open houses in East and West Oakland. At the East Oakland workshop, participants discussed environmental justice concerns in small groups with staff or added sticky notes to boards addressing environmental justice, safety, and housing. At the West Oakland workshop, participants marked up maps with stickers representing key environmental justice issues and discussed EJ issues in small groups with a facilitator.

*   **EJ Hub and Online Survey.** City staff created an online, interactive, educational platform (“GPU Environmental Justice Hub” or “EJ Hub”) to support community engagement and data ground-truthing process for the EJ Element. The EJ Hub showcases information from the EJ and Racial Equity Baseline through an interactive and engaging platform. Using the EJ Hub, residents explored the initial draft Map of Potential Environmental Justice Communities, shared their visions for a healthy neighborhood, and documented local environmental justice issues and solutions. The EJ Hub can be accessed here: *https://arcg.is/00iuLT*

*   **Community Tours.** On August 29, 2022, Ms. Margaret Gordon, Co-founder and Co-director, and Brian Beveridge, Co-director, of the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project (WOEIP), led the planning team on a tour of West Oakland, a special and instructive opportunity to learn from WOEIP’s extensive community knowledge of environmental justice conditions in West Oakland.

*   **Cultural Events and Pop-Ups.** Between November 2021 to March 2023, the GPU team conducted community events in Eastmont, Fruitvale, San Antonio, Chinatown, West Oakland porch chats, Hoover Elementary in West Oakland, and at the Oakland Asian Cultural Center’s (OACC) Asian Pacific New Year Celebration and the Black Joy parade. Information about these events can be found on the General Plan Update website (*https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/meetings-and-events*) and the community engagement collaborative’s website (*https://www.deeplyrooted510.org/*). Eleven organizations within the collaborative have hosted and conducted community engagement and outreach with their networks at large outdoor or virtual events and pop-ups

<<FIGURE>>

in addition to through social media, with a focus on reaching individuals from communities of color.

*   **Equity Working Group.** The Equity Working Group (EWG) is comprised of individuals who have been highly engaged in Oakland housing, safety and environmental justice, land use issues and solutions. The EWG met 9 times to provide input on the 2023-2031 Housing Element. At 17 meetings throughout 2022, the EWG discussed equity considerations for the Safety and EJ elements. See *https://www.deeplyrooted510.org/ewg* for more information.

*   **Stakeholder Interviews.** At eight discussion groups held in May 2022, representatives from over 50 agencies, businesses, and community groups participated in small group discussions with project staff.

*   **Neighborhood Councils.** Staff are working with Neighborhood Service Coordinators to present and receive feedback at Neighborhood Council (NC) meetings on topics including housing, environmental justice, industrial lands, and safety and natural hazards.

Some of the key themes from community outreach included the following:

*   **Industrial Land Use and Air Pollution.** One of the most pressing environmental justice issues in Oakland is the disproportionate pollution burden that West and East Oakland neighborhoods face, largely due to proximity to the Port of Oakland, industrial land, and its associated uses, such as truck transport. Coupled with Oakland’s economic history, these land use patterns were created by zoning choices, racial exclusion, and urban renewal. This has resulted in a legacy of polluting uses right next to sensitive uses such as homes, schools, and parks. In times of growing wildfire threat, smoke has also become another burden that adds to existing pollution. A growing body of research indicates that these polluting industrial land uses increase rates of asthma, cancer, and other health issues, as well as decreased life expectancy. The impacted communities are disproportionately communities of color. Related to industrial land uses, input also indicated a lack of enforcement of nonconforming or unpermitted uses, desire for change to zoning or shortening of conditional use permitting timelines, and recommendations for a moratorium on polluting facilities, phasing out certain uses, urban greening, greener employment replacements for these industries, and provision of air filters for existing neighbors. Many of the strategies suggested have greenhouse gas reduction and climate resiliency co-benefits.

*   **Exposure to Toxics and Hazardous Substances.** Even after industrial land uses are discontinued, they may leave behind toxic chemicals and other hazardous substances. There are several Superfund or brownfield sites throughout areas of West Oakland as well as along I-880 that are either undergoing or still require cleanup, known as “remediation.” Active remediation may directly expose on-site and nearby inhabitants to hazardous substances through land, air, and water contamination. Such activities and intermediary uses of Superfund and brownfield sites should consider both the short- and long-term potential for harmful health effects on current and future users.

<!-- page 19 -->
<<FIGURE>>

*   **Transportation Safety and Noise.** Urban renewal and past land use decisions have also resulted in disproportionate impacts due to freeways and railroads. I-880 and I-980 differ vastly from I-580 in terms of truck traffic and subsequent pollution and road safety because of decisions regarding goods movement that were largely influenced by the more affluent residents living in the hills. Community members voiced concerns about pedestrian and bicyclist safety in neighborhoods near I-880 and I-980, citing traffic collision hot spots like Chinatown as places that need immediate improvement. In addition to air pollution emitted by vehicles along these roadways, noise pollution is another key concern impacting the communities living near freeways and railroads.

*   **Housing Issues.** Some of the top housing issues identified by community members included the homelessness crisis, housing quality issues, and housing affordability. Groups suggested a wide variety of strategies to house the unhoused community, including treating unhoused populations with dignity; stopping the current encampment management policy; facilitating more flexible building types, temporary units, permanent supportive housing, RVs/safe parking zones, tiny homes, manufactured housing; and working with the unhoused community to understand their needs and priorities. The disproportionate representation of Black Oaklanders among unhoused individuals was also emphasized as a key equity issue. Producing new affordable and deeply affordable housing options was identified as a key strategy to prevent displacement. Groups discussed a wide range of strategies to build more inclusive neighborhoods and add more affordable housing units in Oakland, including legalizing existing nonconforming housing units, adopting inclusionary zoning, increasing density in primarily single-family areas such as Rockridge, supporting homeowners in the construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), acquiring land to build new permanently affordable housing and community land trust-managed projects, and reducing the amount of discretionary review required for new housing projects. Finally, many Oaklanders described facing housing quality issues such as overcrowding and unsafe building conditions, as well as lack of maintenance resulting from landlord neglect, lack of funds for upkeep, or fear of reporting these issues. Inequitable lead paint risks were also identified as part of the 2021 Racial Equity Impact Analysis: Eliminating Lead Paint Hazards in Oakland and Alameda County. Community-recommended strategies to address these issues included programs/grants to landlords and homeowners to make repairs; universal design improvements to allow all Oaklanders to remain in their homes as they age and to help mobility-impaired residents; and tax credits or programs to address other housing habitability concerns such as indoor air quality. Other issues and recommended strategies are summarized in Chapter 2 of the 2023-2031 Housing Element.

*   **Equitable Climate Resilience.** Oakland’s frontline communities are hit first and worst by environmental injustice and the climate crisis. Although these communities vary in vulnerability to climate issues such as sea level rise, flooding, and energy cost burden, many of these same people and places experience the compounded effect of other environmental justice issues such as lack of access to healthy food, affordable homes, or well-maintained parks. Several community members have emphasized that there is immediate need to implement solutions that strengthen frontline communities’ climate resilience.

*   **Gentrification and Displacement.** Concerns about gentrification and displacement associated with new investment were top of mind for many Oaklanders, especially in light of a significant loss (30 percent) of Oakland’s Black population from 2000 to 2019. People who have generational roots in Oakland have been displaced but continue to come to Oakland to work and be with community. While displacement issues relative to housing costs are discussed in the Housing Element, community members also expressed alarm at displacement of Oakland’s cultural institutions and local businesses, an essential part of Oakland’s culture. Others indicated that this displacement was not new; for example in West Oakland, construction of the BART Station, post office distribution center, and freeway construction destroyed existing black businesses along the 7th Street corridor. Several community members suggested providing targeted support to existing small businesses, and establishing cultural or arts districts to prioritize, promote, and preserve Oakland’s culture.

*   **Cultural Spaces and Art.** Preservation of community culture and diversity was one of the most frequently referenced goals among community members. More than half of all Oakland Visioning Survey respondents mentioned Oakland’s diversity—including race, culture, economics, gender, neighborhoods, and perspectives—as one of its greatest strengths, and around a quarter of respondents also mentioned the Oakland’s wealth in terms of culture, including diversity in art, music and creative spirit. Focus groups and popup interview input also reflect this priority. Oakland is home to a wide array of cultures, and the City seeks to ensure that these diverse practices, expression,

<!-- page 20 -->
and creativity are seen, respected, and supported. A central goal of environmental justice is to allow everyone to prosper in a healthy community, not by removing the differences between the city’s communities but rather, by fostering welcoming environments for people of all identities and backgrounds to thrive. Community members recommended that the City promote and/or support public and community spaces, programs, and events for cultural learning and acceptance throughout Oakland, and create policies that support Oakland artists, culture makers, and organizations.

* **Illegal Dumping and Lack of Public Works Maintenance.** Community input also indicated that presence of trash, blight and illegal dumping, and infrequent trash collection and other lack of maintenance were other important environmental justice issues. Beyond being a visual eyesore, community members indicated that illegal dumping has larger public health consequences, forcing some to veer off sidewalks into dangerous roadways, raising concerns about hazardous materials, blocking creeks and worsening flooding, starting fires, and leading to general feelings of neglect and abandonment by the City. Illegal dumpers often target and leave waste in homeless encampments, where unhoused residents may be less likely to report for fear of “sweeps.” Illegal dumping and lack of waste receptacles or maintenance in public areas such as parks and sidewalks also reduce people’s ability to enjoy public spaces and to access them for physical activity that promotes health and well-being. Recommended strategies included more stringent enforcement of illegal dumping, more frequent pickup in “hot spots,” amnesty programs such as free disposal days for bulky and hazardous waste, and incentives for recycling, education, and community ambassador programs.

* **Pedestrian and Bicyclist Comfort and Safety.** Some community members indicated that they or someone they knew had been involved in a collision with a vehicle as a pedestrian or bicyclist. Others noted that roads in some areas are poorly maintained and suffer potholes. Potential solutions included a suite of transportation improvements, including speed bumps, more bike lanes and stations, improved public transit, street improvements to make walking and biking safer, reducing car traffic overall, and maintaining roads.

* **Need for Health-Promoting Resources in Neighborhoods.** Many community members pointed out the inequitable investment in community health assets, such as high-quality parks, clean and well-maintained public restrooms, schools, and community facilities; local retail that meets daily needs; arts and cultural facilities; affordable and quality housing; and accessible healthcare. They also pointed to inequitable distribution of health harms, such as polluting facilities, proximity to freeways or truck routes, and illegal dumping. Consistent with SB 1000 guidance and the City’s racial equity goals, community members emphasized that City improvements, investments, and policies should specifically focus on prioritizing needs of communities that have suffered the most harm due to past planning decisions.

* **Tree Canopy and Green Infrastructure.** The importance of addressing equity in Oakland’s urban tree canopy was emphasized, as well as the urban forest’s role in mitigating negative effects of climate change. Urban forestry resources have many co-benefits including providing shade and reducing urban heat, filtration of some air pollutants, serving as visual and sound buffers, supporting natural habitats and ecosystems, and boosting economic value of neighborhoods. Tree canopy can vary substantially due to tree species, age, and maintenance. Lack of proper maintenance can hinder a tree’s ability to provide its many benefits. Additionally, urban greening projects have been identified as the highest priority in the East Oakland Neighborhoods Initiative Community Plan. Recommended considerations include development of a maintenance plan for all public trees along streets and sidewalks and in parks, as well as expansion of urban greening projects in EJ Communities, and equitable implementation of the Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) Plan.[^p20-10]

* **Food Access.** An absence of affordable options for healthy, nutritious food in combination with a concentration of retailers such as liquor stores and fast food outlets that do not offer such choices can lead to an unhealthy food environment that limits the ability to make healthy food choices. The high cost of food was identified as one of the biggest barriers to good nutrition. Community members voiced a need for an equitable distribution of affordable grocery stores, farmers markets, and community gardens to enable food sovereignty in all neighborhoods. Participants also spoke of need to support smaller independent grocers, smaller vendors, and other organizations who are already located in communities underserved by food retail.

* **Accountability and Community Empowerment.** While Oakland has made strides in addressing racial equity and adopting policy to remedy environmental justice issues, many community members felt like the City could do better in building and maintaining relationships with community groups. Some felt distrustful that an institution that perpetuated past harms would seek to truly turn community input into action. Others emphasized the importance of developing solutions with community, rather than just *for* the community, as a power-building mechanism. Solutions included active, paid partnerships with community organizations; feedback loops during outreach processes that communicate any current City limitations and identify actions to reduce/remove these barriers; and mechanisms to track how effective policies are and how they are being implemented.

<<FIGURE>>

[^p20-10]: The City of Oakland adopted the Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan (https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Oakland-GSI-Plan-Final-20190930_sm.pdf) in 2019 to support the countywide Clean Water Program that seeks to protect and restore Oakland’s watersheds. The plan guides designs and practices to reduce the volume of stormwater runoff, mitigate minor localized flooding risk, provide urban greening benefits, and improve water quality.

<!-- page 21 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# 2. Environmental Racism and Health Inequities in Oakland

### 2.1 HISTORICAL CONTEXT / ROOT CAUSES

#### ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM AS A HISTORICAL PROCESS

Past land use planning and zoning decisions have played a large role in shaping current environmental justice problems. Setting a course from the present to the future calls for an understanding of our current conditions, which in turn requires an understanding of historical trends in population change, land use, housing, economic opportunity, transportation, and other factors that have made Oakland the city it is today.

Oakland was founded in 1852[^p21-1] on unceded land of the Chochenyo-speaking Ohlone people, the native stewards of the land dating back thousands of years. After arrival of Spanish missionaries in the 1760s, Ohlone peoples were forced into labor camps at missions and baptized into the Catholic faith. During and after this time, Oakland expanded and urbanized at the further expense of the Ohlone people, their sacred sites, tribal cultural preservation, and tribal political status.[^p21-1] Nevertheless, this land continues to be of great importance to the Ohlone people.[^p21-2]

Disparities in social, physical, and economic environments and conditions continued in eras of industrial growth, which brought about significant change to the urban environment and increased residential segregation. Oakland was historically a destination for working people and immigrants due to the abundant industrial jobs and relatively affordable neighborhoods. Many neighborhoods often became cultural and ethnic enclaves when residents of color were barred from living in other parts of the city by segregationist policies, enforced with violence.

In Oakland, as in cities across the nation, communities of color were impacted by the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s federal housing redlining policy, the practice of identifying majority-white areas as sound and profitable real estate investments and heavily subsidizing them through the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), while simultaneously refusing to insure mortgages in and near majority-Black neighborhoods and other communities of color. These areas were rated as “D”, or “Hazardous,” and color-coded as red on the infamous “Residential Security” maps created by the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC). Residents of these “redlined” neighborhoods, including West Oakland and East Oakland, were denied access to credit, resulting in a cycle of disinvestment and poverty and creating the circumstances for long-term racial segregation. To prevent their own neighborhoods from being redlined, majority-white private developers, realtors, and homeowners were encouraged to write racially restrictive covenants into their deeds that further inhibited Black residents and other residents of color from moving into these areas.

Research shows that neighborhoods that were historically redlined are today more likely to suffer greater poverty, increased heat, lower life expectancy, higher incidences of chronic diseases, increased prevalence of poor mental health, and lower life expectancy at birth.[^p21-3]

***

[^p21-1]: Mitchell Schwarzer, Hella Town: Oakland’s History of Development and Disruption, (Oakland: University of California Press, 2021).
[^p21-2]: Lisjan (Ohlone) History and Territory. Sogorea Te’ Land Trust. Accessed at https://sogoreate-landtrust.org/lisjan-history-and-territory/.
[^p21-3]: The Lasting Impact of Historic “Redlining” on Neighborhood Health: Higher Prevalence of Covid-19 Risk Factors (Washington, D.C.: National Community Reinvestment Coalition, 2020). https://ncrc.org/holc-health/

<!-- page 22 -->
### Using Redlining to Help Identify EJ Communities

The City can begin to redress the inequities brought about by discriminatory actions and practices by acknowledging the harm they have caused and perhaps more importantly, by recognizing that they continue to cause harm especially to low-income communities and people of color. For this reason, redlining is an indicator used in the SB 1000 Screening Analysis methodology to help identify EJ Communities in Oakland. Specifically, the methodology uses the grades that the Home Owners Loan Corporation assigned to various neighborhoods throughout Oakland in the 1930s to compare the places that benefited most from their grade A (“Desirable”, shown in green on the image to the right) versus the areas that continue to face the repercussions of redlining (grade D, “Hazardous”, shown in red on the image to the right).

Industrial growth during the World War II era further established Oakland as a hub for economic opportunity and jobs, which attracted an influx of Black and African American populations from the South (one of the waves of “Black migration”), many of whom settled in neighborhoods near their jobs, such as by the railroad in West Oakland. Following the war, federal policies like the GI Bill sponsored returning white veterans to settle into suburbs by providing low interest mortgages and loans, enabling what is known as “white flight.” These same financial incentives were denied to veterans of color, and the continued practice of redlining and racially restrictive covenants further delineated economic disparity and racial segregation.[^p22-4]

<<FIGURE>>

In the 1950s, eminent domain, a process in which local redevelopment agencies condemned areas as “blighted” and seized properties from homeowners and tenants to facilitate demolition, severely undermined and led to drastic displacement in major centers of Black culture and community, such as West Oakland, in addition to other historic communities settled in the 19th century such as Chinatown. These communities were devastated in the 1950s and 1960s by the demolition and construction associated with freeways, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) facilities, and urban renewal. When neighborhoods were divided, families lost their homes, businesses closed, and neighbors left – all of which undermined a community’s ability to thrive.[^p22-5]

### Spotlight: Urban Renewal in West Oakland

By 1958, the Oakland Planning Commission had declared that all of West Oakland was blighted. This action set the stage for the displacement and reconstruction of predominantly Black neighborhoods. Many West Oakland residents did experience poor housing conditions. However, these conditions directly resulted from systemic racism, disinvestment, and discriminatory lending practices that restricted access to home improvement and maintenance loans.[^p22-6]

In West Oakland alone, government agencies used eminent domain to build the West Oakland Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station, elevated tracks along 7th Street, three major interstate highways (the Nimitz/I-880, Grove Shafter/I-980, and MacArthur/I-580), and a sizeable postal facility. While the plans for the highways were designed by the State Department of Public Works, the Oakland City Council selected the exact routes. Clearing land for those projects destroyed entire blocks of homes and thriving commercial districts, displacing many residents and small business owners permanently.[^p22-7]

About 8,000 housing units were razed in West Oakland between 1960 and 1966, contributing to the displacement of nearly 14,000 low-income residents from this historic center of Black culture and community.[^p22-8]

[^p22-4]: Just Cities, East Oakland Displacement Status and Impacts from the BRT Project Summary: A Racial Equity Planning and Policy Justice Report for OakDOT’s East Oakland Mobility Action Plan, June 2021, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sGCZt1uGPaFLroOm8BkGczV_vXOGsFTk/view, accessed March 16, 2022.
[^p22-5]: Montojo, Nicole, Eli Moore, and Nicole Mauri. “Roots, Race, & Place: A History of Racially Exclusionary Housing in the San Francisco Bay Area.” Berkeley, CA: Othering and Belonging Institute, 2019. https://belonging.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace#footnote197_73poucc.
[^p22-6]: Montojo, Nicole, Eli Moore, and Nicole Mauri. “Roots, Race, & Place: A History of Racially Exclusionary Housing in the San Francisco Bay Area.” Berkeley, CA: Othering and Belonging Institute, 2019. https://belonging.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace#footnote197_73poucc.
[^p22-7]: Ibid.
[^p22-8]: Brandi T. Summers, “Untimely Futures,” Places Journal, November 2021. Accessed 02 Oct 2022. https://doi.org/10.22269/211109

<!-- page 23 -->
While greater areas of East and North Oakland became open to Black, Hispanic/Latinx, and Asian families beginning in the 1950s, many of these same areas were experiencing disinvestment and deterioration of housing and public spaces, along with a massive loss of employment in nearby industrial sectors. This disinvestment led to innumerable abandoned and underutilized business properties along Oakland’s main corridors, which suffered greatly as purchasing power fell and consumers, particularly wealthier white residents, went elsewhere to live and shop.

Lack of investment was Oakland’s dominant economic story from the 1950s into the 1990s. Through waves of plant and store closures and redevelopment sites standing vacant for decades after demolition, the City searched for private investment wherever it could be found. Most of the major projects that were built, whether downtown high-rises or in transportation infrastructure, were led by the public sector. At the same time, disinvestment in Oakland’s flatlands neighborhoods became apparent in the high levels of abandonment of single-family homes in the 1970s, deterioration of public housing developments, persistent redlining, and denial of loans or insurance in communities of color. This period of public and private disinvestment also reflected in communities’ physical and social infrastructure—such as crumbling streets, under-resourced schools, lack of jobs, limited healthcare infrastructure, and increases in crime—alongside growing social unrest. Contemporary hardship and tensions escalated as serious health problems were sensationalized by the War on Drugs and the crack cocaine epidemic that disproportionately targeted Black Oaklanders.[^p23-9],[^p23-10] During this period, resistance to oppression also shaped the city, and community groups born in the 1960s such as the Black Panther Party, Oakland Community Organizations (OCO), Unity Council, Intertribal Friendship House, and many others continued to organize and demand protections and equal access to jobs, housing, employment, transportation and services.[^p23-11]

Since the late 1990s, Oakland has seen an increase in real estate investment, which has had both positive and negative effects. In the years leading up to the 2008 housing crash and Great Recession, banks engaged in a process referred to as “reverse redlining” through which predatory lending practices and subprime loans were targeted in the same neighborhoods that were once marked as off-limits for borrowers.[^p23-12] This resulted in waves of foreclosures in East and West Oakland. A significant number of these foreclosed properties were then acquired by investors, and once-affordable and stable homes were flipped overnight into market-rate rentals.

An influx of private capital, partly due to efforts like the City’s 10K Initiative to revitalize the urban core, has reinvigorated downtown and uptown.[^p23-13] At the same time, rising housing prices and a lack of new affordable options created waves of residential and commercial gentrification, especially in North and West Oakland and Chinatown, with a growing pattern of displacement in East Oakland.[^p23-14] Massive regional job growth, particularly in the technology sector, coupled with inadequate housing supply in other cities, sent waves of new residents to the East Bay in search of more affordable homes.[^p23-15] The impacts of the lack of regional housing supply rippled through other residential areas of the city, where communities of color faced greater vulnerability to rising housing costs than white residents.[^p23-16]

### Types of Neighborhood Change: Gentrification and Displacement

The relationship between gentrification and displacement is complex.

**Gentrification** is a type of neighborhood change that occurs when new investments in a historically disinvested neighborhood lead to socioeconomic change.[^p23-17] When policies and community involvement adequately support the process, these investments can be a positive force of change such as more housing, increased home values for those who are able to be homeowners, and improved amenities like street trees and lighting that enhance safety and comfort in public spaces. Gentrification can also be a negative force, however, when the economic and cultural changes that come with gentrification make existing residents and local businesses unable to afford increased taxes or feel uncomfortable or unwelcome among new neighbors.

**Displacement**, or the forced relocation of residents and businesses,[^p23-18] can occur when lack of investment in sufficient housing in neighborhoods creates competitive pressure that leads new residents to displace existing ones rather than move into new homes. There are also different types of displacement, as explained by the Uprooted Project[^p23-19]:

* Direct displacement: Residents can no longer afford to remain in their homes due to rising housing costs or other actions like lease non-renewals, evictions, landlords not maintaining homes, etc.
* Indirect displacement: Units being vacated by low-income residents are no longer affordable to other low-income households (also known as ‘exclusionary displacement’).
* Cultural displacement: Changes in the aspects of a neighborhood that have provided long-time residents with a sense of belonging and allowed residents to live their lives in familiar ways.

[^p23-9]: King, Ryan. "Disparity by Geography: The War on Drugs in America's Cities." The Sentencing Project, 1 May 2008, https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Disparity-by-Geography-The-War-on-Drugs-in-Americas-Cities.pdf
[^p23-10]: Fryer, Roland G. Jr., et al. "Measuring Crack cocaine and its Impact." Economic inquiry, Apr. 2006, scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/fhlm_crack_cocain_0.pdf
[^p23-11]: Zinn, Howard (2003). A Peoples History of the United States. Haper-Collins. P. 126-210. ISBN-0-06052842-7
[^p23-12]: "East Oakland Displacement Status and Impacts from the BRT Project Summary." n.d. Oakland: Just Cities. https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/EOMAP-Appendix-2.pdf.
[^p23-13]: Ibid.
[^p23-14]: See generally Owens, Darrell, Discourse Lounge, "Where Did All the Black People in Oakland Go?", September 8, 2021. https://darrellowens.substack. com/p/where-did-all-the-black-people-in?utm_source=url, accessed February 21, 2022. See also City of Oakland, "Economic Trends and Prospects, Baseline Analysis for Oakland General Plan", Commute Trends and Workforce Characteristics, pp. 9-16. Access available at https:// https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Economic_Trends_Prospects_EPS_2022.06.02.pdf
[^p23-15]: Mitchell Schwarzer, Hella Town: Oakland's History of Development and Disruption (University of California Press, 2021).
[^p23-16]: "East Oakland Displacement Status and Impacts from the BRT Project Summary." n.d. Oakland: Just Cities. https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/EOMAP-Appendix-2.pdf.
[^p23-17]: Urban Displacement Project, "What Are Gentrification and Displacement," 2021, https://www.urbandisplacement.org/about/what-are-gentrification- and-displacement/, accessed February 17, 2022.
[^p23-18]: Planetizen, "What is Displacement?" Planopedia, https://www.planetizen.com/definition/displacement, accessed February 21, 2023.
[^p23-19]: The Uprooted Project, University of Texas at Austin, https://sites.utexas.edu/gentrificationproject/gentrification-and-displacement-in-austin/, accessed December 16, 2022.

<!-- page 24 -->
The direct and indirect displacement of residents, driven by the inequitable housing market, threatens not only households but the cultural identity and viability of existing communities. Nowhere has the impacts of these changes been more visible than on Oakland’s streets, as homelessness increased 83 percent between 2017 and 2022 (from 2,761 to 5,055 individuals).[^p24-20] The Black/African American racial group has continued to be disproportionately represented, making up about 60 percent of all sheltered homeless individuals – nearly three times the proportion that Black/African Americans represent in Oakland’s total population.[^p24-21] Although the individual causes for homelessness are complex, there are key structural reasons why Oakland has one of the worst homelessness crises in America, namely a catastrophic shortage of deeply affordable homes on top of salient issues including structural racism, unstable rental markets for tenants, systemic barriers to housing for the formerly incarcerated, a lack of living wage job opportunities, and inadequate mental health services.

From 2000 to 2019, Oakland lost nearly 30 percent of its Black population and significant numbers of long-time Asian communities residing in ethnic enclaves including Chinatown.[^p24-22] The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted and exacerbated racial and economic disparities in housing security; the pandemic has also shown the public health outcomes of Oakland’s housing disparities.[^p24-23] Figures EJ-1 and EJ-2 map the geographic change in racial and economic makeup of Oakland through time. It is noted that the definitions of race/ethnicity and measures of income have also changed to reflect social changes; these maps are limited to available data by census tract. Figure EJ-1 shows how patterns of racial segregation have evolved, with increasing diversity along I-580, but have also maintained a majority-white concentration in the western Oakland hills and majority-non-white concentrations in the flatlands. This map also demonstrates how the makeup of communities of color have changed; majority Black neighborhoods in West and East Oakland (in blue) have turned majority Hispanic/Latinx (in orange) between 2000 and 2019, which is especially true in East Oakland. Figure EJ-2 shows how median household income also follows a similar spatial pattern. The areas in light green represent neighborhoods with the highest income, which generally overlap with areas that have white majorities. In the same manner, areas with the lowest income shown in dark blue are generally clustered in West Oakland, San Antonio, and East Oakland. These patterns of inequity are further demonstrated by the disparity in current (2019) poverty level by race shown in Figure EJ-3.

<<FIGURE>>

[^p24-20]: EveryOne Home, Oakland 2022 Point-In-Time Count: Unsheltered & Sheltered Report, 2022, https://everyonehome.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Oakland-PIT-2022-Infographic-Report.pdf, accessed December 16, 2022.
[^p24-21]: Ibid.
[^p24-22]: American Community Survey (ACS) (2014-2018); U.S. Census 2000, 2010; Urban Displacement Project, 2021.
[^p24-23]: “City of Oakland HCD 2021-2023 Strategic Action Plan City of Oakland Housing & Community Development Department 2021-2023 Strategic Action Plan.” n.d. Accessed May 9, 2022. https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/HCD.final.21-21Strategic-Plan.pdf.

<!-- page 25 -->
# Figure EJ-1: Racial Concentration 1940-2019

Notes: Historic Census Tracts from Decennial Census. All other features (e.g., streets, city limits) are as existing (2021). Asian/Pacific Islander and Hispanic/Latinx populations were not distinguished from "other" races until 1980, and Asian and Pacific Islander were not separated until 2000. Tracts mapped by racial plurality (majority or greatest proportion). Port of Oakland/OAK airport areas masked out from 1960 onwards as low population areas.

<<FIGURE>>

| |
| :--- |
| ■ Majority White |
| ■ Majority Hispanic/ Latinx |
| ■ Hispanic/Latinx & White |
| ■ Asian & Hispanic/ Latinx |
| ■ Majority Black |
| ■ Black & White |
| ■ Black & Hispanic/ Latinx |
| ■ Asian/Pacific Islander & Black |
| ■ Majority Asian* |
| ■ Asian & White |
| ■ 3 Group Mixed |
| ■ Mixed (Diverse) |
| ■ No Data/Low Pop. Area |

*Includes Pacific Islander 1980-90.

SOURCE: IPUMS NHGIS, University of Minnesota, 2021; City of Oakland, 2021; ALAMEDA County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021

<!-- page 26 -->
# Figure EJ-2: Median Household Income 1940-2019

<<FIGURE>>

**Distribution of Median Household Income\***

**Percentile Range**

| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| | Top 10% (Highest Income) |
| | 80-90% |
| | 70-80% |
| | 60-70% |
| | 50-60% |
| | 40-50% |
| | 30-40% |
| | 20-30% |
| | 10-20% |
| | 0-10% (Lowest Income) |
| | No Data/Low Population Area |

\*1960 and 1970 reflect average household (families and unrelated individuals) incomes rather than median due to data limitations.

Notes: Historic Census Tracts from Decennial Census. All other features (e.g., streets, city limits) are as existing (2021). Port of Oakland/OAK airport masked out from 1960 onwards as low population areas.

<!-- page 27 -->
### Figure EJ-3: Prevalence of Poverty

<<FIGURE>>

**Percent Households below Federal Poverty Level**  
Natural Jenks  
| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| ■ | 29.6% - 38.6% |
| ■ | 22.0% - 29.5% |
| ■ | 14.1% - 21.9% |
| ■ | 7.5% - 14.0% |
| ■ | 0.0% - 7.4% |
| □ | No Data/Low Population Area |

**Base Map**  
| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| ⬚ | City of Oakland |
| — | Alameda County |
| ■ | Parks |

SOURCE: ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2019; City of Oakland, 2021; ALAMEDA COUNTY GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022

<!-- page 28 -->
## 2.2 LAND USE AND HEALTH

### HEALTH INEQUITIES

> "There is increasing recognition that the environments in which people live, work, learn, and play have a tremendous impact on their health. Re-shaping people’s economic, physical, social, and service environments can help ensure opportunities for health and support healthy behaviors. [Because] health and public health agencies rarely have the mandate, authority, or organizational capacity to make these changes, ... responsibility for the social determinants of health falls to ... housing, transportation, education, air quality, parks, criminal justice, energy, and employment agencies."
> 
> *- Adewale Troutman and Georges C. Benjamin, American Public Health Association*
> 
> *Health in All Policies: A Guide for State and Local Governments, 2013*

Health inequities are differences in health outcomes “that are a result of systemic, avoidable, and unjust social and economic policies and practices that create barriers to opportunities.”[^p28-24] As described the previous section, a history of structural racism has contributed to persistent inequities that are exacerbated by an increasing gap in social and economic inequalities.

Varying levels of access to opportunities and resources across neighborhoods, combined with disproportionate exposure to threats such as air pollution, soil contamination, traffic congestion, substandard housing, and increased social and generational trauma, comprise what SB 1000 refers to as “unique or compounded health risks.” To a large extent, land use decisions determine how both environmental health threats and public health resources are distributed. For example, adjacent incompatible land uses, such as industrial and residential, can expose residents to higher levels of pollution and noise. Such proximity can increase the risk of asthma or other respiratory diseases, while constant, excessive noise can increase stress, anxiety, depression, high blood pressure, heart disease, and more.

### What are “unique or compounded health risks”?

A “health risk” is a hazard to human health. Some hazards (such as lead, asbestos, floods, and heat waves) may be dangerous enough to harm human health on their own. Other hazards are less acute on their own but become harmful when they coincide with other health risks. This is a compounded health risk.

Today, people are often exposed to multiple health risks, such as asbestos and air pollutants, while experiencing poverty and living in neighborhoods with poor access to fresh and affordable foods. These overlapping conditions are experienced more often by EJ Communities. The inequitable distribution of resources that promote health, coupled with the concentration of environmental pollution and other hazards, is what SB 1000 refers to as the unique or compounded health risks that impact EJ Communities.

<<FIGURE>>

### The Link Between Racism and Poor Health Outcomes

On June 7, 2022, the Oakland City Council adopted Resolution 89249 officially recognizing and declaring that “racism is a public health crisis in the City of Oakland and throughout the United States and the world.” The Resolution also accentuated the City’s commitment to address and alleviate the ongoing impacts of racism. In doing so, the City of Oakland joined the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Medical Association, and the American Public Health Association in explicitly recognizing racism as a threat to public health.

The Resolution reaffirms a growing body of research on the problematic relationship between systemic racism and the social determinants of health. Structural racism shapes the distribution and quality of the social determinants of health, such as housing, neighborhood conditions, income, employment, public safety, and education, which significantly impact individual and community health. Thus, racial and ethnic health disparities are primarily due to inequities in exposure to environmental risk factors and access to health-promoting resources rather than biological differences between racial groups.[^p28-25]

As described in Section 2.1, a history of discriminatory policies and land use decisions has also shaped who lives where in the city, creating differences in health outcomes that are correlated with (or follow similar patterns to) race. **Chart EJ-1** shows how white populations have a much lower average rate of coronary heart disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease than Black, Asian, and Hispanic/Latinx populations. In fact, the average incidence of these health outcomes for white people is lower than the population-wide average, while Black, Asian, and

[^p28-24]: Rudolph, L., Caplan, J., Ben-Moshe, K., & Dillon, L. (2013). Health in All Policies: A Guide for State and Local Governments. Washington, DC and Oakland, CA: American Public Health Association and Public Health Institute.
[^p28-25]: Introduced by City Attorney Barbara J. Parker, City Administrator Edward D. Reiskin, President Pro Tem Sheng Thao, and Councilmembers Carroll Fife, Treva Reid, and Loren Taylor. Resolution Declaring Racism a Public Health Crisis and Reaffirming the City’s Commitment to Advancing Racial Equity., Resolution Number 89249 § (2022). https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5648415&GUID=3302DDAA-B81D-44B8-A3FC-CA542C19B1D9&Options=&Search=.

<!-- page 29 -->
#### Chart EJ-1: Citywide Differences in Health Outcomes by Race, 2020

<<FIGURE>>

Hispanic/Latinx populations experience higher rates than the citywide average. These findings are also supported by data from the Alameda County Public Health Department (ACPHD), which show that there are racial disparities in health outcomes for cancer-related deaths, rate of low-birth-weight infants, and life expectancy at birth.

These factors, along with others, affect life expectancy overall based on geography: data from the Alameda County Public Health Department (ACPHD) show a nearly 20-year difference between the Oakland census tract with the highest and lowest life expectancy at birth. As shown in Figure EJ-4, tracts in East Oakland generally have lower life expectancies, and the tracts with the lowest life expectancies are Fitchburg/Hegenberger and Brookfield Village, both at less than 72 years – more than 10 percent lower than the citywide average.

### HOW PLANNING AND LAND USE IMPACT HEALTH

Land use regulation is an essential determinant of health because it shapes the physical environment of neighborhoods, and in turn, can expand or restrict access to opportunities for everyday physical activity, healthy foods, economic growth, social connections, and more. Further, the protection of residents’ public health, safety, and welfare is the legal basis for land use regulation.

The section below summarizes how land use planning and the built environment influence health outcomes.

#### Reducing Pollution Exposure, Improving Air Quality

In virtually every community, people may be exposed to pollution daily through direct contact with air, food, water, and soil contaminants. This is especially true for those who live near highly polluting land uses. Certain types of pollution exposure disproportionately impact those with higher risk factors such as age or underlying health conditions. Socioeconomic conditions that increase stress, decrease access to health care, or make healthy living difficult further compound the adverse health effects of pollution. In times of growing wildfire threat, smoke is another burden added to existing pollution.

Exposure to multiple sources of pollution, such as freeway traffic, the Port, and industrial sites, disproportionately burdens many EJ Communities in Oakland. These communities are also on the front lines facing the challenges associated with adapting to the impacts of climate change. Identifying the sources, types, and quantities of pollution across Oakland neighborhoods, as well as their change over time, is essential to determine the best solutions.

#### Promoting Safe and Healthy Homes

Many homes in Oakland, particularly in lower-income areas where renovations have either not occurred or are substandard, are likely to contain lead-based paint, mold, mildew, asbestos, unvented biproducts of methane (“natural”) gas combustion, and other toxic materials. These conditions put adults and children at risk of conditions including lead poisoning and asbestosis, which can result in lifelong detrimental health impacts. Despite the risks, many low-income families cannot afford to move out of or remediate these conditions.

Housing location is as impactful as structural conditions. For example, proximity to pollution sources, such as freeways or industrial facilities, worsens indoor air quality. In addition, some housing may not have adequate access to economic opportunities or public services and facilities.

#### Promoting Healthy Food Access

Food access refers to a person’s ability to access nutritionally adequate, culturally appropriate, and affordable food. Having a sufficient income to purchase healthy food and the proximity or ability to travel to a food source that offers nutritionally adequate, culturally appropriate, and affordable food are essential elements of equitable access.

#### Promoting Physical Activity

Differences in the quality of and access to safe and well-maintained places to walk, play, and exercise in Oakland’s communities lead to a range of adverse health outcomes. Land use choices that do not consider how far jobs, parks, schools, healthy food resources, and other community facilities are from neighborhoods can result in increased reliance on cars and less active transportation, which in turn contributes to higher rates of diabetes, obesity, and heart disease.

Environmental justice policies must promote physical activity and address the equitable distribution of active transportation (i.e., pedestrian and bicycle) networks and the distribution of parks, open spaces, and urban green spaces.

<!-- page 30 -->
# Figure EJ-4: Life Expectancy

<<FIGURE>>

**Life Expectancy (years)**
Natural Jenks
| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| ■ | 71 - 76 |
| ■ | 77 - 79 |
| ■ | 80 - 82 |
| ■ | 83 - 85 |
| ■ | 86 - 90 |
| □ | No Data/Low Population Area |

**Base Map**
—— Major Roads
⬬⬬ City of Oakland
—— Alameda County

SOURCE: Alameda County Public Health Department, 2021; ALAMEDA COUNTY GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021

<!-- page 31 -->
### Promoting Public Facilities

Many EJ Communities in Oakland do not have adequate access to a wide range of essential facilities such as libraries, health centers, or parks. If the facilities exist, they may be neglected or in poor conditions, creating safety hazards.

SB 1000 refers to "public facilities" as "public improvements, public services, and community amenities." These may include transit facilities, public restrooms, parks, open spaces, health centers and clinics, schools, daycare centers, libraries, museums, community centers, community facilities, and recreational facilities (such as senior or youth centers).

### Civic Engagement/Reducing Barriers to Inclusive Engagement and Participation

Ensuring that all community members—especially those most impacted by environmental pollution and other hazards—can meaningfully participate in any civic decision-making process is key to planning for environmental justice.

Creating accessible and culturally appropriate opportunities for low-income, underrepresented, and linguistically isolated stakeholders to engage in local decision-making will help identify and resolve EJ issues.

### Prioritizing Improvements and Programs in EJ Communities

Environmental justice seeks to improve the environmental health of those most harmed by pollution burdens by intentionally investing in the most impacted communities to create opportunities for their residents to live long, healthy lives.

EJ Communities may have specific needs requiring singular actions to ensure that existing conditions are improved and not exacerbated. In addition, effective prioritization would ensure that policies and programs benefiting EJ Communities are implemented promptly.

Lastly, prioritizing improvements and programs for EJ Communities may also help the City access public funding dedicated to benefiting EJ Communities.

## 2.3 IDENTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES

### PURPOSE AND DEFINITION

Environmental Justice (EJ) Communities (referred to as “disadvantaged communities” in SB 1000) are low-income areas that are disproportionately impacted by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to adverse health effects. EJ Communities are eligible for special funding considerations, as well as targeted environmental justice efforts and investments. EJ Communities should also be recognized by the City and uplifted in order to equitably allocate opportunities and resources.

State law (SB 1000) requires jurisdictions to identify EJ Communities. This can be as simple as identifying the census tracts that the State designates pursuant to SB 535, which relies on the CalEnviroScreen methodology developed by the California Environmental Protection Agency Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). Alternatively, local jurisdictions have the option to refine this process using a more locally responsive methodology such as by including local and hyperlocal datasets. Oakland has chosen to take this second approach to identifying EJ Communities.

### CalEnviroScreen

The California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool, or CalEnviroScreen, is a mapping tool developed by CalEPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to help identify California communities that are disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. Last updated in October 2021, the methodology currently uses 21 indicators measuring cumulative pollution burden and population characteristics that make communities particularly vulnerable to pollution. As illustrated below, each of the indicators falls under one of four components that are grouped, weighted, and combined to calculate the final CalEnviroScreen score.

The overall CalEnviroScreen score is often used to describe the interaction between cumulative pollution burden and population vulnerability, but each of the indicators that make up the score are also important pieces of information. Some of these topics are mapped and discussed in this Element to show how individual EJ issues affect communities throughout Oakland.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 32 -->
### METHODOLOGY

The first step in the process of identifying and mapping Oakland's EJ Communities began with the EJ Baseline Report. In line with State law requirements and objectives, the EJ Baseline Report included a preliminary screening analysis that evaluated whether low-income areas are disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to adverse health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation. It does this by broadly analyzing possible disproportionate burdens according to all topic areas required by SB 1000. The screening analysis also considers issues unique to Oakland, such as illegal dumping, and issues not reflected in CalEnviroScreen, such as local vulnerability to climate change and redlining.

As mentioned, the preliminary screening analysis combined a series of indicators, or quantitative metrics that evaluate environmental justice issues, to identify disproportionate impacts across each of the eight SB 1000 topic areas: (1) pollution exposure, (2) public facilities, (3) food access, (4) safe/sanitary homes, (5) physical activity, (6) unique/compounded health risks, (7) civic engagement, and (8) prioritization of environmental justice communities' needs. From there, each of the indicators were scored using a methodology that ranks all 113 census tracts in the City from highest (1.00, representing the most burdened) to lowest (0.00, representing the least burdened). This is referred to as a "percentile ranking" because the relative rank of each tract corresponds with a composite score on a scale of 0.00 (0 percent, or 0th percentile) to 1.00 (100 percent, or 100th percentile). By calculating the relative ranks/scores, this methodology is suitable for highlighting the places that are comparatively most burdened by environmental justice issues in the City.

The preliminary methodology from the EJ Baseline Report used 50 indicators grouped into four categories: race and poverty, pollution burden, sensitive populations, and built environment. Each category is made up of two to four topics, as illustrated in green below. Revisions to the preliminary methodology are shown in orange and are discussed in the following section.

### Figure EJ-6: Structure of EJ Communities Screening Indicators

<<FIGURE>>

Note: Climate Change was a topic under the Pollution Burden category in the preliminary methodology but has been revised as a separate category in the updated methodology.

Individual indicator scores were calculated using the percentile ranking methodology described above. Topic scores are calculated from the sum of the individual indicators that make up the topic. For example, the Water topic is comprised of the Groundwater Threats and Impaired Water Bodies indicators, which are added together and translated into another percentile score for Water. The same process is repeated at the topic-level to calculate category scores, and category scores are combined using this method to calculate the overall composite score. In other words, each level of the hierarchy "rolls up" to the final composite score. Finally, this score was used to identify the top 25 census tracts with the highest cumulative burden scores as potential EJ Communities in the EJ Baseline Report.

An initial REIA assessed this methodology, highlighted gaps in the analysis, and provided recommendations for improvement. The final methodology used to identify EJ Communities in this Element has consequently been refined based on these recommendations, including the removal, addition, and adjustment of indicators to better align them with a focused set of selection guidelines, including the following considerations:

* How well does the indicator measure an SB 1000 topic, such as health disparities?
* Does the indicator/metric reflect community priorities for change?
* Is the indicator actionable, and can City policy directly or indirectly impact it?
* Is the data currently available?

<!-- page 33 -->
The final methodology includes 53 indicators, maintaining many of the same categories and topics as the preliminary screening analysis. Since the Baseline Report, the following changes have been made to the set of indicators which include revisions in response to REIA recommendations:

*   The following indicators have been replaced:
    *   **Low-Income Area Indicators.** The preliminary screening analysis included low-income area indicators that aligned with State definitions of “low-income areas.” These categorical indicators undermined the percentile ranking system used to compare Oakland’s census tracts because of the limited number of categories. In other words, areas with similar median household incomes all received the same score even if the proportion of low-income households differed. The new low-income indicator was created to better illustrate the concentration of low-income households in each census tract. The new indicator measures the percentage of households making less than 30 percent of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Area Median Family Income (HAMFI).[^p33-26]
    *   **Asthma Indicators.** The preliminary analysis included two indicators for asthma: a “Pediatric Asthma Attributable to Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)” indicator and a “Rate of Adult Asthma” indicator. The former indicator was sourced from the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project (WOEIP) and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) partnership studying hyperlocal air quality in West Oakland.[^p33-27] The latter indicator was sourced from the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) PLACES dataset. To more comprehensively capture the health impacts of air pollution on asthma outcomes for all ages, the updated analysis replaced these two indicators with “Asthma Emergency Department Visits” data from CalEnviroScreen (version 4.0). It is noted that hyperlocal data is used in the screening analysis when the data is currently available and complete for the entire city. The indicator “Mortality Attributable to NO2” (within the Health topic) is one such hyperlocal indicator.
    *   **Urban Heat Island Indicators.** The preliminary screening analysis included an “Urban Heat Island Index” indicator developed by California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) in 2015. To use a more locally specific dataset for a period relevant to the 2040 General Plan, the updated analysis replaced this with an indicator on “Projected Average Maximum Temperature during Future Heat Health Events” from the California Heat Assessment Tool (CHAT). The CHAT was developed as part of California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment published in 2018. The new indicator is a more understandable metric over which the City has direct influence through changes to the built environment.
    *   **Park Access.** The preliminary analysis measured low park access as the percentage of population that is not within a 10-minute walking distance of a park. This indicator was revised to account for updated information regarding park access such as including regional parks and removing parks that are closed or not publicly accessible. In addition, the updated indicator is more spatially precise because it measures the number of housing units by parcel that are located outside a 10-minute walking distance of publicly accessible, open parks instead of estimating the percentage of population by census block group. See Appendix A for full data dictionary and more information about data sources.
*   The following indicators have been added:
    *   **Proximity to Industrial Zones.** Represents how close certain communities live to industrially zoned areas, which are common sources of pollution.
    *   **Proximity to Farmers’ Markets.** Measures how far communities live from farmers’ markets, which can be an alternative source of food as well as a cultural asset through its function as a community gathering space.
    *   **Proximity to Existing Community Gardens.** Measures distance to the closest community garden, which not only serves as a local food source but also helps provide access to green spaces in the city.
    *   **Energy Cost Burden.** Measures how much of their income a household spends on energy costs. It represents vulnerability to the impacts of climate change, which can increase energy costs such as greater need for air conditioning as temperatures increase.
    *   **Extreme Commutes.** Measures the percentage of workers whose commutes are 90 minutes or longer. It represents a low-level of jobs-housing fit (lack of affordable housing near jobs) as well as increased transportation burden.
    *   **Incomplete Plumbing or Kitchen Facilities.** Measures the percentage of households that lack complete plumbing or kitchen facilities. Both of these indicators are used by HUD as a proxy for substandard housing conditions.
    *   **Free or Reduced Price Meals (FRPM).** Measures the proportion of students enrolled at each school receiving FRPM, representing food insecurity.
*   The following indicators and topics have been restructured:
    *   **Redlining.** The Redlining indicator, previously under the Neighborhood Disinvestment topic of the Built Environment category, has been moved to the Race topic in the Race and Poverty category. Because the Race topic has fewer indicators than Neighborhood Disinvestment contributing to its score, moving Redlining into Race places greater weight to the indicator — meaning that it has more impact on the overall composite score.

<<FIGURE>>

[^p33-26]: Every year, HUD sets income limits that determine eligibility for assisted housing programs such as Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher. These income limits are based on HUD’s estimates for Median Family Income and Fair Market Rent area definitions for each metropolitan area, parts of some metropolitan areas, and each non-metropolitan county.
[^p33-27]: Hyperlocal data used in this study uses measurements taken by a car equipped with an air monitoring sensor that was driven along certain roads in West Oakland, East Oakland, and freeways in Oakland in 2017. Due to data gaps for areas that were not included in the routes (such as the Oakland hills), citywide comparisons cannot be made for this EJ screening analysis.

<!-- page 34 -->
- **Climate Change.** The Climate Change topic was promoted to a category, independent of the Pollution Burden category. The methodology now accounts for five distinct, equally weighted categories rather than four.

- **Green Space.** The indicators for Park Access and Lack of Tree Canopy were grouped into a new topic, outside of the Neighborhood Disinvestment topic, but still part of the Built Environment category.

- **Toxic Releases.** This indicator was moved from the Hazardous Materials topic to the Air Quality topic (both within the Pollution Burden category) after closer review of the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 measure for toxic releases from facilities, which measures the extent to which facilities that make or use toxic chemicals can release these chemicals into the air.

- **Lead Exposure.** This indicator was moved from the Air Quality topic (Pollution Burden category) to the Housing topic (Neighborhood Disinvestment topic, Built Environment category) after closer review of the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 measure for children’s lead risk from housing, which estimates the percentage of low-income households with children in older housing structures that have a higher likelihood of containing lead-based paint hazards.

Other revisions made in response to REIA recommendations include “flipping” some indicators, including Life Expectancy, Median Household Income, Active Commutes, and Community Facilities so that they measure negative outcomes. **This means that higher scores indicate greater burden/impact for all indicators.** Additionally, the evictions indicator was revised to measure the number of evictions per renter rather than for all residents to better control for areas that are predominantly owner-occupied.

A few indicators were removed entirely from the EJ Communities screening methodology: Distance to Healthcare Facilities and Lack of Vehicle Ownership. Distance to Healthcare Facilities was omitted because of the complexity of factors that contributed to its anomalous outcomes. In particular, tracts with the farthest distances to healthcare facilities were predominantly located in the Oakland hills, which tend to have higher median incomes, less populations of color, and lower rates of negative health outcomes. Rather, the geographic distribution of low-density neighborhoods increases distances to services such as healthcare facilities that are generally located closer to civic centers like Downtown. Moreover, inequitable access to healthcare is often impacted by financial rather than geographic barriers. For example, mapping lack of health insurance generally aligns with patterns of poor health outcomes (according to the CDC's PLACES dataset), both of which have higher values in lower-income areas despite nearby health facilities. Similarly, the Lack of Vehicle Ownership indicator was initially revised to measure households that do not own two or more vehicles (i.e., own zero or only one vehicle) to help account for voluntary lack of vehicle ownership, which tends to occur in places well-served by transit such as Downtown; however, this metric was ultimately removed due to its interdependence with transit access and in light of the City’s climate objectives to reduce reliance on driving. Nevertheless, inclusion of certain indicators over others does not preclude them as issues that should be considered in the EJ Element. The Element explores a robust range of topics that are all assessed in combination with the findings of the EJ Communities mapping process. Ultimately, this approach allows the EJ Element to serve as the keystone and guiding resource for integrating environmental justice in the General Plan, especially for elements that will be prepared in subsequent phases (as noted in Section 1.1).

After calculating scores for all 53 indicators and combining these into the topic, category, and overall composite score, criteria and cutoff thresholds were applied to determine which census tracts are formally identified as EJ Communities. These criteria and thresholds have been informed by the REIA. Similar to the CalEnviroScreen methodology, which identifies the most impacted communities as those in the top 25th percentile of census tracts statewide, the EJ Baseline Report identified preliminary EJ Communities as the top 25 highest-scoring census tracts in Oakland (corresponding to the top 22nd percentile in the city) by overall composite score. Community input voiced concerns that this initial approach did not capture enough areas to reflect the on-the-ground conditions and lived experiences of the most impacted and burdened communities in the city. Based on this feedback and recommendations from the REIA, the number of identified EJ Communities has increased from 25 census tracts to 48 census tracts, based on the following, in order of consideration:

1. Is the census tract among the top 25th percentile of overall composite scores (i.e., greater than or equal to 0.75)?

2. Is the census tract among the top 10th percentile of any of the category scores (i.e., scoring 0.90 or higher for Race/Low Income, Pollution Burden, Climate Change, Sensitive Population, or Built Environment)?

3. Is the census tract designated as a Disadvantaged Community per SB 535?

If any of these criteria are met, the census tract is included in the final list of EJ Communities, presented in the next section.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 35 -->
### RESULTS

As summarized in **Table EJ-2**, there are 48 total census tracts that have been identified as EJ Communities in the City of Oakland: 29 are in the top 25th percentile by composite score, 12 additional census tracts are in the top 10th percentile of any one of the category scores, and seven additional census tracts have lower scores, but are designated by CalEPA as SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities (as of May 2022). These census tracts are mapped on **Figure EJ-7**.

Among EJ Communities, the top contributing category is Sensitive Populations, for which there are 26 census tracts that score among the top 25th percentile, and the average score is 0.74. Meanwhile, the individual indicators that have the greatest number of EJ Communities scoring in the top 25th percentile include Very-Low Income (26 tracts, 0.734 average), Proximity to Industrial Zones (26 tracts, 0.729 average), and Lack of Health Insurance (23 tracts, 0.731 average).

While the purpose of the screening tool is to identify the most cumulatively burdened census tracts, each indicator on its own reveals geographic disparities. Each section of this Element lists the neighborhoods (by census tract) that score in the top decile for related indicators, and EJ Communities included among these neighborhoods are prioritized for related City action and investment.

A full table of scores for each indicator is included in **Appendix A**.

<<FIGURE>>

### Table EJ-2: Environmental Justice Communities Summary

| CENSUS TRACT NAME | EJ COMMUNITY CRITERIA[^p35-1] | CATEGORY SCORE | | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| | | **Composite Score** | **Race & Poverty** | **Pollution Burden** | **Climate Change** | **Sensitive Population** | **Built Environment** |
| Lockwood/ Coliseum/ Rudsdale | Top 25% Composite | **1.00** | 1.00 | 0.88 | 0.97 | 1.00 | 0.79 |
| Fitchburg | Top 25% Composite | **0.99** | 0.93 | 0.79 | 0.96 | 0.98 | 0.91 |
| Brookfield Village/ Hegenberger | Top 25% Composite | **0.98** | 0.68 | 0.96 | 0.94 | 0.99 | 0.92 |
| Melrose | Top 25% Composite | **0.97** | 0.85 | 0.93 | 1.00 | 0.56 | 0.98 |
| New Highland | Top 25% Composite | **0.96** | 0.96 | 0.70 | 0.96 | 0.96 | 0.75 |
| Jingletown/ Kennedy | Top 25% Composite | **0.96** | 0.80 | 0.97 | 0.99 | 0.66 | 0.84 |
| Fremont District | Top 25% Composite | **0.95** | 0.77 | 0.62 | 0.95 | 0.85 | 0.95 |
| Oakland Estuary | Top 25% Composite | **0.94** | 0.79 | 0.98 | 0.71 | 0.71 | 0.86 |
| Elmhurst | Top 25% Composite | **0.93** | 0.97 | 0.66 | 0.41 | 0.95 | 1.00 |
| DeFremery/Oak Center | Top 25% Composite | **0.92** | 0.96 | 0.85 | 0.84 | 0.91 | 0.43 |
| Stonehurst | Top 25% Composite | **0.91** | 0.98 | 0.58 | 0.46 | 0.94 | 0.94 |
| Fruitvale | Top 25% Composite | **0.90** | 0.82 | 0.71 | 0.90 | 0.76 | 0.67 |
| Clawson/Dogtown | Top 25% Composite | **0.89** | 0.61 | 0.90 | 0.98 | 0.75 | 0.61 |
| Seminary | Top 25% Composite | **0.88** | 0.95 | 0.49 | 0.47 | 0.89 | 0.99 |
| Reservoir Hill/ Meadow Brook | Top 25% Composite | **0.88** | 0.88 | 0.54 | 0.86 | 0.80 | 0.68 |
| Fruitvale/ Hawthorne | Top 25% Composite | **0.87** | 0.71 | 0.72 | 0.82 | 0.86 | 0.60 |
| Prescott/Mandela Peralta | Top 25% Composite | **0.86** | 0.63 | 0.87 | 0.83 | 0.59 | 0.76 |
| Brookfield Village | Top 25% Composite | **0.85** | 0.54 | 0.77 | 0.50 | 0.88 | 0.97 |
| McClymonds | Top 25% Composite | **0.84** | 0.69 | 0.89 | 0.78 | 0.61 | 0.70 |
| Sobrante Park | Top 25% Composite | **0.83** | 0.62 | 0.75 | 0.88 | 0.65 | 0.73 |
| Bancroft/ Havenscourt West | Top 25% Composite | **0.82** | 0.67 | 0.31 | 0.81 | 0.92 | 0.89 |
| Harrington/ Fruitvale | Top 25% Composite | **0.81** | 0.86 | 0.45 | 0.92 | 0.74 | 0.63 |
| Castlemont | Top 25% Composite | **0.80** | 0.90 | 0.09 | 0.87 | 0.78 | 0.96 |
| Lower San Antonio East | Top 25% Composite | **0.79** | 0.94 | 0.63 | 0.53 | 0.68 | 0.82 |
| Bancroft/ Havenscourt East | Top 25% Composite | **0.79** | 0.84 | 0.32 | 0.49 | 0.90 | 0.96 |

[^p35-1]: Top 25% Composite, Top 10% Category, and SB 535 designations are not mutually exclusive. Communities are listed by their highest-ranking criteria.

<!-- page 36 -->
### Table EJ-2: Environmental Justice Communities Summary

| | | | | | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: |
| Bunche/Oak Center | Top 25% Composite | **0.78** | 0.83 | 0.74 | 0.77 | 0.79 | 0.37 |
| Hoover/Foster | Top 25% Composite | **0.77** | 0.56 | 0.95 | 0.70 | 0.51 | 0.78 |
| Arroyo Viejo | Top 25% Composite | **0.76** | 0.87 | 0.37 | 0.43 | 0.84 | 0.93 |
| Acorn | Top 25% Composite | **0.75** | 0.99 | 0.76 | 0.25 | 0.97 | 0.45 |
| Prescott | SB 535 Disadvantaged Community | 0.74 | 0.64 | 0.73 | 0.79 | 0.71 | 0.51 |
| Cox/Elmhurst | Top 10% Category | 0.71 | **0.92** | 0.29 | 0.39 | 0.82 | 0.88 |
| Peralta/Hacienda | Top 10% Category | 0.71 | 0.75 | 0.51 | **0.91** | 0.54 | 0.54 |
| Jack London Gateway | Top 10% Category | 0.70 | **0.91** | 0.79 | 0.20 | 0.83 | 0.53 |
| Chinatown | Top 10% Category | 0.69 | 0.72 | 0.94 | 0.10 | **0.96** | 0.52 |
| Eastmont | Top 10% Category | 0.68 | 0.73 | 0.03 | 0.80 | 0.78 | **0.90** |
| Webster | Top 10% Category | 0.67 | 0.89 | 0.22 | 0.44 | **0.93** | 0.72 |
| Lower San Antonio West | SB 535 Disadvantaged Community | 0.66 | 0.88 | 0.61 | 0.29 | 0.68 | 0.69 |
| Port Upper | Top 10% Category | 0.65 | 0.39 | **0.99** | 0.66 | 0.34 | 0.71 |
| Chinatown/Laney | Top 10% Category | 0.62 | 0.71 | **0.96** | 0.55 | 0.59 | 0.15 |
| Oakland/Harrison West | Top 10% Category | 0.60 | 0.42 | 0.81 | **0.93** | 0.47 | 0.30 |
| Longfellow | SB 535 Disadvantaged Community | 0.59 | 0.50 | 0.82 | 0.65 | 0.53 | 0.44 |
| Bunche/MLK Jr | SB 535 Disadvantaged Community | 0.52 | 0.66 | 0.84 | 0.15 | 0.46 | 0.49 |
| Pill Hill | Top 10% Category | 0.51 | 0.43 | **0.91** | 0.07 | 0.77 | 0.39 |
| Eastlake Clinton West | SB 535 Disadvantaged Community | 0.50 | 0.57 | 0.55 | 0.21 | 0.49 | 0.66 |
| Uptown/ Downtown | SB 535 Disadvantaged Community | 0.49 | 0.44 | 0.88 | 0.00 | 0.88 | 0.29 |
| Gaskill | SB 535 Disadvantaged Community | 0.47 | 0.49 | 0.68 | 0.63 | 0.55 | 0.05 |
| Jack London Square | Top 10% Category | 0.44 | 0.09 | **1.00** | 0.47 | 0.36 | 0.47 |
| Downtown/Old Oakland | Top 10% Category | 0.38 | 0.29 | **0.92** | 0.02 | 0.43 | 0.50 |

1. Some census tracts may meet more than one criterion, but table shows only the first one met, in order of: (1) Top 25% Composite (Top 25%), (2) Top 10% Category (Category), and (3) SB 535 Disadvantaged Community (SB 535).

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 37 -->
# Figure EJ-7: Environmental Justice Communities

<<FIGURE>>

| Overall Composite Score | |
| :--- | :--- |
| Score Range | |
| ■ | 91 - 100 |
| ■ | 81 - 90 |
| ■ | 71 - 80 |
| ■ | 61 - 70 |
| ■ | 51 - 60 |
| ■ | 41 - 50 |
| ■ | 31 - 40 |
| ■ | 21 - 30 |
| ■ | 11 - 20 |
| ■ | 0 - 10 |
| ▨ | Potential Environmental Justice Community |
| □ | West Oakland AB 617 Community Boundary |
| □ | Port of Oakland |
| **Base Map** | |
| ─ | Railroads |
| ─ | Major Highways |
| ─ | Major Roads |
| ╌ | City of Oakland |
| ─ | Alameda County |

SOURCE: City of Oakland, 2021; ALAMEDA County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022

<!-- page 38 -->
This page intentionally left blank.

<!-- page 39 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# 3. Reducing Pollution Exposure and Improving Air Quality

Clean air, water, and land are some of the building blocks for healthy neighborhoods. However, Oakland’s urban setting, economic history, and past policy and land use choices mean that communities in West and East Oakland, primarily communities of color, experience some of the highest pollution levels in the state. As discussed in Section 2.2, high pollution exposure has a direct impact on human health, leading to disproportionate levels of negative health outcomes like asthma, cardiovascular disease, or cancer in communities burdened by pollution. This section covers existing environmental factors such as pollution and other natural and human-made environmental hazards that affect Oakland residents. It identifies baseline conditions related to the SB 1000 topics of pollution exposure, air quality, and unique or compounded health risks. In addition to environmental justice, these topics correspond most closely with the Land Use and Transportation, Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation (OSCAR) and Safety Elements of the General Plan.

## 3.1 ISSUES AND DISPARITIES

### POLLUTION BURDEN

Oaklanders experience pollution of various kinds: air pollution, water contamination, and exposure to hazardous materials. Exposure to these pollutants varies significantly, with higher concentrations in EJ Communities. Pollution exposure occurs when people come into direct contact with air, food, water, and soil contaminants. While Oakland has a relatively lower CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Pollution Burden score than the rest of California, this relatively low citywide value hides the disproportionate pollution burden experienced by some Oakland communities. **Chart EJ-2** below shows that there are higher concentrations of Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) communities living in census tracts that have higher pollution burden scores, meaning that they are more at risk than white populations. Residents living in EJ Communities often live close to polluting industrial uses or adjacent to freeways and major truck routes. This disproportionate exposure directly impacts the health of vulnerable populations.

On average, census tracts in Oakland have an overall CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Pollution Burden percentile score of 44.3, meaning that census tracts in the city are less impacted by environmental effects and exposures than more than half of tracts in California. However, four of Oakland’s tracts rank in the top 10th percentile in the entire state for pollution burden: Port Upper, Jingletown/Kennedy, Melrose, and Brookfield Village/Hegenberger – all of which are identified as EJ Communities in this Element.

#### Chart EJ-2: Citywide Census Tract Average of CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Pollution Burden Score by Race, 2021

<<FIGURE>>

| City Average | Black | Asian | Hispanic/Latinx | White |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 44.3 | 51.5 | 51.4 | 48.4 | 36.4 |

Note: Race is assigned to the racial group with the plurality (highest proportion) within a census tract.

Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0, CalEPA, 2021

<!-- page 40 -->
### SENSITIVE LAND USES

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) defines sensitive receptors as “children, elderly, asthmatics, and others who are at a heightened risk of negative health outcomes due to exposure to air pollution,” and the locations where these sensitive receptors congregate, such as schools and schoolyards, parks and playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities, are considered sensitive receptor locations (also referred to as sensitive land uses).[^p40-36] In the short and long term, an individual’s exposure to pollution of any kind (air, water, or land) in their community can lead to chronic conditions or negative health outcomes including asthma or increased risk of cancer. Communities of color are at higher risk for exposure to pollution and hazards in neighborhood environments at an early age. Exposure to these conditions, particularly during sensitive developmental stages, contributes to health disparities later in life.[^p40-37] As discussed earlier in Section 2.1, a history of racially discriminatory policies and practices have created inequitable development patterns in Oakland that expose BIPOC communities and low-income communities to greater concentrations of pollution and other health risks.

Data from the Alameda County Public Health Department shows that residents of West Oakland and Downtown Oakland have higher rates of asthma emergency room visits as well as stroke and congestive heart failure compared to the rest of the city. On the other hand, residents of the Oakland hills are expected to live up to seven years longer than those from the flatlands in West Oakland and downtown.[^p40-38] These outcomes are not a coincidence; legacy land use decisions based on racially discriminatory practices (discussed in Section 2.1) have resulted in and perpetuated environmental injustices such that Oaklanders with the least ability to pay for and recover from environmental health threats are also the most impacted.

Land use incompatibility is one of the most important contributors to environmental burdens on an EJ Community. Mixing sensitive land uses with known or foreseeable pollution or natural hazards can create or compound health risks. According to WOEIP’s 2002 report, “Neighborhood Knowledge for Change”, 10 percent of sensitive sites in Oakland, like schools, hospitals, and homeless shelters were located within one-eighth of a mile of industrial facilities at high risk for chemical accidents. **Figure EJ-8** maps the location of existing sensitive land uses in Oakland, with residential areas shown in yellow. Since 2002, the proportion of sensitive uses other than residentially zoned areas shown in **Figure EJ-8** that are within one-eighth of a mile of high- or very-high hazard ranking industrial facilities has increased to over 30 percent.

### AIR QUALITY

Outdoor air pollution comes from many sources, such as vehicle exhaust, construction and industrial activities, smoke from fireplaces and wildfires, and pollen from local plants. Transportation and industrial sites can release exhaust and chemicals that contribute to increased rates of asthma, congestive heart failure, and stroke. These pollution sources exacerbate health impairments and increase the economic burden from hospitalizations and healthcare. In Oakland, the concentration of sites that release chemical pollution is four times higher in high-poverty neighborhoods than that of more affluent neighborhoods.[^p40-39] Census tracts in West and East Oakland are particularly affected by air pollution due to their proximity to traffic and industrial uses.

[^p40-36]: California Air Resources Board, “Sensitive Receptor Assessment,” https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/capp-resource-center/community-assessment/sensitive-receptor-assessment, accessed February 21, 2023.
[^p40-37]: Chenghao Wang, et. al, “Rethinking the urban physical environment for century-long lives: from age-friendly to longevity-ready cities,” *Nature Aging* 1 (2021): 1088-1095, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43587-021-00140-5, accessed March 8, 2022.
[^p40-38]: Environmental Defense Fund, “How pollution impacts health in West Oakland,” 2019, https://www.edf.org/airqualitymaps/oakland/pollution-and-health-concerns-west-oakland, accessed February 15, 2022.
[^p40-39]: City of Oakland, Oakland 2030 Equitable Climate Action Plan, July 2020, https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Oakland-ECAP-07-24.pdf.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 41 -->
<<FIGURE>>

### Figure EJ-8: Sensitive Land Uses, 2021

| Legend | |
| :--- | :--- |
| ![Existing Residential Areas] | Existing Residential Areas |
| ![Schoolground] | Schoolground |
| ![Park or Playground] | Park or Playground |
| ![Hospital] | Hospital |
| ![Library] | Library |
| ![Recreation Center] | Recreation Center |
| ![Senior Residential Care] | Senior Residential Care |
| ![Adult Residential Care] | Adult Residential Care |
| ![Childcare Center] | Childcare Center |
| **Base Map** | |
| ![City of Oakland] | City of Oakland |
| ![Alameda County] | Alameda County |
| ![Open Space/Regional Park] | Open Space/Regional Park |
| ![Major Roads] | Major Roads |

SOURCE: California Department of Social Services, 2021; Oakland Unified School District, 2021; City of Oakland, 2021; ALAMEDA County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021

<!-- page 42 -->
## Types of Air Pollutants

Following the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tracks six common air pollutants, called "criteria air pollutants" that are found all over the U.S. and have been shown to harm human and environmental health as well as cause property damage. These criteria air pollutants are ground-level ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide (CO), lead, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). EPA calls these pollutants "criteria" air pollutants because it sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for them based on the latest scientific information regarding their effects on human health or welfare. In addition to the NAAQS, criteria air pollutants in California must meet State standards established by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Both the national and State standards help protect the public from harmful pollutants.

Of criteria air pollutants, particulate matter finer than 2.5 micrometers in size (PM2.5) poses the greatest health risk because they can penetrate deep into the lungs or even get into the bloodstream, resulting in a wide range of health effects.[^p42-40] PM2.5 commonly comes from combustion sources of all fuel types, including diesel, along with particulates such as from road dust.

Certain air pollutants are known to increase the risk of cancer and/or other serious health effects. These are classified as "toxic air contaminants" (TACs, known federally as "hazardous air pollutants"), some of which do not have a safe level of exposure (i.e., any amount of exposure is considered substantially harmful). One of the most concerning TACs is diesel particulate matter (DPM), which is a type of PM2.5 that is emitted as exhaust from diesel fuel combustion.

The West Oakland Community Action Plan (WOCAP) identifies 89 potential community-level strategies and control measures intended to reduce criteria pollutant and TAC emissions and decrease West Oakland residents' exposure to TAC emissions.

### Mobile Sources

Mobile air pollution sources include on-road motor vehicles (cars and trucks) and off-road vehicles and equipment (such as aircraft, trains, and ocean-going vessels) and are Oakland’s primary source of air pollution. Exhaust and chemical outputs from the transportation and industrial sectors, including the Port of Oakland, contribute to the climate crisis and increased rates of asthma, congestive heart failure, and stroke, as well as as increased economic burden from hospitalizations and health care.[^p42-41] Ocean-going vessels and trucks serving the Port bring disproportionate levels of diesel pollution and fine particulate matter to West Oakland and communities living along the I-880 and I-980 freeway corridors. In addition to degrading local air quality, these toxic pollutants are absorbed in soils and contaminate groundwater. Heavy rains and floods bring pollutants to the surface, contaminating streets and waterways.

New regulations from CARB will require, starting in January 2023, that every vessel coming into a regulated California port, such as the Port of Oakland, use either shore power (e.g., plug in to the local electrical grid) or a CARB-approved control technology to reduce harmful emissions, such as diesel particulate matter and nitrogen oxides (NOx). The Port of Oakland is also in the beginning stages of designing infrastructure that would help transition to carbon-free, heavy-duty trucks and cargo-handling equipment, including the replacement of a substation and electrical infrastructure for generating solar power.

### Stationary Sources

Stationary air pollution sources include industrial facilities, gasoline stations, power plants, dry cleaners, waste disposal, and sites of other commercial and industrial processes. Stationary sources resulted in 26 percent of the city's total PM2.5 emissions in 2018. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD or "Air District") is the local air pollution control district for the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin and regulates stationary sources of air pollution. Permitted stationary sources of TACs in Oakland include industrial facilities, gasoline stations, power plants, dry cleaners, waste disposal facilities (such as landfills and wastewater treatment plants), and other commercial and industrial processing sites (such as metal processing and chemical manufacturing facilities).

<<FIGURE>>

## Utilizing Local Data to Map Block-by-Block Air Pollution

Conventional air monitoring is conducted by a network of stationary air quality monitors dispersed throughout an area. Agencies such as CalEPA and BAAQMD operate their own networks. Private and non-profit partners can help supplement air quality monitoring data by providing additional monitors throughout their communities. However, estimating local levels of pollution is difficult because air monitoring stations are typically located many miles away from each other, and the data from these stations has to be averaged and/or estimated at a level that can mask out significant levels of pollution in certain neighborhoods.

Community groups in West and East Oakland have partnered with researchers at the Environmental Defense Fund and the University of Texas at Austin and technological companies like Google and Aclima to map, measure, and analyze pollution data at the neighborhood level, where pollution can be eight times higher at one end of a block compared to the other.

The Planning and Building Department has partnered with WOEIP to incorporate data from this study into this EJ Element. The EJ Communities screening analysis and maps included in the Baseline Report and this Element have utilized this hyperlocal data wherever feasible. This EJ Element directs the City to further incorporate more finer-grained community data to inform City programs and policies.

[^p42-40]: United States Environmental Protection Agency, "How Does PM Affect Human Health?" EPA Region 1, last updated February 3, 2023, https://www3.epa.gov/region1/airquality/pm-human-health.html, accessed February 21, 2023.

[^p42-41]: City of Oakland, 2030 Equitable Climate Action Plan, July 2020.

<!-- page 43 -->
Diesel particulate matter, primarily emitted by industrial sources such as container ships and ocean-going vessels, cargo-handling equipment, railyards, trucks, and industrial operations of Port tenants, is concentrated in the industrial areas of West Oakland and along western portions of I-880, as shown in **Figure EJ-9**. Many of these industrial uses depend on truck transport on designated routes, which bring disproportionate levels of diesel pollution, fine particulate matter, and black carbon to West and East Oakland along the I-880 and I-980 freeway corridors due to the truck ban on I-580. As a result, PM2.5 is concentrated primarily along the I-980 and I-880 freeways in the southern half of the city, as shown in **Figure EJ-10**. Nitrogen oxides (NOx), a precursor to ground-level ozone (a criteria air pollutant tracked by CARB), are also generally concentrated in the industrial parts of West Oakland and the Oakland International Airport. Policies in the EJ Element seek to reduce concentrations of particulate matter and air pollutants and protect sensitive uses from pollution’s existing effects. In partnership with the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project (WOEIP), the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) conducted a Health Impact Assessment of Oakland that further refined the localized health risks of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations to Oakland residents.[^p43-42] Using data from this study, **Figure EJ-11** shows where the mortality (proportion of annual deaths) attributable to NO2 is greatest in Oakland. **Figure EJ-12** shows how Oakland neighborhoods are affected by air quality overall, with the census tracts in blue and dark blue being the most burdened according to our Air Quality topic indicators. The Air District is leading a coordinated regional effort to generate community-based solutions for improving air quality and public health in impacted communities, pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 617. AB 617 requires local air districts and CARB to reduce air pollution in the most impacted communities through several methods, including development of Community Emissions Reduction Plans in collaboration with community members. In 2018, West Oakland was selected for this program. WOEIP partnered with BAAQMD to develop the West Oakland Community Action Plan, which focused on reducing exposure to pollutants from sources such as Port-related activities, trucks, industrial sources, road dust, and residential burning. In 2021, East Oakland was selected for the program. The Air District, in partnership with Communities for a Better Environment and the East Oakland community, initiated the first Community Steering Committee meeting for the East Oakland AB 617 Community Emissions Reduction Plan process on September 15, 2022. The committee will meet monthly to develop a Community Emissions Reduction Plan to improve air quality and public health in the impacted communities of East Oakland.

The City will support these efforts through land use or zoning changes to limit additional air quality burden in EJ Communities shown in **Table EJ-3**; prioritizing air quality improvements, such as distribution of air filters, priority urban greening or buffering, or other strategies to protect existing residents; using BAAQMD tools[^p43-43] in assessing impacts and requiring higher air filtration ratings in new development, continuing to implement recommendations in the 2030 ECAP, and coordinating with community groups.

### Table EJ-3: Top 10th Percentile Tracts by Indicator — Air Quality

| PM2.5 | | DIESEL | | TRAFFIC | | TOXIC RELEASES | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Tract Name** | **Score** | **Tract Name** | **Score** | **Tract Name** | **Score** | **Tract Name** | **Score** |
| **Jingletown/Kennedy** | **1.00** | **Jack London Square** | **1.00** | **Sobrante Park** | **1.00** | **Fitchburg** | **1.00** |
| **Chinatown** | **0.99** | Acorn Industrial* | 0.99 | **Brookfield Village** | **0.99** | **Lockwood/Coliseum/ Rudsdale** | **0.99** |
| **Fruitvale/Hawthorne** | **0.98** | **Jack London Gateway** | **0.98** | **Port Upper** | **0.98** | Paradise Park/Golden Gate | 0.98 |
| **Pill Hill** | **0.97** | **Acorn** | **0.97** | Eastmont Hills | 0.97 | Bushrod/North Oakland | 0.97 |
| Downtown | 0.96 | **Chinatown/Laney** | **0.96** | Adams Point North | 0.96 | Panoramic Hill | 0.96 |
| **Oakland Estuary** | **0.96** | Port Lower* | 0.96 | Adams Point East | 0.96 | **Brookfield Village/ Hegenberger** | **0.95** |
| **Chinatown/Laney** | **0.95** | **Port Upper** | **0.95** | Laurel/Upper Peralta Creek | 0.95 | Santa Fe/North Oakland | 0.95 |
| **Fruitvale** | **0.94** | **Chinatown** | **0.94** | Foothill Square/Toler Heights | 0.94 | Upper Telegraph/ Fairview Park | 0.94 |
| **Hoover/Foster** | **0.93** | Downtown/Old Oakland | 0.93 | Mills College | 0.93 | **New Highland** | **0.93** |
| **Uptown/Downtown** | **0.92** | **Prescott/Mandela Peralta** | **0.92** | Trestle Glen | 0.92 | Bushrod/Childrens Hospital | 0.92 |
| **Melrose** | **0.91** | **Oakland Estuary** | **0.91** | **Jingletown/ Kennedy** | **0.91** | **Sobrante Park** | **0.91** |
| Eastlake | 0.90 | **Prescott** | **0.90** | Temescal West | 0.90 | Rockridge | |

*Note: Bolded census tracts in blue are EJ Communities.*
*\* Indicates census tract with low population.*

[^p43-42]: Veronica A. Southerland, et al., "Assessing the Distribution of Air Pollution Health Risks within Cities: A Neighborhood-Scale Analysis Leveraging High-Resolution Data Sets in the Bay Area, California," *Environmental Health Perspectives* 129, no. 3 (March 2021), https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP7679.
[^p43-43]: BAAQMD models and tools available at https://www.baaqmd.gov/about-air-quality/research-and-data/research-and-modeling.

<!-- page 44 -->
# Figure EJ-9: Modeled Diesel PM Concentrations

<<FIGURE>>

**DPM Concentrations (micrograms/m3)**
*1-km Grid by Decile Range*

| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| | 0.74 - 1.35 (Top 10%) |
| | 0.60 - 0.73 |
| | 0.48 - 0.59 |
| | 0.41 - 0.47 |
| | 0.38 - 0.40 |
| | 0.33 - 0.37 |
| | 0.29 - 0.32 |
| | 0.23 - 0.28 |
| | 0.19 - 0.22 |
| | 0.12 - 0.18 |

**Base Map**
| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| `[---]` | City of Oakland |
| ` ` | Alameda County |
| | Parks |
| `.....` | Ferry Routes |
| `+++++` | Railroads |
| `_____` | Major Roads |

SOURCE: BAAQMD, 2021; City of Oakland, 2021; ALAMEDA County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021

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

| PM2.5 Concentrations (micrograms/m3) |
| :--- |
| 1-km Grid by Decile Range |
| [ ] 11.1 - 13.6 (Top 10%) |
| [ ] 10.6 - 11.0 |
| [ ] 10.2 - 10.5 |
| [ ] 9.8 - 10.1 |
| [ ] 9.4 - 9.7 |
| [ ] 8.9 - 9.3 |
| [ ] 8.6 - 8.8 |
| [ ] 8.0 - 8.5 |
| [ ] 7.5 - 7.9 |
| [ ] 6.2 - 7.4 |
| **Base Map** |
| [---] City of Oakland |
| [ ] Alameda County |
| [ ] Parks |
| [---] Ferry Routes |
| [---] Railroads |
| [—] Major Roads |

SOURCE: BAAQMD, 2021; City of Oakland, 2021; ALAMEDA COUNTY GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021

<!-- page 46 -->
### Figure EJ-11: NO2 and Health Effects

Note: Data provided courtesy of EDF as published in the Bay Area Air Pollution HIA (2021).

<<FIGURE>>

| Percent of Annual Deaths |
| :--- |
| ■ 9.1% - 10.3% |
| ■ 7.7% - 9.0% |
| ■ 6.3% - 7.6% |
| ■ 5.0% - 6.2% |
| ■ 3.5% - 4.9% |
| □ No Data |
| **Base Map** |
| — Major Roads |
| — Railroads |
| [ ] City of Oakland |
| [ ] Alameda County |

SOURCE: West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project/Environmental Defense Fund, 2021; City of Oakland, 2021; ALAMEDA County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021

<!-- page 47 -->
### Figure EJ-12: Air Quality Topic Score

<<FIGURE>>

| Air Quality (Topic) | |
| :--- | :--- |
| Score Range | |
| ■ | 0.90 - 1.00 |
| ■ | 0.80 - 0.90 |
| ■ | 0.70 - 0.80 |
| ■ | 0.60 - 0.70 |
| ■ | 0.50 - 0.60 |
| ■ | 0.40 - 0.50 |
| ■ | 0.30 - 0.40 |
| ■ | 0.20 - 0.30 |
| ■ | 0.10 - 0.20 |
| □ | 0.00 - 0.10 |
| ▨ | Potential Environmental Justice Community |
| □ | West Oakland AB617 Community Boundary |
| □ | Port of Oakland |
| **Base Map** | |
| ⸺ | Railroads |
| — | Major Highways |
| — | Major Roads |
| ╌╌ | City of Oakland |
| — | Alameda County |

SOURCE: City of Oakland, 2021; ALAMEDA County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022

<!-- page 48 -->
### Building Resilience: West Oakland Community Action Plan (WOCAP)

In 2018, WOEIP partnered with BAAQMD to develop the West Oakland Community Action Plan (WOCAP): “Owning Our Air.” The plan was adopted by BAAQMD and CARB in 2019 and set ambitious goals to protect the community’s health. The WOCAP sets targets to reduce disparities in air quality and ultimately achieve improvements that match today’s cleanest air quality for all neighborhoods in West Oakland by 2030.

The 2020 Annual Report highlights progress on implementation, including 29 replacements for low-emission equipment, four Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 16 air filters installed at schools, and incorporation of relevant strategies in the West Oakland Truck Management Plan, among other early implementation wins.

The EJ Element includes several policies that support implementation of the WOCAP to continue reducing air emissions in the West Oakland AB 617 Community. The Element also directs the City to support similar processes and outcomes in other areas of the city that are disproportionately affected by air pollution.

### WATER QUALITY

The quality of the water that people drink, use, and play in has a direct effect on their health, and when the sources of this water are compromised, the contamination can make people sick. The quality of water infrastructure—or the services through which residents obtain their water—also plays a pivotal role in public health. However, all too often, infrastructure investments align with the geography of wealth, resulting in underinvestment and disinvestment in low-income communities and communities of color. As a result, people of color are more likely to live in areas with higher rates of contaminated water, stormwater and wastewater overflows, and increased risks of flooding.[^p48-44]

GeoTracker is a statewide data management system for sites that impact, or have the potential to impact, water quality in California, with emphasis on groundwater. This database contains records for sites that require cleanup, such as leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs), Department of Defense Sites, and Cleanup Program Sites. GeoTracker also contains records for various unregulated projects as well as permitted facilities including irrigated lands, oil and gas production, operating permitted underground storage tanks, and land disposal sites. Additionally, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) maintains the California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) to monitor and regulate environmental places of interest such as agricultural facilities and operations that may affect water quality. CalEnviroScreen assesses threats to groundwater quality based on these two databases.

While most Oakland residents have access to high-quality drinking water, groundwater threats like LUSTs, gasoline stations, military cleanup sites, and industrial sites including the airport are some of the water quality issues that affect many parts of Oakland. According to CalEnviroScreen 4.0, more than half of Oakland’s census tracts score in the 80th percentile or higher for groundwater threats. As mapped in Figure EJ-13 these census tracts are generally located closer to the waterfront, whereas census tracts with lower scores (i.e., that are less exposed to groundwater threats) are generally located in the Oakland hills. As sea level rise and climate change affect Oakland into the future, rising groundwater tables could worsen groundwater contamination threats.[^p48-45] Several policies and actions in the Safety Element direct further study of the potential impacts of sea level rise on groundwater contamination.

An example of recent local groundwater contamination occurred in 2020, when the Oakland Unified School District shut down McClymonds High School in West Oakland for a week after officials found trichloroethylene, a cancer-causing chemical, in the groundwater under the school. The source was likely the five active cleanup sites within half a mile of the school. The City will continue to support the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board and California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to assess cleanup sites in EJ Communities with high groundwater contamination threat.

A consortium of cities and agencies, including Oakland, work to protect water quality in the county through the Alameda County-wide Clean Water Program. This program regularly monitors and conducts special studies of the county’s creeks, wetlands, and the San Francisco Bay to assess the watershed; inspects industrial and commercial business facilities; provides public information and engages the public; ensures municipal maintenance; regulates new construction development; and prevents stormwater pollution from illicit discharges, pollutant spills, and construction activities. Additionally, the City will continue to support implementation of the Port of Oakland’s Sanitary Sewer Management Plan, which aims to prevent sanitary sewer overflows in Port-owned infrastructure, and the Port’s Clean Water Program, which helps keep contaminants out of the Bay through permits, public education, development requirements, testing and monitoring, and illicit discharge detection and elimination.

<<FIGURE>>

[^p48-44]: Pacific Institute, A Twenty-First Century U.S. Water Policy, Chapter 3: Water and Environmental Justice (2012), http://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/water_and_environmental_justice_ch3.pdf. (via Clean Water For All, Water, Health, and Equity: The Infrastructure Crisis Facing Low-Income Communities & Communities of Color – and How to Solve it, October 23, 2018, http://protectcleanwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/FINAL-CWC_Report_Full_report_lowres-003-3.pdf. Accessed February 14, 2022.)
[^p48-45]: Policies on sea level rise are found in the Safety Element.

<!-- page 49 -->
# Figure EJ-13: Groundwater Threats, 2021

<<FIGURE>>

| CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score |
| :--- |
| Statewide Percentile Rank [0-100] |
| ▇ 80.1 - 100 |
| ▇ 60.1 - 80 |
| ▇ 40.1 - 60 |
| ▇ 20.1 - 40 |
| ▇ 0 - 20 |
| **Base Map** |
| ⸬ Railroads |
| — Major Roads |
| ⬚ City of Oakland |
| ⬚ Alameda County |

SOURCE: CalEPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 2021; City of Oakland, 2021; ALAMEDA COUNTY GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021

<!-- page 50 -->
In 2019, the City of Oakland developed a Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan[^p50-46] that complies with SWRCB’s Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit[^p50-47], helps implement the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program, and seeks to protect and restore Oakland’s watersheds. “Green stormwater infrastructure” refers to a variety of practices and engineered facilities designed to detain and clean, capture and reuse, or infiltrate stormwater runoff to reduce the volume of runoff and improve water quality. In accordance with the City’s Resilient Oakland Playbook, Oakland will use green stormwater infrastructure to manage stormwater and reduce minor localized flooding risks, as well as provide urban greening benefits, such as improved air quality and reduced urban heat island effects, especially for neighborhoods that have limited access to parks and green space.

To address water quality issues, the City will continue to collaborate with water providers, support residents and businesses in avoiding stormwater and groundwater contamination, and prioritize implementation of green stormwater infrastructure projects in EJ Communities shown in **Table EJ-4** in partnership with community groups. EJ Communities are shown bolded and highlighted in **Table EJ-4**.

### Table EJ-4: Top 10th Percentile Tracts by Indicator — Water Quality

| GROUNDWATER THREATS | | IMPAIRED WATER BODIES[^p50-1] | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Tract Name** | **Score** | **Tract Name** | **Score** |
| **Port Upper** | **1.00** | **Oakland Estuary** | **1.00** |
| **Chinatown** | **0.99** | Jingletown/Kennedy | 0.99 |
| **Fruitvale/Hawthorne** | **0.98** | **Melrose** | **0.98** |
| **Pill Hill** | **0.97** | **Brookfield Village/ Hegenberger** | **0.94** |
| **Downtown** | **0.96** | **Lower San Antonio East** | **0.94** |
| **Oakland Estuary** | **0.96** | Eastlake Clinton West | 0.94 |
| **Chinatown/Laney** | **0.95** | **Eastlake Clinton East** | **0.94** |
| **Fruitvale** | **0.94** | **Ivy Hill** | **0.94** |
| **Hoover/Foster** | **0.93** | Lower San Antonio West | 0.93 |
| **Uptown/Downtown** | **0.92** | **Jack London Square** | **0.91** |
| **Melrose** | **0.91** | **Chinatown/Laney** | **0.91** |
| Eastlake | 0.90 | - | **0.90** |

Note: Bolded census tracts in blue are EJ Communities.
1. Only includes 11 tracts in top decile due to ties. Next highest score for Impaired Water bodies is 0.68.

<<FIGURE>>

### HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND TOXINS

Industrial activities and related transportation and logistics infrastructure, including freeway and rail corridors, have been a central part of the city’s economic history and development. Though regulation and oversight of these sites have become more stringent over time, the historic and current use, storage, or transport of hazardous materials as part of these industrial and commercial operations have resulted in soil and groundwater contamination from spills or leaks of hazardous materials or petroleum products, even recently.

People may be exposed to hazardous materials through three possible pathways:

*   Breathing: When contaminants attach to small dust and soil particles or occur as a vapor, breathing can expose people.
*   Eating or Drinking: Exposure can happen when people eat or drink contaminated water, food, specks of dust, or soils. Children that suck their fingers or chew toys contaminated with dust or soils may be exposed.
*   Direct Contact: Skin can absorb some contaminants from direct contact with contaminated dust and soil particles, the contaminants themselves, or vapors.

There are several types of hazardous sites in Oakland: cleanup sites, hazardous waste sites, and solid waste sites. Toxic release sites and threats to groundwater may also result in exposure to hazardous materials and are described in the preceding sections.

The Safety Element includes goals, policies, and actions related to hazardous materials and toxins, such as review of proposed facilities, enforcement of standard conditions of approval for investigation of remediation, and coordination with other agencies. The EJ Element expands on these policies and actions to help further reduce impacts of hazardous materials on sensitive receptors.

[^p50-46]: City of Oakland, Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan, September 30, 2019, https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Oakland-GSI-Plan-Final-20190930_sm.pdf.
[^p50-47]: California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (Order No. R2-2022-0018; NPDES Permit No. CAS612008), May 11, 2022, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/stormwater/MRP/mrp5-22/R2-2022-0018.pdf.
[^p50-1]: Only includes 11 tracts in top decile due to ties. Next highest score for Impaired Water bodies is 0.68.

<!-- page 51 -->
### Cleanup Sites

Superfunds are sites that are part of an environmental program established to address abandoned hazardous waste sites. Superfunds have levels of contamination that may pose a threat to human life. Superfund cleanup involves placing sites in a National Priorities List and establishing an appropriate cleanup plan. The EPA is responsible for removal actions, enforcement, and community involvement.

Other cleanup sites that are not federally owned are regulated by a cleanup program conducted by SWRCB or any of the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards. Examples include rail yards, ports, equipment supply facilities, metals facilities, industrial manufacturing and maintenance sites, dry cleaners, bulk transfer facilities, refineries, landfills, and some brownfields. Unauthorized releases detected at cleanup sites vary but could include hydrocarbon solvents, pesticides, perchlorate, nitrate, heavy metals, and petroleum constituents, among others.

A brownfield is a property where contamination is present and may complicate future use of the site. Generally, these sites are cleaned up by the owner, previous owner, or state governments. Brownfields can indirectly and directly impact public health in many ways. Brownfields can affect community cohesion and morale, for example, due to the presence of abandoned and derelict structures, especially in EJ Communities that suffer from a disproportionate number of brownfield sites. Brownfields can also have negative economic impacts if continued operation of existing on-site infrastructure including roads, sewer, and electricity diverts City funds that could be used for services elsewhere.[^p51-48] Brownfields can also directly impact public and environmental health due to contamination that can pollute soil, air, and water resources on- and off-site.[^p51-49] Contaminants often found at brownfield sites include lead, petroleum, asbestos, arsenic, and volatile organic compounds from manufactured chemicals such as degreasers and paint strippers. These contaminants can cause serious health problems, including mesothelioma, lung cancer, kidney damage, and birth defects.[^p51-50]

Cleaning up and reinvesting in these properties can help reduce disparities in adverse health outcomes by preventing exposure to hazardous substances. Revitalizing brownfield sites also offers opportunities to bring jobs back into an area, clean up blight in a neighborhood, increase community connectivity, restore local ecologies, reduce the effects of urban heat islands, and promote physical activity and recreation.

### Hazardous Waste Sites

Hazardous waste sites may contain chemicals that are harmful to health. Only certain facilities are allowed to treat, store, or dispose of this type of waste. Hazardous waste can range from used automotive oil to highly toxic waste materials produced by factories and businesses. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) maintains data in the EnviroStor Hazardous Waste Facilities Database and Hazardous Waste Tracking System on permitted facilities that are involved in the treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste as well as information on hazardous waste generators. Although this database includes information about illegal and abandoned sites, it is noted that it may not necessarily capture all incidences of potential exposure to hazardous materials in a community.

According to EnviroStor and GeoTracker as of March 2022, there were approximately 1,700 documented hazardous materials sites throughout Oakland, mainly located near the southern half of the city and in West Oakland (Figure EJ-14). While more than half are “closed” cases (e.g., have been cleaned up or taken other corrective action), numerous hazardous materials sites may still contain contaminants that pose a threat to the public and environment if these sites were disturbed without appropriate protective or remediation measures. Almost a quarter of all sites are actively being remediated and five percent of sites are currently operational and certified to handle hazardous materials. In tandem with the Safety Element, which includes several policies to minimize health and safety impacts related to the use, storage, manufacture, and transport of hazardous materials, policies in the EJ Element support improving land use compatibility, performance standards to avoid health and safety impacts to sensitive uses, and changes to conditional use permitting that phase out incompatible uses more quickly. Impacted communities most burdened by hazardous materials are shown in Table EJ-5.

<<FIGURE>>

[^p51-48]: Center for Creative Land Recycling, “White Paper: Community Transformation Through Brownfields Redevelopment.” July 2021. Accessed December 27, 2022, https://www.cclr.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/25.community-transformation-through-brownfield-redevelopment.pdf
[^p51-49]: Minnesota Department of Health, “Brownfields and Public Health,” Accessed October 5, 2022, https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/places/brownfield.html#health.
[^p51-50]: US Environmental Protection Agency, “Environmental Contaminants Often Found at Brownfield Sites,” Accessed October 5, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-10/documents/environmental_contaminants_often_found_at_brownfield_sites.pdf.

<!-- page 52 -->
### SOLID WASTE SITES

Solid waste sites are places where garbage from homes, factories, or businesses is collected, processed, or stored. These include landfills and composting or recycling facilities, most of which require permits to operate. As of July 2021, there were 14 solid waste facilities in Oakland, with the largest concentration in East Oakland, north of the Coliseum. According to CalRecycle’s Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) database, six of the 14 solid waste facilities in Oakland are active: two facilities operated by Bee Green Recycling & Supply, one operated by Asphalt Shingle Recyclers, one by Independent Recycling Services in the Coliseum Industrial Complex, and two by California Waste Solutions facilities in West Oakland. The number of solid waste sites and facilities in predominantly Latinx census tracts is over seven times higher than in predominantly Asian census tracts, and nearly five times higher than predominantly white census tracts. The census tracts with the most solid waste sites and facilities include Melrose, Port Upper, and Lockwood/Coliseum/Rudsdale, while 63 census tracts in the city have none at all.

#### Institutional Framework and Responsibilities

There are a number of federal, State, regional, and local agencies that are responsible for addressing hazards. These agencies are described in detail in Section 3.1 of the Safety Element. Facilities that are subject to cleanup, permitting, enforcement, and investigation efforts are tracked by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)’s EnviroStor database and include sites such as Federal Superfund (National Priority List) and State Superfund sites, military facilities, voluntary cleanup sites, and school sites being evaluated for possible contamination. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) maintains the GeoTracker database to regulate leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs); Department of Defense facilities; spills, leaks, investigations, or cleanups; and landfills. As described in the Safety Element, the City will work closely with agencies responsible for monitoring, enforcement, and cleanup, in addition to community-based organizations working on environmental justice issues.

### ILLEGAL DUMPING

Abandoned trash, or illegal dumping, also contributes to an unhealthy and unsafe living environment and has a negative impact on neighborhood quality. Illegal dumping can contribute to land, water, and air pollution in a neighborhood and may contain harmful substances. Accumulation of illegal dumping can also be fire hazards. Figure EJ-15 shows the rate of service requests received by the Oakland Call Center (OAK 311) for illegal dumping per 1,000 people in each census tract. In general, tracts along the freeways, particularly I-880 and I-580, have higher rates of illegal dumping and geographically correspond with the West Oakland and East Oakland neighborhoods (with some exceptions). Tracts in the Oakland hills to the northwest have very few reports of illegal dumping in comparison. West and East Oakland already face environmental burdens from surrounding industrial operations, existing recycling facilities, freeways, and other uses. While some of this dumping is household waste, some businesses and individuals hire unlicensed haulers, who sometimes drop loads on public property. Dumpers may also target and leave their garbage illegally at encampment sites, which exacerbates the challenges faced by unhoused individuals already dealing with difficult living conditions. Environmental Justice Communities most burdened by illegal dumping are shown in Table EJ-5.

City efforts to tackle illegal dumping include the creation of Oaktown PROUD, a campaign by and for Oaklanders, to Prevent & Report Our Unlawful Dumping. The campaign’s strategy for reducing illegal dumping organizes City and community efforts into the three E’s (focus areas): Education, Eradication, and Enforcement. As a part of the Oaktown PROUD outreach campaign to reduce littering and dumping, the City is working with Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) high school students, teachers and administrators to manage the Oaktown PROUD Student Ambassador Program, detailed below. Students take the knowledge they have gained to educate people about the problem of litter and dumping in Oakland and provide resources and guidance on what they can do to help.[^p52-51]

The City has also taken steps to eradicate illegal dumping. The Public Works Department proactively sends Garbage Blitz teams to clean up known hot spots and illegal dumping. In 2019, the City established an Environmental Enforcement Officers (EEOs) unit, a team of civilian investigators who monitor heavy dumping sites and refer cases for legal action when necessary. EEOs enforce and keep illegal dumpers accountable by contacting suspected dumpers, encouraging them to abate blight using available services, and issuing citations when adequate evidence is found. Since its inception, the Oaktown PROUD campaign has continued to be implemented in partnership with the City Council, neighborhood advocates, community-based organizations, and businesses.[^p52-52]

[^p52-51]: https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/EEU-3.2021-v2-Copy.pptx-5-13-2021.pdf-word.pdf
[^p52-52]: City of Oakland, "City of Oakland and Community Leaders Launch 'Oaktown PROUD' Action Campaign to Combat Illegal Dumping," posted January 14, 2020, last updated July 28, 2020, https://www.oaklandca.gov/news/2020/city-of-oakland-and-community-leaders-launch-oaktown-proud-action-campaign-to-combat-illegal-dumping#:~:text=Oaktown%20PROUD%20is%20a%20campaign,promote%20community%20pride%20and%20volunteerism., accessed December 21, 2022.

<!-- page 53 -->
### Table EJ-5: Top 10th Percentile Tracts by Indicator — Hazardous Materials/Illegal Dumping

| CLEANUP SITES | | HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES | | SOLID WASTE SITES[^p53-1] | | INDUSTRIAL ZONES[^p53-2] | | ILLEGAL DUMPING | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Tract Name** | **Score** | **Tract Name** | **Score** | **Tract Name** | **Score** | **Tract Name** | **Score** | **Tract Name** | **Score** |
| **Port Upper** | **1.00** | Acorn Industrial* | 1.00 | **Melrose** | **1.00** | **Melrose** | **0.92** | Acorn Industrial* | 1.00 |
| **Prescott/Mandela Peralta** | **0.99** | **Jack London Square** | **0.99** | **Port Upper** | **0.99** | **Port Upper** | **0.92** | **Port Upper** | **0.99** |
| **Oakland Estuary** | **0.98** | Paradise Park/Golden Gate | 0.98 | **Lockwood/Coliseum/ Rudsdale** | **0.98** | **Brookfield Village/ Hegenberger** | **0.92** | **Melrose** | **0.98** |
| Acorn Industrial* | 0.97 | Piedmont Ave South | 0.97 | **Brookfield Village/ Hegenberger** | **0.97** | **Fitchburg** | **0.92** | **Oakland Estuary** | **0.97** |
| **DeFremery/ Oak Center** | **0.96** | **Brookfield Village/ Hegenberger** | **0.96** | **Prescott** | **0.96** | **Sobrante Park** | **0.92** | Foothill Square/Toler Heights | 0.96 |
| **McClymonds** | **0.96** | **New Highland** | **0.96** | Chabot Park | 0.95 | **McClymonds** | **0.92** | **Fitchburg** | **0.95** |
| **Clawson/Dogtown** | **0.95** | **Oakland/Harrison West** | **0.95** | Sequoyah | 0.95 | **DeFremery/Oak Center** | **0.92** | **McClymonds** | **0.95** |
| **Prescott** | **0.94** | **Acorn** | **0.94** | **Fitchburg** | **0.94** | **Jack London Square** | **0.92** | **Hoover/Foster** | **0.94** |
| **Melrose** | **0.93** | **Port Upper** | **0.93** | **Prescott/Mandela Peralta** | **0.93** | Port Lower* | 0.92 | **Clawson/ Dogtown** | **0.93** |
| **Jingletown/ Kennedy** | **0.92** | **Pill Hill** | **0.92** | **Jingletown/ Kennedy** | **0.92** | Acorn Industrial* | 0.92 | **Chinatown** | **0.92** |
| **Hoover/Foster** | **0.91** | **Jack London Gateway** | **0.91** | **New Highland** | **0.91** | **Prescott/Mandela Peralta** | **0.91** | **Jingletown/Kennedy** | **0.91** |
| **Jack London Square** | **0.90** | **Downtown/Old Oakland** | **0.90** | - | 0.90 | **Jingletown/Kennedy** | **0.91** | Golf Links | 0.90 |

Note: Bolded census tracts in blue are EJ Communities.
* Indicates census tract with low population.
1. Only includes 11 tracts in top decile due to ties. Next highest score for Solid Waste Sites is 0.88, and next highest for Illegal Dumping is 0.66.
2. Maximum score is 0.92 due to ties.

### Building Resilience: Oaktown PROUD

Oaktown PROUD is a campaign by and for Oaklanders to reduce illegal dumping and improve our neighborhoods. The campaign name contains an urgent call to action for all Oaklanders to "Prevent & Report Our Unlawful Dumping (PROUD)." The Oaktown PROUD campaign uses the City of Oakland’s Three E’s strategy to reduce illegal dumping by organizing City and community efforts into three focus areas: Education, Eradication and Enforcement. As a part of the Oaktown PROUD outreach campaign to reduce littering and dumping, the City of Oakland is working with OUSD high school students, teachers, and administrators to manage the Oaktown PROUD Student Ambassador Program. This program was sparked by ideas from Oakland students and currently operates at Oakland and Skyline high schools. The focus of the students' work is to take the knowledge that they gain through a summer program and use that information to educate people about the problem of litter and dumping in Oakland and provide resources and guidance on what they can do to help.

Source: Oaktown PROUD website

<<FIGURE>>

[^p53-1]: Only includes 11 tracts in top decile due to ties. Next highest score for Solid Waste Sites is 0.88, and next highest for Illegal Dumping is 0.66.
[^p53-2]: Maximum score is 0.92 due to ties.

<!-- page 54 -->
# Figure EJ-14: Hazardous Materials Sites

<<FIGURE>>

**Envirostor**
Status
- ○ Active
- ○ Certified
- ○ Refer

**Geotracker**
Status
- ■ Active
- ■ Open
- ■ Pending Review
- □ Informational Item

**Base Map**
- [---] City of Oakland
- [---] Alameda County
- [ ] Parks
- [ ] Residential Areas

SOURCE: ESA, 2022; City of Oakland, 2021; ALAMEDA County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022; DTSC, 2021; SWB, 2021

<!-- page 55 -->
### Figure EJ-15: Calls for Illegal Dumping

Includes Open, Referred, Work Order Created, Evaluated (No further action), Unfunded, and Closed cases.

<<FIGURE>>

| Calls per 1,000 Tract Residents |
| :--- |
| Natural Jenks |
| ■ 370 - 1,175 |
| ■ 162 - 369 |
| ■ 88 - 161 |
| ■ 45 - 87 |
| ■ 0 - 44 |
| □ No Data/Low Population Area |
| **Base Map** |
| ⸬ Railroads |
| — Major Roads |
| ⬚ City of Oakland |
| ⬚ Alameda County |

SOURCE: City of Oakland, 2021; City of Oakland, 2021; ALAMEDA COUNTY GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022

<!-- page 56 -->
# Figure EJ-16: Pollution Exposure of Sensitive Uses

<<FIGURE>>

**Pollution Burden Category Score**
*Within Existing Sensitive Uses*

| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| ■ | 0.90 - 1.00 |
| ■ | 0.80 - 0.90 |
| ■ | 0.70 - 0.80 |
| ■ | 0.60 - 0.70 |
| ■ | 0.50 - 0.60 |
| ■ | 0.40 - 0.50 |
| ■ | 0.30 - 0.40 |
| ■ | 0.20 - 0.30 |
| ■ | 0.10 - 0.20 |
| ■ | 0.00 - 0.10 |
| □ | Non-Sensitive Uses |
| ■ | Industrial Zoning |
| ○ | Open/Active EnviroStor Cleanup Site |
| □ | Open/Active GeoTracker LUST Site |
| △ | BAAQMD Permitted Sources (2020) |

**Base Map**
— Railroads
— Major Highways
— Major Roads
[ ] City of Oakland
[ ] Alameda County

SOURCE: City of Oakland, 2021; ALAMEDA COUNTY GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022
Sensitive uses include existing residential uses, schools/educational facilities, religious/institutional uses, and hospitals.

<!-- page 57 -->
## 3.2 GOALS AND POLICIES

### GOAL EJ-1 REDUCE POLLUTION, MITIGATE THE IMPACTS OF POLLUTION ON EXISTING SENSITIVE LAND USES, AND ELIMINATE ASSOCIATED PUBLIC HEALTH DISPARITIES.

#### Toxic Air Contaminants

**EJ-1.1 Toxic Air Contaminants.** Reduce the public's exposure to toxic air contaminants through appropriate land use and transportation strategies, identified through the LUTE update in Phase 2 of the GPU process, particularly in Environmental Justice Communities and other areas most burdened by air pollution, as identified in Figure EJ-12.

**EJ-1.2 Truck Emissions and Pollution Exposure.** Minimize air pollution and exposure of sensitive land uses to truck pollution, particularly in EJ Communities and other areas most burdened by air pollution, while recognizing the Port of Oakland's role as the highest-volume shipping port in Northern California.

#### Industrial/Sensitive Land Use Compatibility

**EJ-1.3 Industrial Uses Near Sensitive Land Uses.** Ensure that heavy industrial uses are adequately buffered from residential areas, schools, and other sensitive land uses. In new industrial developments, require adequate mitigation of air contaminant exposure and vegetative barriers near large stationary and mobile sources of air pollution. Prioritize nature-based mitigation solutions such as vegetative barriers wherever feasible and align with other greening opportunities such as canopy need, green stormwater infrastructure, and high heat areas to plan for multiple benefits.

**EJ-1.4 Performance Standards.** Develop performance standards in the zoning code applicable to new industrial and commercial developments to minimize or avoid the potential for adverse effects related to air quality, noise, or safety on adjacent existing residential uses and Environmental Justice Communities, including the possibility of creating an overlay that focuses on air quality issues.

**EJ-1.5 Regulate Polluting Uses.** Develop more stringent permitting standards and limit the number of variances approved for new, high-intensity, industrial or commercial land uses near sensitive uses in Environmental Justice Communities. *See also Policy SAF-5.1 and EJ-1.15.*

**EJ-1.6 Enhanced Enforcement.** Prioritize code enforcement to address illegal land uses and activities that cause pollution and are hazardous to health in EJ Communities.

#### Air Filtration and Reducing GHG

*Many of the strategies to reduce GHG will be included in the forthcoming Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) update (including mixed land uses and transportation policies).*

**EJ-1.7 Truck-Related Impacts.** For new warehouses and truck-related businesses, reduce impacts from truck loading and delivery including noise/vibration, odors, air pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions.

**EJ-1.8 Air Filtration.** Consistent with the State's Building Energy Efficiency Standards for air filtration in effect as of January 1, 2023, require newly constructed buildings of four or more habitable floors to include air filtration systems equal to or greater than Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 16 (ASHRAE Standard 52.2), or a particle size efficiency rating equal to or greater than 50 percent in the 0.3-1.0 micrometer range and equal to or greater than 85 percent in the 1.0-3.0 micrometer range (AHRI Standard 680).

**EJ-1.9 Electric Vehicle Charging.** Require industrial and warehouse facilities and truck-attracting businesses to provide electrical connections for electric trucks and transport refrigeration units in support of CARB regulations.

**EJ-1.10 Reduce Emissions from Port Operation.** Support Port of Oakland's efforts to reduce emissions as part of operation and compliance with CARB regulations. This could include:

*   Support of zero-emission drayage truck operations through appropriate local ordinance amendments, including allowable weight limits for single-axle, zero-emission trucks on local streets, and developing an investment plan for needed upgrades.
*   Provision of data or staff time to study of the effects on truck flow and congestion due to increasing visits from larger container ships, the feasibility of an off-terminal container yard that utilizes zero-emission trucks to move containers to and from the marine terminals, and the potential efficiency gains from increasing the number of trucks hauling loaded containers on each leg of a roundtrip to the Port.

#### Construction and Building Emissions

**EJ-1.11 Building Electrification.** Continue to enforce compliance with Oakland's Building Electrification Ordinance, which requires new buildings to be natural gas-free and support the transition of existing buildings to natural gas alternatives in order to improve safety and air quality and reduce health risks. This could include:

*   Ensuring that all new developments reduce on-site natural gas combustion through electrification of heating and cooking technologies.

**EJ-1.12 Construction Site Impacts.** Through standard conditions of project approval, code enforcement, and other regulatory mechanisms, require new development to minimize disturbances of natural water bodies and natural drainage systems caused during construction and to implement measures to protect areas from road dust, erosion and sediment loss.

<!-- page 58 -->
Credit: Amir Aziz

<<FIGURE>>

**EJ-1.13 Emissions from Construction Activities.** Require projects to implement construction air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions controls and applicable mitigation strategies for all construction sites to the maximum extent feasible. Refer to Best Construction Practices and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) recommended by BAAQMD.

**EJ-1.14 Reduced Exposure to Air Pollution for Project Occupants.** Incorporate measures to improve indoor air quality and reduce exposure to air pollution in new development projects.

### Air Quality Monitoring and Assessment

**EJ-1.15 Sensitive Uses.** Coordinate with BAAQMD and community partners in evaluating human exposure to toxic air contaminants, particularly in Environmental Justice Communities, and impose conditions as appropriate on projects to protect public health and safety beyond those in the City’s 2020 standard conditions of approval.

**EJ-1.16 Community Air Protection.** On an ongoing basis, support BAAQMD, community members, businesses, and other stakeholders in developing and implementing Community Air Monitoring Plans, Community Emissions Reduction Plans, and other air pollution control initiatives pursuant to AB 617. Supportive City actions may include:

* Participation on steering committees and technical advisory committees.
* Co-investments that leverage additional funding for actions in EJ Communities.
* Utilization of community-collected air quality data in policy development and evaluation.
* Co-development of a public information campaign targeting residents living 1,000 feet of freeways that focuses on education about air pollution mitigation measures.
* Contracts with community partners and other air pollution monitoring organizations to obtain more granular pollution data.

**EJ-1.17 Data-Informed Efforts.** Collaborate with BAAQMD, community organizations, and other stakeholders to use air quality monitoring data to inform area-specific improvement actions outside of AB 617-related efforts. Such actions may include:

* Prioritizing areas for capital investments with co-benefits for air quality, such as the planting of trees, green stormwater infrastructure for flood management, and installation of EV charging infrastructure. Ideally, to maximize resiliency, co-benefits will address multiple climate and environmental hazards.
* Integrating air quality improvement actions into planning efforts, such as new specific plans, master plans, or area plans that will guide development in impacted areas.
* Limiting the establishment of new sources of air pollutants in areas with elevated levels of pollutant concentrations unless appropriate mitigation is implemented.
* Obtaining and using hyperlocal data along with community ground-truthing to more accurately inform development of air quality improvement strategies that are most effective and responsive to the needs of EJ Communities. This data will be accessible for residents to utilize.
* Seeking opportunities to enhance existing air monitoring efforts, such as by working with BAAQMD and helping to expand the current monitoring network, especially where sensitive uses are within close proximity (within 500 feet) of pollution sources.
* Partnering with industrial and warehouse facility owners, community-based environmental and energy justice organizations to install rooftop solar PV systems to power EV charging stations.

**EJ-1.18 Impact Assessment and Mitigation.** Continue to use BAAQMD modeling tools and guidance documents as appropriate to identify and mitigate air quality impacts from proposed development projects.

**EJ-1.19 Regional Coordination.** Support air quality planning efforts led by other local, regional, and State agencies while simultaneously leveraging City authority and resources to focus on reducing air pollution burden in EJ Communities.

<!-- page 59 -->
# GOAL EJ-2 PROTECT OAKLAND WATER SUPPLIES FROM CONTAMINATION.

### Water Quality

**EJ-2.1 Clean Water Programs.** Promote environmental stewardship and pollution prevention activities with outreach, assistance, and incentives for residents and businesses, particularly in EJ Communities and areas with impaired surface and groundwater, as identified in **Figure EJ-13.**

**EJ-2.2 Water Quality Hazard Prevention.** Remediate and clean up sites with known or potential contamination, as mapped in **Figure EJ-14** or identified on GeoTracker, that impact or potentially impact water quality. Continue to support the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board and California Department of Toxic Substances Control to assess cleanup sites, leaking underground storage tanks, and gasoline stations in EJ Communities with high water contamination threat.

**EJ-2.3 Protect and Restore Creeks and Wetlands.** Protect, enhance, and restore riparian corridors and wetlands, increasing biodiversity and access for residents to existing creeks and wetlands. Collaborate with environmental justice organizations and EJ Community residents to co-develop environmental stewardship and pollution prevention programs with outreach, assistance, and incentives for residents and businesses.

**EJ-2.4 Stormwater Management.** Reduce stormwater runoff by implementing the Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan to help conserve water, protect water bodies, comply with stormwater protection regulations, and mitigate localized flood risk from large storm events. Review opportunities for greening, additional open space, and safe Non-Motorized Transportation (NMT) infrastructure and prioritize improvements, workforce development, programs, investments, and partnerships in Environmental Justice Communities.

# GOAL EJ-3 PREVENT, REDUCE, AND CLEAN UP ILLEGAL DUMPING.

### Illegal Dumping and Blight

**EJ-3.1 Design for Graffiti Reduction.** Establish guidelines based on Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) standards and other best practices that decrease opportunity for graffiti.

**EJ-3.2 Blight Control and Prevention.** Control and mitigate impacts of blight-producing industrial and commercial activities with a high tendency of attracting trash and litter, such as recyclers, fast food restaurants, warehouses and industrial sites, and other businesses that may attract blight. Additionally, vacant lots should be routinely maintained by property owners and kept clean.

**EJ-3.3 Proactive Illegal Dumping Cleanup.** Support the expansion of proactive cleanup crews that target illegal dumping "hot spot" areas in EJ Communities, as identified in **Figure EJ-15.**

**EJ-3.4 Illegal Dumping Enforcement.** Continue to enforce dumping as an illegal activity, including increased monitoring of hot spots on weekends and before/after business hours, ticketing, and expansion of Environmental Enforcement Officers (EEO). Every two years, as part of the budget process, assess enforcement efforts to ensure discriminatory patterns do not emerge.

**EJ-3.5 Community Education on Illegal Dumping.** Expand community campaigns in EJ Communities, in partnership with community members, to prevent dumping, inform neighbors about affordable services and ways to report illegal dumping, and support youth leadership. Develop campaign outreach materials in a variety of languages. *Examples include education about Bulky Block parties and engagement of the Oaktown PROUD Student Ambassadors.*

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 60 -->
This page intentionally left blank.

<!-- page 61 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# 4. Safe, Healthy, and Affordable Homes

A safe and healthy home is a fundamental component of a healthy quality of life, supporting both mental and physical health as a source of shelter and peace of mind. Housing with proximity to quality facilities such as open space and recreation, public transportation, and employment also promotes good health. However, a history of inequitable investments and discriminatory practices, compounded with the rising cost of living in the Bay Area, disproportionately threatens the ability of low-income and BIPOC communities to afford to stay in their communities. As described in Chapter 3, certain neighborhoods and communities in Oakland also face pollution exposure due to their proximity to polluting facilities, such as the Port of Oakland, industrial land, and truck routes. Pockets of concentrated housing inequity may also be isolated from essential health resources such as improved recreational spaces, quality pharmacies, clinics, and hospitals, and healthy food options.

The City of Oakland recently updated its Housing Element for the 2023-2031 housing cycle. As part of the Housing Element update, the City conducted a thorough evaluation of the previous (2015-2023) Housing Element; an analysis of housing needs, constraints, resources, and opportunities; and an assessment of fair housing. The 2023-2031 Housing Element includes more information and detail about Oakland’s housing needs and the City’s plan for protecting and supporting existing neighborhoods while accommodating new residents. The 2023-2031 Housing Element also discusses issues related to homelessness, housing affordability, and displacement. This section of the EJ Element describes additional issues and opportunities related to housing quality and habitability, as well as identifies appropriate locations for housing to minimize exposure to pollution.

## 4.1 ISSUES AND DISPARITIES

### COST BURDEN AND EVICTIONS

Household income is one of the most significant factors affecting housing choice and opportunity. Income largely determines a household’s ability to purchase or rent housing. While higher-income households have more discretionary income to spend on housing, lower- and moderate-income households are limited in the range of housing they can afford. Typically, as household income decreases, cost burdens, overcrowding, and vulnerability to displacement and houselessness increase. Households that are housing cost burdened and do not receive housing assistance or own their home outright are considered precariously or insecurely housed. These households are at greater risk for eviction, displacement, overcrowding and homelessness.

A housing cost burdened household is defined as a household that spends more than 30 percent of their monthly income on housing, while severely cost burdened households spend more

<!-- page 62 -->
than 50 percent of household income on housing costs. Most extremely low-income households in Oakland (over 60 percent) are severely cost burdened. Oakland’s predominantly Latinx/Hispanic neighborhoods are the most housing cost burdened with over double the number of severely housing burdened households as predominantly White neighborhoods.

According to the California Department of Finance, in 2021 there were 178,207 housing units and 167,680 households in Oakland. Most of these households are renters (59 percent), while 41 percent are homeowners.[^p62-1] This means that homeownership in Oakland is significantly less than Alameda County as a whole, where the majority (54 percent) of units are owner-occupied and 46 percent are renter-occupied. In Oakland, more renters are low-income than homeowners and tend to have higher rates of housing cost burden than homeowners - 46.5 percent of all renters experience some level of housing cost burden while 31.8 percent of homeowners do. Today, the vast majority of Oakland’s Black/African American residents are renters (67.83 percent). When housing costs are high, residents may be forced to make tradeoffs that affect housing habitability.

There are an average of 85 evictions per 1,000 residents in predominantly Black census tracts and 72 per 1000 in predominantly Asian tracts, compared to 34 evictions per 1,000 residents in predominantly White census tracts. Evictions in predominantly Black census tracts are nearly 2.5 times higher than in predominantly White census tracts, corroborating other evidence of higher displacement rates in the Black community. The disparity gap between the most and least impacted census tracts is far larger than the averages. For instance, Prescott/Mandela Peralta in West Oakland experiences 30 times more evictions per 1,000 people than Montclair North in the north Oakland Hills, and Port Lower in West Okaland experiences 365 times more evictions than Upper Piedmont Ave.

### CODE ENFORCEMENT

The 2018 Oakland Equity Indicators Report found that housing quality (comprised of the housing habitability complaints, complete kitchen facilities, and overcrowding indicators) is not equitable, with an average score of 33 out of 100. **Chart EJ-3** shows how the number of code enforcement complaints (for blight, zoning, and housing habitability) per 1,000 residents differ by census tract racial majorities.

Specifically, majority-white tracts have the lowest rate of code enforcement complaints per 1,000 residents and tracts that are majority people of color are all higher than the overall citywide rate. Oakland’s most impoverished neighborhoods with the highest proportion of renters are most likely to suffer from substandard housing conditions. These neighborhoods disproportionately house Latinx, Black, immigrant, and refugee communities, low-income renters with children, undocumented residents, residents receiving public assistance and elderly renters. Substandard housing conditions such as pest infestation, mold, asbestos, lead paint, faulty plumbing, and overcrowding can lead to increased health problems such as asthma, lead poisoning, cardiovascular disease, and neurological disorders. Residents in predominantly Black census tracts are 1.9 times more likely than predominantly White census tracts to report code enforcement complaints due to substandard housing conditions. It is important to note however, that many residents of substandard housing do not report their complaints for fear of retaliation from their landlord and some landlords take advantage of this, a practice called “predatory habitability.” **Figure EJ-17** maps the distribution of all three types of code enforcement complaints for 2020 (the most recent year with complete data) throughout Oakland.

### OLDER HOUSING

Age of housing can also be an indicator of substandard housing conditions, particularly for buildings built over 30 years ago. More than 80 percent of Oakland’s housing stock was constructed prior to 1980 and is now over 40 years old. Without proper maintenance or rehabilitation, older buildings can fall into disrepair, subjecting residents to conditions such as inadequate sanitation, structural hazards, hazardous mechanical systems, and other issues that the State has determined to be below the minimum standards of living (as defined by Government Code Section 17920.3). Based on the City’s 2020-2021 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report, the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) administered programs that supported the rehabilitation of 317 existing affordable housing units in fiscal year 2020/2021.[^p62-2] However, the City’s ability to meet the need for rehabilitation assistance is limited, and it can be difficult to accurately identify substandard units in need of rehabilitation, especially since not all households living in substandard conditions may actively seek assistance.

<<FIGURE>>

[^p62-1]: United States Census Bureau, 2019: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables – Households and Families (S1101), December 10, 2020, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=oakland,%20ca%20housing&g=1600000US0653000&tid=ACSST5Y2019.S1101, Accessed February 16, 2022.

[^p62-2]: City of Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development, Draft 2020/2021 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report, November 24, 2021, https://www.oaklandca.gov/services/2020-21-consolidated-annual-performance-and-evaluation-report-caper, accessed February 16, 2022.

<!-- page 63 -->
<<FIGURE>>

Includes blight, housing habitability, and zoning complaints filed between January and December 2020.

<!-- page 64 -->
### LEAD

Housing that was built before 1978 when the residential use of lead-based paints was banned is likely to contain some lead-based paint. When the paint peels and cracks, lead paint chips and dust can spread throughout indoor environments and be ingested or breathed in, increasing risk of lead poisoning particularly in young children. Residents living in older neighborhoods who cannot afford to renovate or repair their homes are especially at risk of exposure – up to 96 percent of households in both east and west Bancroft/Havenscourt census tracts based on data from CalEnviroScreen. Tracts with the greatest risk of lead exposure to children are shown in **Figure EJ-18**. About sixty percent of the census tracts in Oakland are in the top statewide percentile rank of children's lead risk from housing. In addition, there are notable disparities by race: The percentage of low-income children at risk for lead poisoning is over 1.5 times higher in predominantly Latinx census tracts than in predominantly white census tracts. Census tracts south of Lake Merritt, bounded by I-880 and I-580, are at greatest risk of lead pollution, as well as census tracts near the Port of Oakland, including Port Upper, Port Lower, Prescott/Mandela Peralta.

### INDOOR AIR QUALITY

Although outdoor air pollution is most commonly the focus of conversations about air quality, the indoor environment also has a significant impact on health, especially considering that Americans spend an average of 90 percent of their time indoors.[^p64-3] Homes can expose people to air pollutants such as nitrogen oxide, particulate matter, moisture, and mold. Older buildings that are not well-maintained can lack proper ventilation or have deteriorated building infrastructure that exacerbates exposure to these indoor pollutants.

Several major appliances including water heaters, space heaters, clothes dryers, and stoves are fueled by natural (mostly commonly methane) gas, which is also a source of indoor air pollutants and a major contributor to poor health outcomes. In fact, when gas stoves are on, indoor air pollutants can spike to levels that would be considered illegal by EPA standards if those same levels occurred outside. In light of this fact, the City has set a target of no more gas in Oakland buildings by 2040. However, replacing gas with electric energy may not be feasible for all residents. That is, lower-income areas, areas with older housing stock, and areas with high rates of renters are more likely to have higher proportions of poorly maintained or poorly ventilated homes, absent or nonfunctioning range hoods, and higher competition in demand for repair/upgrade funds, making electrification both that much more urgent and that much more cost-prohibitive, and therefore a major environmental health and equity issue. The City’s 2030 ECAP includes actions to develop a policy roadmap to achieve decarbonization of the existing building stock by 2040, without additional cost burden or displacement risk to frontline communities (those hit first and worst by climate change effects). The City will also continue to support property owners in building electrification, energy efficiency and resilience, and housing maintenance programs through grants and technical assistance.

In addition to policies and actions in Oakland’s Housing Element, additional policies in the EJ Element support resource coordination across City departments and partners, seek to improve the City’s ability to inspect and screen for health and safety issues in homes, and incentivize ways to include health-promoting features in affordable housing.

Environmental Justice Communities most burdened by quality issues, income burden, evictions, and lead exposure are shown in **Table EJ-6**.

<<FIGURE>>

### Spotlight: Racial Equity Impact Analysis: Eliminating Lead Paint Hazards in Oakland & Alameda County

Lead is a material with properties that make it useful in industrial and commercial products and was once added to everything from gasoline, paint, solder, water pipes, and cosmetics, among others. Despite this widespread use, lead is an extremely potent toxin and dangerous to health, particularly for young children. Although corporations in the lead paint industry were well aware of lead’s toxicity and its risks to public health by the early 20th century, lead paint was not banned until 1978, and many homes built before this era are at high risk of containing this dangerous substance.

In July 2019, various California counties and cities entered into a landmark $305 million Settlement Agreement with lead paint manufacturers. Under the Lead Settlement Memorandum of Understanding, Alameda County and the City of Oakland received 10 percent of the settlement abatement funds to be paid out over seven years (approximately $24 million).

In Oakland, “the problem is so large that the rate of lead poisoning in some Oakland zip codes is higher than in Flint, Michigan at the height of its lead in the water crisis.” Lead paint hazards disproportionately affect low-income and Black, Indigenous, and Latinx communities due to the prevalence of older, dilapidated housing, which exposes children in poverty to lead paint hazards at the greatest rates. In 2021, Environmental/Justice Solutions conducted a Racial Equity Impact Analysis to guide the City of Oakland in partnering with Alameda County to develop and implement an equitable lead hazard abatement program. The report recommends policies that prioritize at-risk communities, address barriers to resources, ensure lead hazards are expeditiously removed from homes in vulnerable communities, and bolster local economic resilience. This EJ Element includes policies that support implementation of REIA recommendations with an emphasize on primary prevention.

[^p64-3]: United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Report to Congress on indoor air quality: Volume 2,” Washington, DC (1989): EPA/400/1-89/001C, [as cited on https://www.epa.gov/report-environment/indoor-air-quality].

<!-- page 65 -->
# Figure EJ-18: Childhood Lead Risk

<<FIGURE>>

**CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score**
Statewide Percentile Rank [0-100]

| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| █ | 80.1 - 100 |
| █ | 60.1 - 80 |
| █ | 40.1 - 60 |
| █ | 20.1 - 40 |
| █ | 0 - 20 |
| ── | Railroads |
| ── | Major Roads |
| ╌╌ | City of Oakland |
| ── | Alameda County |

SOURCE: CalEPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 2021; City of Oakland, 2021; ALAMEDA COUNTY GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021

<!-- page 66 -->
### HEALTHY HOUSING LOCATIONS

Oakland’s geography has been shaped historically by zoning, one of the primary purposes of which is to protect residential, commercial, industrial, and civic areas from the intrusion of incompatible uses. However, in the past, zoning was often used as tools to perpetuate racism, effectively working to keep property values higher for White residents in more affluent areas by locating incompatible uses in predominantly BIPOC communities. As described in the Housing Element REIA, “While affluent neighborhoods are protected from industrial uses and the intrusion of lower-priced housing into their neighborhoods, the public health, character, and culture of lower income, BIPOC neighborhoods do not receive equivalent levels of protection. In effect, higher standards are presumed and upheld for predominantly White and affluent neighborhoods than are for lower income neighborhoods that are majority BIPOC.” Single-family zoning (detached unit residential) was largely designed to have a similar effect as racially restrictive housing covenants. This legacy continues to this day, as “[continued utilization] of single-family zones, acts to bar the development of housing affordable to residents earning moderate- to low-incomes, who are more likely to be BIPOC, across swaths of the city” where there is more access to health-promoting resources, employment, and opportunity. The Housing Action Plan includes zoning and height changes across the city and in specific sites in Rockridge, single-family dominated neighborhoods, along corridors, transit proximate areas and high resource neighborhoods to affirmatively further fair housing. The HAP also implements an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone, where 100 percent affordable projects will be granted by-right approvals. The AHO will largely apply citywide. Any projects located on sites with at least 20 percent affordable units within the City’s Housing Sites Inventory Overlay Zone will be granted by-right approvals.

### Oakland’s Housing Element

Oakland’s 2023-2031 Housing Element sets forth the City’s housing priorities and goals—as well as its vision for both short- and long-term development—to create a fair and just city. State law mandates that the Housing Element be updated every eight years to reflect changing conditions, community objectives, and goals. The 2023-2031 Housing Element identifies a foundational framework of five overarching goals in Chapter 4: Housing Action Plan to comprehensively address the housing crisis and needs of Oaklanders. The goals seek to significantly address disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replace segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, foster and maintain compliance with civil rights, and affirmatively further fair housing. The goals and policy focus areas include:

*   **Protect Oakland Residents from Displacement and Prevent Homelessness:** Protect Oakland tenants from displacement and create conditions that enable them to remain in their homes and communities.
*   **Preserve and Improve Existing Housing Stock:** Conserve and improve the affordability of existing housing stock in Oakland and address substandard conditions.
*   **Close the Gap Between Affordable and Market-Rate Housing Production by Expanding Affordable Housing Opportunities:** Facilitate the production of housing for extremely low, very low, low, and moderate-income households. In addition to increased production generally, provide a diversity of housing types, ownership opportunities, living arrangements, and features designed to accommodate persons with disabilities.

    Locate new housing to further access to opportunity (while simultaneously investing in and protecting tenants in disinvested communities) and remove constraints to affordable housing development.

*   **Address Homelessness and Expand Resources for the Unhoused:** Recognize housing as a human right. Reduce homelessness through Housing First approaches and support coordination across the spectrum, from homelessness prevention to transitional housing/shelter and services to permanent housing with resources for long-term support.
*   **Promote Neighborhood Stability and Health:** Promote resilient development in safe, healthy, and just communities. Increase resources in disinvested communities and create long-time stability through homeownership opportunities.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 67 -->
### Table EJ-6: Top 10th Percentile Tracts by Indicator — Safe, Healthy, and Affordable Homes

| TRACT NAME (WITH SCORE) | | | | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **HABITABILITY** | **HOUSING BURDEN** | **EVICTION** | **HEATING[^p67-1]** | **OVERCROWDING** | **INCOMPLETE FACILITIES** | **LEAD** |
| Acorn Industrial* (1.00) | **Bancroft/ Havenscourt East (1.00)** | Port Lower* (1.00) | **Fremont District (1.00)** | **Fruitvale/ Hawthorne (1.00)** | **Uptown/ Downtown (1.00)** | **Bancroft/ Havenscourt East (1.00)** |
| **Prescott/ Mandela Peralta (0.99)** | **Eastmont (0.98)** | **Jack London Square (0.99)** | **Jingletown/ Kennedy (0.99)** | **Reservoir Hill/ Meadow Brook (0.98)** | Reservoir Hill/ Manzanita (0.99) | **Seminary (0.99)** |
| **Port Upper (0.98)** | **Melrose (0.98)** | Foothill Square/Toler Heights (0.98) | **Fitchburg (0.97)** | **Lower San Antonio East (0.98)** | Piedmont Ave North (0.98) | **Brookfield Village (0.98)** |
| **Chinatown (0.97)** | **Hoover/Foster (0.97)** | Las Palmas (0.97) | **Reservoir Hill/ Meadow Brook (0.97)** | **Fremont District (0.97)** | **Downtown/ Old Oakland (0.97)** | **Fremont District (0.97)** |
| **Oakland Estuary (0.96)** | **Lower San Antonio East (0.96)** | Downtown (0.96) | **Melrose (0.96)** | **Fruitvale (0.96)** | Lake Merritt (0.96) | **Lockwood/Coliseum/ Rudsdale (0.96)** |
| **Clawson/ Dogtown (0.96)** | **Brookfield Village (0.96)** | **Fitchburg (0.95)** | **McClymonds (0.94)** | **Elmhurst (0.96)** | Piedmont Ave Central (0.96) | **Lower San Antonio East (0.96)** |
| **McClymonds (0.95)** | **Peralta/Hacienda (0.95)** | Golf Links (0.95) | **Bunche/Oak Center (0.94)** | **Jingletown/ Kennedy (0.93)** | **Pill Hill (0.95)** | **New Highland (0.95)** |
| Foothill Square/ Toler Heights (0.94) | **Chinatown (0.94)** | **Bunche/MLK Jr (0.94)** | **Fruitvale/ Hawthorne (0.94)** | **Sobrante Park (0.93)** | **Lower San Antonio East (0.94)** | **Elmhurst (0.94)** |
| **Prescott (0.93)** | **New Highland (0.93)** | **Brookfield Village (0.93)** | | **Brookfield Village/ Hegenberger (0.93)** | **Chinatown (0.93)** | **Reservoir Hill/ Meadow Brook (0.93)** |
| **Bancroft/ Havenscourt East (0.92)** | **Fitchburg (0.92)** | **Prescott/Mandela Peralta (0.92)** | | **Bancroft/ Havenscourt East (0.90)** | **Harrington/ Fruitvale (0.92)** | **Bancroft/ Havenscourt West (0.92)** |
| **Eastmont (0.91)** | **Arroyo Viejo (0.91)** | **Prescott (0.91)** | | **Peralta/ Hacienda (0.90)** | Lower Laurel/ Allendale (0.91) | **Brookfield Village/ Hegenberger (0.91)** |
| **Jack London Square (0.90)** | **Elmhurst (0.90)** | **McClymonds (0.90)** | | **Brookfield Village (0.90)** | Golf Links (0.90) | **Arroyo Viejo (0.90)** |

*Note: Bolded and blue census tracts are EJ Communities.*
*\* Indicates census tract with low population.*
[^p67-1]: Includes only 8 tracts in top decile due to ties. Next highest score is 0.88.

<!-- page 68 -->
## 4.2 GOALS AND POLICIES

### GOAL EJ-4 COORDINATE RESOURCES TO IMPROVE HOUSING QUALITY AND HABITABILITY.

**EJ-4.1 Resource Optimization.** Coordinate across City departments and with relevant partner agencies including the Oakland Housing Authority, EBMUD, BAAQMD, ABAG, ACPHD and others, to optimize the use of data, grant monies, incentives, financial resources, staffing, investments, and programs in addressing displacement and tenant protections; sanitary housing and maintenance issues; environmental hazards in homes and neighborhoods; and other concerns related to stable, safe, and sanitary housing.

**EJ-4.2 Supplemental Funding Sources for Building Rehabilitation.** Place a high priority on identifying supplemental funding sources/resources for retrofit, rehabilitation, and upgrade projects that address health and safety in housing occupied by low-income renters and homeowners, including air quality improvements. Supplemental funding sources could include loans and grants available from the California Strategic Growth Council, CalEPA, CARB, and other entities.

**EJ-4.3 Healthy Homes Inspections.** As part of the Joint Lead Hazard Abatement Program in partnership with ACPHD, improve ongoing ability to screen for and eliminate lead hazards through proactive approaches, including proactive inspections of rental property dwellings and lead-safe certification requirements for childcare facilities and schools. Prioritize abatement, testing, outreach, and education activities in high-risk areas and serving the populations most likely to live in high-risk dwellings in EJ Communities, as identified in **Figure EJ-18**. *See also Action 2.1.2 in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.*

**EJ-4.4 Healthy Homes Awareness.** Continue to work with Oakland HCD, ACPHD, and community organizations to promote safe and sanitary housing in EJ Communities in **Figure EJ-17** by providing owners and occupants with culturally appropriate and linguistically accessible information and resources about home health, including lead/Lead Safe Home Program grants, indoor air pollutants, asthma triggers, hazard zones, and other information. Efforts may include the development and dissemination of healthy home checklists, conducting trainings, workshops, or audits.

**EJ-4.5 Improve Indoor Air Quality in Existing Buildings.** For new projects and significant rehabilitations of existing buildings, improve indoor air quality and energy efficiency through weatherization and strategies to prevent buildup of mold and mildew.

**EJ-4.6 Environmental Quality.** In private and non-profit housing projects in EJ Communities, promote and seek ways to incentivize the inclusion of features and amenities that support and enhance the health of occupants and the environment, including:

* On-site health and human services;
* Energy-efficient and electric appliances;
* Green infrastructure, such as green roofs or appropriate tree planting;
* Car sharing;
* Community gardens or sponsored rides to farmers markets; and
* Transit and bus passes for lower income workers and persons with disabilities to reduce emissions.

<!-- page 69 -->
# 5. Expanding Healthy Food Access

Access to affordable, healthy, nourishing food is one of the most basic human needs. Beyond this, Oakland’s food system also plays a major role in shaping Oakland’s culture, identity, and employment opportunities. However, there are parts of Oakland that lack food access, and many Oaklanders struggle with food insecurity. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines food insecurity as “lack of consistent access to enough food for every person in a household to live an active, healthy life.”[^p69-1] Food-insecure households are not necessarily food insecure all the time. Food insecurity may reflect a household’s need to make trade-offs between important basic needs such as housing or medical bills and purchasing nutritionally adequate foods. Challenges to accessing healthy food can lead to a higher risk of chronic diseases such as obesity, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes;[^p69-2] when people cannot get to grocery stores that sell healthy foods, they may shop at nearby corner stores, which often carry foods high in fat, sugar, and sodium and fewer healthy options like fresh produce. EJ Communities most burdened by food access issues are shown in **Table EJ-7**. This section describes Oakland’s food network, including availability of food outlets, food availability, and food quality.

### 5.1 ISSUES AND DISPARITIES

In 2019, 11 percent of California Congressional District 13’s population (encompassing the northwest branch of Alameda County) was food insecure. More than 40 percent of the food insecure population was not eligible for food assistance programs such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, administered as CalFresh in California and formerly known as food stamps) and other nutrition programs because they make more than 200 percent of the federal poverty level.[^p69-3] Food insecurity rates differ by race and ethnicity: 20 percent of Black individuals and 15 percent of Hispanic people of any race were reported as food insecure, while the food insecurity rate among White, non-Hispanic individuals was seven percent. In Alameda County, 8 percent of residents receive CalFresh (SNAP) benefits, at an average of $219 per person, per month.[^p69-4] SNAP users may use their benefits to purchase food at accepting food markets and grocery stores. In addition, benefit cards can be used at participating farmers’ markets, such as those in Temescal and Old Oakland.[^p69-5],[^p69-6] SNAP is an important federal tool in reducing food insecurity; thus, places where there is a high rate of SNAP usage may indicate communities that could become food insecure if any federal changes affected SNAP availability or eligibility. In Oakland, tracts with the highest percentage of people receiving SNAP are located in West, East, and deep East Oakland. All tracts in the top tenth percentile for SNAP recipiency are EJ Communities.

The percentage of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch is often used as a proxy measure for the percentage of students living in poverty.[^p69-7] Beginning in the 2022–2023 school

[^p69-1]: Feeding America. 2021. https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/food-insecurity. Accessed Jan 30 2022
[^p69-2]: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Healthy Food Environments: Improving Access to Healthier Food,” last updated September 10, 2020, https://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/healthy-food-environments/improving-access-to-healthier-food.html, accessed February 23, 2023.
[^p69-3]: Feeding America. 2021. https://map.feedingamerica.org/district/2019/overall/california/district/13. Accessed Jan 10 2022.
[^p69-4]: California Department of Social Services. 2022. https://public.tableau.com/shared/6C68NTX9M. Accessed Dec 28 2022.
[^p69-5]: California Department of Social Services. https://www.cdss.ca.gov/calfreshoutreach/res/Toolkit/ConsumerFliers/ConsumerFlier_1_UsingCalFreshBenefitsisSimple_English.pdf. Accessed Dec 28, 2022.
[^p69-6]: United States Department of Agriculture. https://www.usdalocalfoodportal.com/fe/searchresults/?term=&location=Oakland,%20CA,%20USA&directory=farmersmarket&x=-122.2711639&y=37.8043514&c=0. Accessed Dec 28, 2022
[^p69-7]: National Center for Education Statistics. 2015. “Free or reduced price lunch: A proxy for poverty?” https://nces.ed.gov/blogs/nces/post/free-or-reduced-price-lunch-a-proxy-for-poverty Accessed Dec 28, 2022

<!-- page 70 -->
year, all public and charter schools serving transitional kindergarten through 12th grade are required to provide two free meals to every student each school day, regardless of their eligibility for other meal programs. Served meals must comply with USDA nutrition guidelines, including milk and calorie requirements. The Universal Meals Program ensures that the nutritional needs of children who require affordable food options are met during the school day. In addition, the City’s Summer Food Service Program provides free breakfast and lunch to Oakland kids and teens during summer break. Tracts with the greatest percentage of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch are located in Acorn/Jack London Gateway, central East Oakland, and deep East Oakland.

### FOOD ACCESS

The grocery store is the primary source of healthy food for most Oaklanders, providing access to a wide variety of nutritious and relatively affordable produce and other foods compared to other types of food outlets like convenience stores. However, racial and socioeconomic inequities in access to healthy food have led to differential food access for communities of color, especially in West and East Oakland, where some key food resources have closed. Current market forces driving the location of chain supermarkets continue to perpetuate food access inequity tied to policies that created residential segregation, poverty, and “supermarket flight” from certain neighborhoods. While incentives or other efforts may be needed to overcome these forces for traditional supermarkets, there are also mission-driven grocery store operators, such as food co-ops, that have emerged as an alternative that can provide healthy, culturally relevant food, while building community power and ownership. Food advocates have also urged more focus and support for smaller independent grocers that have served East and West Oakland for decades.

While development of full-service food retailers is an important strategy, existing convenience stores, dollar stores, corner stores, or gas station markets often provide the only retail food options in some areas of the city. Most corner stores sell a limited selection of non-perishable food items and less nutritious snack foods, though some also carry fresh produce and other nutritious fares. Initiatives to encourage stocking more fresh produce and healthier food options can include financial incentives, promotion and marketing, infrastructure investment (e.g., purchasing new refrigeration units or display stands), and produce supply chain development. The location of full-service food outlets and smaller convenience stores is shown in Figure EJ-19. While there are large grocery stores within a walkable distance for residents of Lake Merritt, Temescal, and Rockridge neighborhoods, considerable portions of East and West Oakland do not have one close by. East Oakland does have key smaller food markets which aim to fill the gap between larger stores.

Community gardens and farmers markets can help to improve fresh food accessibility in areas of lower food access. Community gardens are dedicated plots of land where residents can grow food or other plants; many are started by residents who recognize that their communities are underserved by traditional fresh food retailers. Community gardens can promote the concept of food autonomy, where people are empowered to control their food and food systems. The City can take additional steps to make City-owned land available for community gardens, prioritizing areas and community stewards that will have the greatest impact on food-deprived communities. Some research has shown that people who participate in community gardens eat more fruits and vegetables and worry less about running out of food before the end of the month. Oakland also has several farmers markets that accept SNAP, which benefits both the farmers and low-income shoppers. Moving farmers markets to more central locations, accessible by transit, can also promote food access.

### FOOD DISTRIBUTION AND RECOVERY

Supporting a fine-grained network of food distribution points can also help to improve food access. For example, libraries, schools, parks, and even large parking lots can become sites where sales or distribution of fresh food can occur. Improving the effectiveness of existing food distribution programs, especially in underserved areas and those with higher prevalence of food insecurity, can be a cost-effective way to improve access to affordable healthier foods. For example, and the City could coordinate with community organizations to better connect eligible residents and families to federal, State, and local food programs, as well as emergency food assistance.

Edible food recovery programs divert food waste by redistributing unused food from food generators such as grocery stores, supermarkets, restaurants, corporate kitchens, and other wholesaler/distributors. Feeding hungry people through food recovery is the best use for surplus food and a vital way for Oakland to conserve resources and reduce waste thrown in landfills. The City can support food recovery by supporting existing capacity of food generators and develop new capacity to recover, divert, and redistribute consumable food to those in need.

### FOOD ASSISTANCE AND EDUCATION

The price of food—in addition to taste, nutrition, convenience, and other factors—affects people’s food choices, and is one of the greatest barriers to accessing healthy food. Participation in food assistance programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (also known as CalFresh) and Women, Infants, and Children nutrition program (WIC), can help to improve food security, offer benefits that enable families to purchase healthier diets, and free up resources for other necessities. The City will seek to understand barriers, promote access and community awareness, and expand acceptance of these benefit programs at retailers and farmers markets in partnership with community organizations.

Given the time limitations and financial and physical barriers people with disabilities and low-income families may face when preparing meals, it is important to increase education around convenient and easy-to-prepare healthy food options. The City will play a role in providing marketing and educational campaigns targeted at increasing food growing and healthy eating to support new healthy food retail in EJ Communities.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 71 -->
# Figure EJ-19: Food Access

<<FIGURE>>

| Food Resources | |
| :--- | :--- |
| Grocery/Supermarket Size (sq ft) | |
| ● | > 25,000 Sq ft |
| ● | 10,000 - 25,000 |
| ● | 2,500 - 10,000 |
| | Grocery/Supermarket 1/2-mile Radius |
| ● | Food Market (< 2,500 sq ft) |
| ■ | Farmers' Market |
| - | Railroads |
| - | Major Roads |
| --- | City of Oakland |
| | Alameda County |
| | Parks |

<!-- page 72 -->
## Building Resilience: Community-Led Food Security

Community organizations have led the charge in building local resilience and increasing food security. City Slicker Farms leads the urban farming and food justice movement in West Oakland, having transformed a vacant brownfield site into a thriving community park and farm. City Slicker has built more than 400 backyard and community gardens since 2001, and their West Oakland Farm Park is a vibrant community hub on land that was once heavily contaminated. City Slicker Farms also includes other programs that increase food access (the Backyard Gardens Program); support food sharing (participation in the Town Fridge collective); and build skills in farming and cooking (the Food and Farming Skill Sharing Program.)

In Deep East Oakland, Planting Justice (PJ) Nursery hires and trains formerly incarcerated people at their two-acre Rolling River tree nursery in the Sobrante Park neighborhood. In the last 10 years, the team has built over 450 edible gardens throughout the Bay Area. In partnership with Sogorea Te’ Land Trust (STLT), an urban indigenous women-led community organization, PJ facilitated the transfer of the Rolling River Nursery’s plot back into Chochenyo and Karkin Ohlone stewardship. This partnership recognizes Oakland’s Ohlone history and grants STLT access to the land in perpetuity.

Mandela Grocery Co-op in West Oakland is a worker cooperative (co-op), which is a model that serves as an effective tool for creating long-term, dignified jobs, particularly in urban low-income communities. The Mandela Grocery Co-op is a grocery store that is operated, centrally governed, and democratically controlled by its worker-owners and sources from local entrepreneurs and farmers in California with a focus on Black and Brown farmers and food makers.

The Saba Grocers Initiative is a network of Arab immigrant and Black corner store owners working to build a food system where fresh fruits and vegetables are affordable for all. Initially funded by Oakland’s 2017 “soda tax” after successful community organizing efforts, Saba Grocers helps its network of members secure fresh fruits and vegetables through bulk wholesale purchase and distribution to each member store. They also distribute Saba Food Cards, a closed loop Visa worth $250 each for residents in need of assistance, developed in partnership with 25 independent store owners in Oakland. The Initiative also coordinates a “Fresh 5x” nutrition incentive program funded by the USDA and distributes funds to local grocers that supplement CalFresh and CalSNAP benefits. For every dollar SNAP recipients spend on fresh produce, they get five additional dollars for additional produce, helping lower-income residents stretch their monthly grocery budgets by a significant amount.

*Sources: City Slicker Farms website, Planting Justice Website, Mandela Grocery Co-op website, Oakland Equitable Climate Action Plan 2030, Saba Grocers Initiative website*

<<FIGURE>>
<<FIGURE>>
<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 73 -->
### Table EJ-7: Top 10th Percentile Tracts by Indicator — Expanding Healthy Food Access

| TRACT NAME (WITH SCORE) | | | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **SNAP[^p73-1]<sup>,</sup>[^p73-2]** | **FOOD ACCESS[^p73-2]** | **FARMERS' MARKETS** | **COMMUNITY GARDENS** | **FREE/REDUCED PRICE MEAL[^p73-2]** |
| **Lockwood/Coliseum/** | **Prescott/Mandela Peralta (0.91)** | **Brookfield Village (1.00)** | Montclair North (1.00) | Port Lower* (0.99) |
| **Rudsdale (0.99)** | **Acorn (0.91)** | Sequoyah (0.99) | Glen Highlands (0.99) | Acorn Industrial* (0.99) |
| **DeFremery/Oak Center (0.99)** | **Brookfield Village (0.91)** | Redwood Heights West (0.98) | Piedmont Pines (0.98) | **Melrose (0.98)** |
| **Bancroft/Havenscourt East (0.98)** | San Antonio/Highland Terrace (0.91) | **Brookfield Village/ Hegenberger (0.97)** | Montclair South (0.97) | **Acorn (0.97)** |
| **Prescott/Mandela Peralta (0.97)** | Golf Links (0.91) | Lincoln Highlands (0.96) | Caballo Hills (0.96) | **Jack London Gateway (0.96)** |
| **Fruitvale/Hawthorne (0.93)** | **Prescott (0.91)** | Lower Dimond School (0.96) | Panoramic Hill (0.96) | **Fremont District (0.96)** |
| **Cox/Elmhurst (0.93)** | Bushrod/Childrens Hospital (0.91) | **Cox/Elmhurst (0.95)** | Sequoyah (0.95) | **Elmhurst (0.95)** |
| **Sobrante Park (0.93)** | **Brookfield Village/ Hegenberger (0.91)** | **Stonehurst (0.94)** | Oakmore North (0.94) | **Bancroft/Havenscourt East (0.94)** |
| **Acorn (0.93)** | Mills College (0.91) | Laurel/Upper Peralta Creek (0.93) | Woodminster (0.93) | **New Highland (0.93)** |
| **Brookfield Village (0.93)** | Sequoyah (0.91) | **Prescott (0.92)** | Upper Piedmont Ave (0.92) | **Harrington/Fruitvale (0.92)** |
| **Fremont District (0.91)** | Port Lower* (0.91) | Woodminster (0.91) | **Seminary (0.91)** | **Webster (0.91)** |
| **Bunche/MLK Jr (0.91)** | **Sobrante Park (0.90)** | Foothill Square/Toler Heights (0.90) | **Sobrante Park (0.90)** | **Arroyo Viejo (0.90)** |
| *Note: Bolded and blue census tracts are EJ Communities.* | | | | |
| *\* Indicates census tract with low population.* | | | | |
| *1. Only includes 11 tracts in top decile due to ties. Next highest score is 0.86.* | | | | |
| *2. Maximum score is not 1.00 due to ties.* | | | | |

[^p73-1]: Only includes 11 tracts in top decile due to ties. Next highest score is 0.86.
[^p73-2]: Maximum score is not 1.00 due to ties.

<!-- page 74 -->
## 5.2 GOALS AND POLICIES

| GOAL EJ-5 | SUPPORT A FOOD SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES NUTRITIOUS, AFFORDABLE, CULTURALLY RELEVANT, AND AFFORDABLE FOOD TO ALL OAKLANDERS |
| :--- | :--- |

### Improving Food Access

**EJ-5.1 New Healthy Food Grocers.** Leverage tax and fee deferral/reduction programs, California Food Financing Initiative funding, and other economic development grant monies to attract new healthy food grocers and co-ops and help them establish and/or make necessary improvements. As shown in Figure EJ-19, allow small grocery stores within residential areas. As a priority, efforts should be focused in areas underserved by healthy food retail with good access to the transportation network, where grocery stores and food co-ops are most economically viable.

**EJ-5.2 Community Gardens Program.** Partner with nonprofits, especially Indigenous groups, to expand the City's Community Gardens Program, with policies to address maintenance and permit Indigenous community harvesting/ foraging of parks. The program should include garden spaces, community-maintained edible landscapes, and amenities in public spaces.

**EJ-5.3 Community and Home Gardening.** Support community and home gardening efforts and – particularly in EJ Communities underserved by healthy food retail – by providing financial incentives such as land transfers or discounted water rates and technical assistance in the form of online and library resources and workshops on gardening basics and cooking easy, healthy meals with fresh produce. Work with community groups to increase the prevalence of accessible, local gardens. Other incentives may include:

*   Explore the expansion of outright permitting of community gardens in areas where a Conditional Use Permit is currently required, particularly in the Broadway Valdez District (D-BV) and Central Estuary (D-CE) zones.
*   Incentivize urban agriculture in urbanized areas by offering reduced property tax assessments or relief from Oakland vacancy tax in exchange for converting vacant or unimproved property to an agricultural use through a contract agreement for an initial period of five years.

**EJ-5.4 Urban Agriculture in New Development.** Promote rooftop gardens, edible gardens, and other sustainable agricultural landscaping alternatives within multi-unit, commercial, and industrial developments.

*   Target creation of rooftop gardens highly visible from neighboring properties.
*   Permit indoor “vertical food farms” in appropriate areas in the City.
*   Reduce permit fees for large-scale farming of edible products.

**EJ-5.5 Entrepreneurship and Food Innovation.** Actively support food innovations such as street (sidewalk) vending, food cooperatives, pop-up markets and similar innovations that do not fit into the traditional brick-and-mortar storefront, farmers market, or community garden models. Promote indoor farming of fruits and vegetables in industrial zones. Support individual residents in small-scale agriculture and distribution, through education and financial assistance.

### Food Assistance and Nutrition Programs

**EJ-5.6 Food Assistance Programs.** Work to increase community awareness of and participation in existing federal food assistance programs, such as the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) nutrition program and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Approaches can include:

*   Providing information in City newsletters, on the City’s website, and at community centers and other City facilities.
*   Explaining to merchants the incentive to registering to accept WIC and SNAP payments (immediate expansion of market of potential customers).
*   Supporting additional programs for local grocers to supplement CalFresh benefits with cash match incentives, healthy food incentives, or fruit and vegetable supplemental benefits. Some program examples include Market Match, Fresh Creds, and SPUR’s Double Up Food Bucks program.
*   Partnering with community organizations that support low-income community members who are not eligible for food assistance through identification of funding or grants.

**EJ-5.7 Food Security Resources & Partnerships.** Coordinate with citywide community-serving organizations, the Oakland Unified School District, Alameda County, and other public agencies to ensure that eligible residents and families have access to federal, State, and local food programs, as well as emergency food assistance during public health and other crises. Partner with these service providers to distribute food at community centers and other central locations in areas with high food insecurity and/or low access to food. During such emergencies, support the Alameda County Community Foodbank to expand hours and keep distribution centers operational.

<!-- page 75 -->
**EJ-5.8 Education and Awareness.** In partnership with local agencies and community organizations, develop curriculum and marketing materials encouraging the growth and consumption of healthy food. Provide these to the Oakland Unified School District and community organizations focused on food justice and nutritional education. Support community organizations with financial incentives such as land transfers or discounted water rates and technical assistance in the form of online and library resources and workshops on gardening basics and cooking easy, healthy meals with fresh produce.

### Food Recovery

**EJ-5.9 Food Recovery Program.** Support existing capacity of organizations within Oakland's food system, and develop new capacity, to recover edible food that is otherwise wasted, and distribute that food for human consumption. This includes:

* Exploring potential for agroforestry, where trees, shrubs, and agricultural crops are interspersed, in community gardens or parks, to create additional food sources.
* Engaging with stakeholders, including local food donation, recovery, and collection organizations, to build robust collection and food storage capacity, and reliable distribution systems to the neediest populations.
* Engaging with food generators such as supermarkets, wholesale distributors, large hotels, and institutions, to donate surplus edible food that food recovery partners want or will accept and ensuring food generators comply with the Edible Food Recovery requirements of SB 1383.
* Informing edible surplus food generators about strategies and best practices for preventing the waste of surplus food.
* Expanding community education efforts and marketing of existing recovery programs, such as Oakland Recycles.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 76 -->
(blank page)

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

# 6. Equitable Public Facilities

The adequate provision of public facilities is a critical component to the current and future prosperity of a community. Under State law (SB 1000), “public facilities” is an umbrella term that includes “public improvements, public services, and community amenities.” This covers a wide spectrum of publicly provided uses and services including infrastructure, school facilities, parks, transportation, and emergency services. These amenities and services improve the health, safety, and well-being of a community by either enhancing the public sphere or providing services that are available to every resident.

Distribution and investment in a City’s public facilities shapes residents’ access to services and resources to fulfill their needs and wants. Because of past discriminatory land use policies, there are parts of Oakland that have been overlooked for public investments and development of new amenities. Delayed investments and programs can perpetuate current disparities in the built environment, access to opportunity and resources, and other social determinants of health – significantly prolonging these inequities and their corresponding outcomes in health and wellbeing. As part of SB 1000, environmental justice elements must ensure that EJ Communities receive priority for City investment and programs that are implemented in a timely fashion. Investments in public systems can include park improvements, transportation infrastructure improvements, upgrades to public facilities, and other systems.

More information on financing public facilities will be available in the new Infrastructure and Facilities Element in Phase 2 of the General Plan Update.

### Building Resilience: Friends of the Hoover Durant Public Library

Founded in 2006, the Friends of the Hoover Durant Public Library (FOHDPL) is grassroots, volunteer-run nonprofit working to bring a public library branch back to West Oakland’s Hoover, Durant, McClymonds and Clawson neighborhoods. The North Oakland and Telegrove libraries previously serving these areas were closed in 1950 and 1980 respectively, targeted for closure as a result of historic patterns of racially motivated, systemic disinvestment and institutional redlining. Their closures have since reduced accessibility to these vital public spaces, especially as the next closest library branches require crossing major roads and highways. FOHDPL seeks to close this gap and, in the meantime, act as an intermediary providing community events and services such as their Street Corner Library.

Thanks to the efforts of FOHDPL, the City issued a feasibility study for a new 12,000 square-foot library facility that will likely be completed by early 2024.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 78 -->
## 6.1 ISSUES AND DISPARITIES

### COMMUNITY FACILITIES

#### Public Facilities

Community facilities in Oakland include a wide range of places that provide valuable amenities to the community. These include public libraries and community centers, which offer a variety of educational and recreational programs, community gathering spaces, access to information and technology, and opportunities to participate in a neighborhood's cultural, political, and social life.

Childcare and early education facilities keep children safe and healthy, help them develop skills they will need for succeeding in and out of school, and create better, more equitable long-term outcomes for children. Free or subsidized childcare programs provide much-needed support for working families. Head Start programs promote the school readiness of infants, toddlers, and preschool-aged children from low-income families. Head Start programs in Oakland are shown in **Figure EJ-20**. There are 17 Head Start locations across the city, mostly clustered in central and East Oakland. Five Head Start facilities are located near the Lower San Antonio and Fruitvale census tracts in central Oakland, while six Head Start facilities are located near the New Highland and Arroyo Viejo census tracts in East Oakland. There are no Head Start locations west of the I-580 or California State Route 24.

A healthy community also has convenient access to medical services. When health care facilities are accessible via public transit, medical care is more readily accessible to those who do not drive or own cars. As shown on **Figure EJ-21**, there are multiple medical facilities located within the city, ranging from large hospitals and medical complexes, such as Alta Bates Summit Medical Center, Kaiser Oakland Medical Center, and Highland Hospital. There are also 79 Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), or community-based health care providers and critical community development facilities that provide primary care services in underserved areas, in Oakland. Most healthcare locations are concentrated in certain census tracts such as Bushrod near the Children's Hospital, Pill Hill near Summit Campus of Alta Bates Summit Medical Center, and Fruitvale near a cluster of healthcare facilities. Distribution of healthcare facilities in Oakland is not uniform; most clusters are in North Oakland and Downtown, in contrast to the few in West and East Oakland.

As part of the Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) update, the City will explore strategies to incentivize additional childcare locations and healthcare facilities in areas of need, prioritizing EJ Communities.

### PUBLIC ART, CULTURAL INFRASTRUCTURE, AND FACILITIES

Sustaining and celebrating Oakland's cultural and creative diversity can initiate opportunities for artistic engagement, which has the potential to have significant positive effects on health, including decreased anxiety, stress, and mood disturbances. Music engagement, visual arts therapy, movement-based creative expression, and expressive writing have demonstrated positive outcomes for promoting healing as shown in a study from the American Journal of Public Health.[^p78-61] The study underscores that this more holistic approach to public health could also help to alleviate the burden of chronic diseases like heart disease and diabetes which are associated with depression and chronic stress.

Oakland's artistic and cultural landscape is very important. However, Oakland's arts infrastructure faces challenges: as noted in Oakland's 2018 Culture and Belonging Report[^p78-62], cultural organizations face issues related to shrinking investments in arts and culture, retaining cultural spaces in a highly competitive real estate market, lack of adequate performance venues, and a need for more equitable funding. The East Oakland Neighborhood Initiative Plan also emphasized a desire for more arts hubs in local warehouses, creative activation of vacant lots, and the purchasing of foreclosed spaces for these purposes. The East Oakland creative community anchors the character of the neighborhoods, and there is a growing interest in elevating the creative community through development and funding for the arts. In West Oakland, the West Oakland Cultural Action Network is exploring ways to foster art and preserve cultural spaces that showcase community creativity and artistry, particularly through mural projects.

Policies in the EJ Element give direction to address equitable distribution and access to community and cultural facilities as part of the LUTE. Policies related to facility maintenance and improvement will be addressed as part of the Infrastructure and Facilities Element developed as part of Phase 2.

### PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE

In 2019, the City introduced a new process to better reflect public input into the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) budget, which is the City's plan for investments over the next three years. This methodology was further refined for the current (fiscal years 2021-2023) budget to capture more equitable representation of requests and projects in East Oakland. Generally, there is an equal geographic distribution of existing CIP and non-CIP projects throughout Oakland. Many new CIPs have also been recommended, including a number in Brookfield Village, Sobrante Park, and Stonehurst neighborhoods in East Oakland, Coliseum Industrial Complex area, and Ralph Bunche and Oak Center neighborhoods in West Oakland.

New CIPs will bring public improvements to street and road conditions, facilitated by the recently proposed 5-Year Paving Plan, which will direct more equitable investment in priority neighborhoods including those with higher concentrations of BIPOC and low-income residents. Policies in the General Plan seek to continue equity-focused Capital Improvement Projects, which will be carried forward in the new Infrastructure and Facilities Element of the General Plan.

[^p78-61]: Stuckey, H. and Nobel, J. The Connection Between Art, Healing, and Public Health: A Review of Current Literature. Am J Public Health. 2010 February; 100(2): 254–263. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2804629/ Accessed Dec 30, 2022.
[^p78-62]: City of Oakland Cultural Affairs Division, Belonging in Oakland: A Cultural Development Plan, 2018, https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Cultural-Plan-9.24-online.pdf, accessed February 23, 2023.

<!-- page 79 -->
<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 80 -->
### Figure EJ-21: Healthcare Locations

<<FIGURE>>

| | |
|---|---|
| H | Oakland Area Hospitals |
| ⊕ | Licensed or Certified Healthcare Facility |
| — | Major Roads |
| --- | City of Oakland |
| --- | Alameda County |
| | Parks |

<!-- page 81 -->
### Building Resilience: Oakland 2022 5-Year Paving Plan

The 2019 3-Year Paving Plan (3YP) guided citywide pavement prioritization between July 2019 and June 2022. On December 21, 2021, the City adopted the 2022 5-Year Paving Plan (5YP), which builds on the accomplishments of the 3YP to continue to invest in the care and maintenance of Oakland’s streets. Both of these plans leverage repaving to make safety improvements and are center equity in service provision, with a new focus on neighborhood streets.

The 5YP prioritizes $225 million ($45 million a year) toward local streets, and 76 percent of this budget is programmed in consideration of equity factors to provide greater benefit to underserved populations—including people of color, low-income households, people with disabilities, households with severe rent burden, people with limited English proficiency, and youth and older adults (ages 65 and older)—and in geographic areas of greatest needs. Overall, the 5YP represents 350 miles of streets that will receive accessibility improvements including curb ramp improvements, sidewalk repairs, and crosswalk marking upgrades prioritized in local streets and underserved communities.

Source: *City of Oakland, 5-Year Paving Plan, 2022*

### PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES

Public services in Oakland include water and sewage, electricity and gas, and solid waste services. Oakland’s water supply, treatment facilities, and distribution systems are operated and managed by the East Bay Municipality Utility District (EBMUD). The City provides citywide sanitary sewer collection services while EBMUD provides sewage transport, treatment, and discharge services. Sewer discharge from buildings within Oakland flows through approximately 930 miles of the City’s sewer network and ultimately deposits at the Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant located in West Oakland. Solid waste services in Oakland are provided by Waste Management of Alameda County, which collects residential and business trash and compost. Residential recycling services are provided by California Waste Solutions.

Electricity and gas are provided by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), and Comcast (also referred to as “Xfinity”) and other companies provide internet service in Oakland. In 2018, Alameda County and 11 of its cities launched the East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) not-for-profit public power agency that governs Community Choice Energy service to help supply clean energy and create local green energy jobs, programs, and clean power projects. EBCE supplies electricity to residential, business, and municipal accounts that are delivered through PG&E.

A lack of essential services can have a significant impact on the daily lives of residents. Energy is one of these crucial services. High energy cost burdens can have several negative effects on households. Low-income households may have to make trade-offs between energy costs and the costs of other necessities such as food and medical care. Households that cut back on energy use due to high cost may experience negative health effects, including asthma and arthritis. High energy cost burden also creates a chronic source of stress, which negatively affects the mental health of household members. In addition, households of color experience greater energy cost burden compared to white households, as seen in **Chart EJ-4**. This is especially true for Black households in Oakland for which median energy cost burden is 2.34 times higher than for white households. Geographically, the census tracts that are most impacted by energy cost burden include Lockwood/Coliseum/Rudsdale, Lower San Antonio East, and Fitchburg, among others listed in **Table EJ-8**. Further analysis into public service infrastructure equity issues and financing options, including grants and assistance to lower income populations in EJ Communities, will be explored as part of the new Infrastructure and Facilities Element in Phase 2 of the General Plan Update.

### Chart EJ-4: Median Percent of Household Income Spent on Energy Costs by Race, 2018

<<FIGURE>>

Source: *Oakland Equity Indicators Report, City of Oakland, 2018.*

### Table EJ-8: Top 10th Percentile Tracts by Indicator — Equitable Public Facilities

| ENERGY COST BURDEN | |
| :--- | :--- |
| **Tract Name** | **Score** |
| **Lockwood/Coliseum/Rudsdale** | **1.00** |
| **Lower San Antonio East** | **0.99** |
| **Fitchburg** | **0.98** |
| **Castlemont** | **0.97** |
| **New Highland** | **0.96** |
| **Brookfield Village** | **0.96** |
| **Bancroft/Havenscourt East** | **0.95** |
| **Seminary** | **0.94** |
| **Stonehurst** | **0.93** |
| **Webster** | **0.92** |
| **Arroyo Viejo** | **0.91** |
| **Sobrante Park** | **0.90** |
| Note: Bolded census tracts in blue are EJ Communities. | |

<!-- page 82 -->
## 6.2 GOALS AND POLICIES

### GOAL EJ-6 SUPPORT A NETWORK OF WELL-MAINTAINED COMMUNITY FACILITIES THAT ARE EASILY ACCESSIBLE, CULTURALLY SUPPORTIVE, AND RESPONSIVE TO COMMUNITY NEEDS.

#### Public Facilities

**EJ-6.1 Public Facilities Distribution.** Ensure equitable distribution of beneficial public safety, civic, and cultural facilities. Prioritize new facilities, resilience hubs, and creative spaces in traditionally underserved areas. Locations for these public facilities should be identified in collaboration with local schools and neighborhood groups.

**EJ-6.2 Childcare Facilities.** As part of planning efforts, ensure appropriate land use designations, zoning, and incentives to facilitate additional affordable and high-quality childcare facilities in areas without sufficient access, as shown in **Figure EJ-20**.

**EJ-6.3 Healthcare Facilities.** As part of long-range planning efforts, ensure appropriate land use designations and zoning to facilitate additional healthcare facilities in areas without sufficient access, as shown in **Figure EJ-21**.

**EJ-6.4 Facilities Maintenance.** Maintain and improve existing civic and public facilities to ensure safer, more attractive facilities that are responsive to community needs. Prioritize equitable capital improvements and maintenance projects and investments in public and community-driven social infrastructure in EJ Communities.

**EJ-6.5 Public Service Coordination.** Maintain interagency coordination agreements with neighboring jurisdictions and partner agencies that provide urban public facilities and services within the City/County to ensure effective and efficient service delivery. Ensure strong coordination between agencies during climate emergencies, with in-language and culturally appropriate outreach targeted to the most vulnerable communities.

**EJ-6.6 Public Restroom Facilities.** Distribute restrooms equitably across the city to support all residents, including Oakland's unhoused population. Access to safe, clean sanitation is globally recognized as essential for public health. Public toilets should be accessible to all Oaklanders, without social or physical barriers preventing usage. A public toilet facility's design and upkeep should offer privacy and safety, ensure cleanliness, provide required sanitation-related resources, and be gender equitable.

<<FIGURE>>

Credit: Black Cultural Zone

<!-- page 83 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# 7. Promoting Physical Activity

Building complete neighborhoods with open spaces, parks, urban forest, and safe sidewalks and bikeways can support a greener, healthier City, with more opportunities for residents to get out and play, socialize, experience nature, and exercise. Physical inactivity is one of the key contributors to chronic disease in California. In fact, people who are physically active tend to have a higher life expectancy and lower risk for heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, some cancers, and other health-related illnesses.[^p83-1] In Oakland, areas with the greatest prevalence of obesity include DeFremery/Oak Center and Acorn in West Oakland as well as Havenscourt/Coliseum, Bancroft/Havenscourt, and Seminary in East Oakland, whereas tracts in the Oakland Hills consistently have lower incidences of obesity.

The built environment plays an integral role in determining how communities can access opportunities for physical activity by providing places and encouraging land uses that support active transportation and other forms of exercise. The built environment of impacted communities can be negatively impacted by a history of inequitable investments and discriminatory land use practices. These practices have meant fewer opportunities for physical activity, such as fewer parks, recreation facilities, and safe pedestrian connectivity networks. This section describes some of the top barriers to physical activity and health and lays out a framework for addressing other considerations in the LUTE and Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation (OSCAR) Elements.

<<FIGURE>>

## 7.1 ISSUES AND DISPARITIES

### MOBILITY AND SAFETY

Accessible land use patterns with amenities in close distance, robust transportation options, and access to safe pedestrian and bicycle networks are important components of community livability. In addition to serving as spaces where people can recreate, pedestrian and bicycle facilities can help encourage residents to maintain an active and healthy lifestyle.

#### Bicycle Facilities

“Let’s Bike Oakland” (2019), an addendum to the LUTE that forms the City’s Bicycle Plan, takes an equity-focused approach to bicycle planning. The plan establishes a vision that Oakland will be a bicycle-friendly city where bicycling provides affordable, safe, and healthy mobility for all Oaklanders. The plan highlights new projects and programs that will work to enhance existing communities and their mobility needs. Existing and planned bicycle infrastructure from Let’s Bike Oakland is shown in **Figure EJ-22**. The plan acknowledges the lack of bicycle infrastructure in East Oakland despite a strong desire among residents for more opportunities to bike and proposes significant investments in low-stress

[^p83-1]: Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Physical Inactivity, September 2022, https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/factsheets/physical-activity.htm, accessed September 8, 2022.

<!-- page 84 -->
# Figure EJ-22: Oakland Existing and Proposed Bicycle Network, 2019

<<FIGURE>>

**Existing Bikeways**
*   Class I
*   Class II
*   Class III
*   Class IV

**Proposed Bikeways**
*   Class I
*   Class II
*   Class III
*   Class IV
*   City of Oakland
*   Alameda County

SOURCE: City of Oakland, 2021; ALAMEDA County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021

<!-- page 85 -->
²bikeways, supportive infrastructure³, and programming in East Oakland neighborhoods. However, the plan acknowledges the potential adverse effects of transportation investments on housing costs, particularly in historically disinvested neighborhoods, in a speculative land market. Let’s Bike Oakland recognizes the connection between public investments in transportation infrastructure and new development, and the threat this relationship can pose to housing affordability and stability in Oakland’s Black and Brown neighborhoods. The plan highlights the need for bicycle infrastructure investments to be paired with policies and programs that keep people in place, foster neighborhood economic development, and protect labor rights.

### Transit Facilities

Oakland’s 2018 Equity Indicators identified that bus frequency is relatively equitable compared to other citywide issues assessed in the report. Nevertheless, there are still some disparities in frequency between racial groups. Specifically, residents in majority Black census tracts experience less than half the average number of buses per hour than residents in majority White tracts. In addition, data from the 2019 American Community Surveys (ACS) demonstrates that provision of services does not align with needs, as almost all racial groups have similar percentages (approximately 25 percent) of working residents who commute by transit, except for Hispanic/Latinx, Native American/Alaskan, and Other races (18 percent and lower).⁴ Oakland’s existing transit infrastructure and bus route frequency as of 2017 is shown in **Figure EJ-23**.

AC Transit and OakDOT updated their Transit Action Strategy in 2020 which highlights actions to reduce transit costs for low-income transit users and identifies transit improvements that would benefit vulnerable populations, such as addressing gaps in bus frequency. These actions also address infrastructure upgrades, such as repaving transit streets, upgrading bus stops, and installing pedestrian lighting.

### Pedestrian Network

In 2021, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released an update to its Smart Location Database (version 3.0), which includes an analysis of transportation accessibility according to factors like location and quality of employment. Census block groups in Oakland generally fall within the higher (more walkable) range. Areas where there is less walkability include census block groups along the northern edge of the city, in addition to the industrial area of West Oakland (west of I-880) and Oakland International Airport. According to “Oakland Walks,” an addendum to the LUTE that forms the City’s Pedestrian Plan, sidewalks in East and West Oakland are more likely to be damaged and to be missing critical amenities such as curb ramps, and these neighborhoods are disproportionately burdened by traffic collisions resulting in fatalities and severe injuries.⁵ **Figure EJ-24** shows sidewalk gaps as identified in the Oakland Walks Plan. The neighborhoods along International Boulevard and parts of West Oakland north of Adeline Street are less likely to have sufficient tree coverage, exposing people walking to an uncomfortable environment characterized by extreme heat and pollution.⁶

The traditional approach to transportation planning and design has prioritized expeditious vehicular mobility over safety, resulting in an over-engineered transportation network that poses dangers to people walking and biking, along with segregating neighborhoods. The Oakland Equity Indicators Report also found that pedestrian safety is one of the 12 indicators that received the lowest possible score and is a therefore a top issue for equity.

As mapped in **Figure EJ-25**, there were 12,333 crashes that occurred between 2016 and 2020 in Oakland, including 1,552 pedestrian (13 percent), 848 bicycle (7.0 percent), 969 motorcycle (7.9 percent), 406 truck (3.0 percent), and 8,559 car (6.0 percent) crashes. About six percent of these accidents resulted in severe injury, and just over one percent resulted in death. The leading causes of these crashes are speeding (24 percent), improper turning (17 percent), violation of traffic signals/signs (16 percent), and violation of automobile right-of-way (14 percent).⁷

According to the Citywide Crash Analysis of crashes from 2012-2016, 60 percent of severe and fatal crashes in Oakland occur on just 6 percent of the total street network. Further, reported crash data reveal that certain demographic groups and geographic areas experience a disproportionate share of crashes in Oakland. For example, Black Oaklanders are twice as likely to be killed or

[^p85-2]: Low-stress bikeways involve little traffic interaction based on the roadway’s vehicle speeds and volumes. Examples include trails, separated or buffered bike lanes on high-speed and high-volume roadways, and neighborhood bike routes.
[^p85-3]: Supportive infrastructure includes bicycle parking, wayfinding, and intersection treatments.
[^p85-4]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 American Community Surveys 5-Year Estimates Table S0802 [generated for Oakland city, California], https://data.census.gov/table?q=2019+oakland,ca+s0802&tid=ACSST5Y2019.S0802, accessed February 24, 2023.
[^p85-5]: City of Oakland Department of Transportation, Oakland Walks! 2017 Pedestrian Plan Update, https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Ped-Plan-2017-rev-sep2018-compressed.pdf.
[^p85-6]: Ibid.
[^p85-7]: University of California, Berkeley Safe Transportation Research and Education Center, Traffic Injury Mapping System, California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System query for crashes in Oakland between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020, obtained March 3, 2022: https://tims.berkeley.edu/help/Query_and_Map.php

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 86 -->
<<FIGURE>>

### Figure EJ-23: Oakland Transit Network, 2017

| Legend | Description |
| --- | --- |
| — | High-Frequency (over 20 buses/hr) |
| — | Medium-Frequency (11-20 buses/hr) |
| — | Low-Frequency (Under 10 buses/hr) |
| — | Bay Area Rapid Transit |
| — | Capitol Corridor JPA |
| — — | San Francisco Bay Ferry |
| ◯ | BART Station |
| ◻ | Amtrak Station |
| 🅿️ | Park and Ride |
| ⛴ | Ferry Terminal |
| | Parks |
| ⬚ | City of Oakland |

SOURCE: Alameda County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021, Caltrans 2022, Alameda CTC 2021 and Oakland Transit Action Strategy, City of Oakland 2020.
Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA
NOTE: Transit Streets frequency information is based on AC Transit schedules and routes from Fall 2017.

<!-- page 87 -->
# Figure EJ-24: Sidewalk Gaps in Oakland (2004-2007)

<<FIGURE>>

SOURCE: City of Oakland, 2017-2021; ALAMEDA County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023

<!-- page 88 -->
# Figure EJ-25: Crashes in Oakland 2016-2020

<<FIGURE>>

**Legend**

▲ Fatal or Severe Injury
• Not Fatal or Severe Injury

**Base Map**
⎯⎯ Railroads
⎯⎯ Major Roads
      Parks
╏⎯⎯╏ City of Oakland
⎯⎯ Alameda County

SOURCE: Transportation Injury Mapping System (UC Berkeley), 2022; City of Oakland, 2021; ALAMEDA COUNTY GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022

*Includes crashes that occurred between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020.*

<!-- page 89 -->
severely injured in a crash compared to all other Oaklanders.[^p89-8] Based on data from the City’s 2018 High Injury Network (HIN), which tracks the intersections and corridors with the greatest volume of crashes in the city, **Chart EJ-5** demonstrates how these crashes occur predominantly, and disproportionately, in majority Hispanic/Latinx tracts – more than double the proportion seen in tracts with other racial pluralities. In addition, both Black and Asian populations make up roughly 20 percent of the city’s population and experience similar proportions of crashes (i.e., close to a one-to-one ratio), which is a significantly higher rate than for white populations.

Poor lighting alongside secluded walking environments or minimal street activity can increase pedestrian vulnerability. In 2004, the Metropolitan Council awarded Oakland a $2.2 million grant to transform four crosswalks with pedestrian-scale lighting and retimed signals, which resulted in a more friendly and visible pedestrian environment. However, there is a continued need for investment in pedestrian safety and security. For example, the Oakland 2017 Pedestrian Plan encourages investigation into identifying targeted investments to bring all sidewalks up to minimum standards for pedestrian security using pedestrian-scale lighting or improved street lighting.

As part of the LUTE update, the City can work to ensure that new street design and redesign supports pedestrian safety by minimizing traffic volumes and/or speed, incorporating street trees, implementing leading pedestrian intervals (which give pedestrians the opportunity to enter the crosswalk 3-7 seconds before the vehicles are given the green signals), and adding pedestrian-scale lighting.

Issues and opportunities related to Oakland’s roadway, bikeway, and pedestrian network will be further analyzed as part of the LUTE update. The City will focus on creating more accessible neighborhoods and identifying specific locations and strategies for improved street design and safety measures in EJ Communities and those most burdened by collisions.

[^p89-8]: City of Oakland, Citywide Crash Analysis, August 29, 2018, https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/CityofOakland_CrashAnalysis_Infographic_08.29.18.pdf.

### Chart EJ-5: High Injury Network Crashes by Census Tract Racial Majority, 2018

<<FIGURE>>

## Building Resilience: Safe Oakland Streets

Safe Oakland Streets (SOS) is a citywide initiative launched in 2021 to prevent serious and fatal traffic crashes and eliminate crash inequities on Oakland’s streets by prioritizing safety over speed with a focus on historically underserved communities. The SOS approach recognizes that all severe and fatal traffic crashes are preventable. One way the City is implementing this approach is through “Safe Systems,” through which roadways are designed to anticipate human error and protect those who are most vulnerable rather than the traditional traffic safety approach that often relies on perfecting individual human behavior.

SOS is working across departments and building partnerships with the community to implement the most effective and equitable strategies. Previous planning efforts have laid the foundation for SOS, including OakDOT’s 2016 Strategic Transportation Plan, Oakland Walks, and Let’s Bike Oakland, which prioritize taking an integrated safety and equity-driven approach. For instance, OakDOT’s Geographic Equity Toolbox—which identifies Priority neighborhoods to leverage attention and funding to neighborhoods that may have been historically and currently overlooked by City services and planning processes—and information from the HIN helps the department set data-informed priorities for improvements and reduce the incidence of crashes. Additionally, OakDOT maintains a contracted “community-based organization on-call” to continue to support the values of equity and engagement. This contracting mechanism allows OakDOT to pay non-profit organizations for the valuable work they do in support of transportation justice, ranging from grassroots engagement to policy input and meeting facilitation. These include organizations such as Bike East Bay, Safe Passages, Urban Strategies Council, Walk Oakland Bike Oakland, East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation, Transform, Cycles of Change, Eastside Arts Alliance, Building Opportunities for Self Sufficiency.

*Source: City of Oakland, “Safe Oakland Streets”*

<!-- page 90 -->
### Building Resilience: Interstate 980 Study - Vision 980

The Vision 980 study is a joint effort by Caltrans and the City of Oakland that will define transportation and land use strategies to reconnect Downtown Oakland and West Oakland communities along the I-980 corridor. The study will focus on community integration and environmental justice to establish a vision for I-980 that will guide the delivery of equitable outcomes for the City of Oakland, the Bay Area region, and the State of California. This currently ongoing effort will be accomplished by engaging study partners, stakeholders, and the public in developing and recommending a new collective vision for the corridor, such as:

* A broad range of multi-modal options, including bus and rail transit, active transportation, freight movement and emerging mobility and micro-mobility services.
* Land use options, including reallocating right-of-way to reconnect communities divided by the freeway.

The Vision 980 study will occur in two phases. The shared vision will be developed in the first phase, then the plan for accomplishing the shared vision will be developed in the second phase.

<<FIGURE>>

### PARK ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE

Green spaces in parks and natural areas are valuable public assets that can greatly improve community livability, support healthy and active lifestyles, and provide ecological benefits. Overall, Oakland has excellent access to parks and open space, but there are also geographic disparities on the neighborhood level. As shown in **Figure EJ-26**, the Oakland Hills are almost entirely bordered by and include some regional parks (several of which are owned by the East Bay Park District rather than the City of Oakland). The hills also include large resource conservation areas and open spaces. The Oakland flatlands contain a much smaller total area of the City's parkland, with most parks being small neighborhood parks. Lake Merritt is the exception as it is surrounded by substantial community parkland; however, it is also surrounded by some of the densest neighborhoods in the city and a significant share of the population lives within close proximity, resulting in heavy use of these spaces.

Based on data from the Trust for Public Land, Oakland—which is the 45th most populous city—ranks 84th among the 100 most populous cities in the country. Residents in neighborhoods of color have access to 69 percent less park space per person compared to those in white neighborhoods. Specifically, white neighborhoods have access to 135 percent more park space per person relative to the city median, whereas Hispanic/Latinx neighborhoods have access to the least amount of park space, with 32 percent less than the city median.

In addition to provision of parkland, distribution of city investments can determine whether park quality is equitable. In 2020, the Oakland Parks and Recreation Foundation surveyed Oakland residents to better understand how to improve citywide park equity. This study found that park quality generally needs improvement, particularly for Black respondents; white respondents had the highest scoring perception of park quality.[^p90-9] Furthermore, the study highlighted that maintenance and safety are primary factors in park use, anecdotally showing that some residents feel they "have to drive to find a park that feels safe, has basic amenities, and functioning restroom and playground equipment," which was particularly true for residents of the East Oakland/South Hills area. In face of such issues, the City will need to balance park priorities between providing additional acreage and improving existing facilities to meet the needs of its residents.

As part of the OSCAR Element update and creation of a new Infrastructure and Facilities Element, the City can analyze major and minor CIP park projects and maintenance by funding and location as well as work orders connected to park facilities to better understand distribution of investments.

### URBAN FOREST AND URBAN GREENING

#### Urban Forest

Shaded trees and greenery play a major part in improving the urban environment. Urban trees balance the natural with the built environment and provide both shade and beauty. Trees play a key role in the climate as they absorb carbon dioxide and help manage stormwater runoff. They also help fight pollution by improving air quality, aid in cooling on hot days, and generally make it more pleasant to recreate outside.

In 2021, the City began the process of developing an Urban Forest Plan, an equity-focused guide on how the urban forest will be planned, managed, and protected over the next 50 years for the next generation of Oaklanders. Based on studies of community tree canopy, portions of West Oakland, North Oakland, East Oakland, and Deep East Oakland have the least amount of tree canopy coverage. The City's tree inventory, shown in **Figure EJ-27**, is also disproportionately distributed; while white residents make up only about a third of the City's population, they live in census tracts that contain more than half of the City's tree inventory. In comparison, Oakland's Asian population represents 17 percent of the total population, they live in census tracts where only nine percent of city trees are located. As part of development of the Urban Forest Plan, the City will include targeted planting efforts, tree maintenance, and investment strategies to increase and maintain tree canopy cover in these areas.

[^p90-9]: Oakland Parks and Recreation Foundation, Parks and Equity: The Promise of Oakland’s Parks, December 2020, https://www.oaklandparks.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/OPRF-Parks-And-Equity-2021-01-12.pdf, accessed February 17, 2022.

<!-- page 91 -->
# Figure EJ-26: Parks Walkability

<<FIGURE>>

| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| ![Legend Color](https://dummyimage.com/20x10/f5c2f5/000.png) | 10-minute Walking Distance from Parks |
| ![Legend Color](https://dummyimage.com/20x10/ffffff/000.png) | Residential Parcel |
| **Parks & Open Space** | |
| ![Legend Color](https://dummyimage.com/20x10/004d00/000.png) | Mini Park/Plaza |
| ![Legend Color](https://dummyimage.com/20x10/228b22/000.png) | Neighborhood Park |
| ![Legend Color](https://dummyimage.com/20x10/32cd32/000.png) | Community Park |
| ![Legend Color](https://dummyimage.com/20x10/00fa9a/000.png) | Special Use Park |
| ![Legend Color](https://dummyimage.com/20x10/00ffff/000.png) | Linear Park/Greenbelt |
| ![Legend Color](https://dummyimage.com/20x10/ffff00/000.png) | Athletic Field |
| ![Legend Color](https://dummyimage.com/20x10/a2cd5a/000.png) | Resource Conservation Area/Open Space |
| ![Legend Color](https://dummyimage.com/20x10/d3d3d3/000.png) | Other Park |
| ![Legend Color](https://dummyimage.com/20x10/8fbc8f/000.png) | Regional Parks & Open Space |
| ![Legend Icon](https://dummyimage.com/10x10/ffa500/000.png&text=R) | Recreation Centers |
| ![Legend Icon](https://dummyimage.com/10x10/ff69b4/000.png&text=*) | Community Gardens |
| **Base Map** | |
| ![Legend Line](https://dummyimage.com/20x2/000000/000.png) | Railroads |
| ![Legend Line](https://dummyimage.com/20x4/808080/000.png) | Major Highways |
| ![Legend Line](https://dummyimage.com/20x2/a9a9a9/000.png) | Major Roads |
| ![Legend Line](https://dummyimage.com/20x2/000000/000.png&text=---) | City of Oakland |
| ![Legend Line](https://dummyimage.com/20x2/d3d3d3/000.png) | Alameda County |

SOURCE: ParkServe, Trust for Public Land, 2022; City of Oakland, 2021; ALAMEDA COUNTY GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023

<!-- page 92 -->
# Figure EJ-27: Urban Tree Canopy

<<FIGURE>>

| Percent Tree Canopy Cover | |
| :--- | :--- |
| Natural Jenks | |
| | 0% - 8% |
| | 9% - 14% |
| | 15% - 22% |
| | 23% - 37% |
| | 38% - 68% |
| | No Data/Low Population Area |
| **Base Map** | |
| | City of Oakland |
| | Alameda County |

<!-- page 93 -->
### Urban Greening and Climate Resilience

Climate change is expected to cause more frequent and more severe extreme heat events, while sea level rise continues to accelerate. High energy demand can be expected from protecting households from extreme temperature fluctuations, which can create a cost burden for lower-income households. These climate-change related factors will impact some areas more than others and affect frontline communities more severely. Frontline communities are those who have been and will continue to be hit first and worst by the impacts of environmental injustice and the climate crisis. This disproportionate impact from climate change is a result of compounding vulnerabilities including racial discrimination, poverty, disability, housing insecurity, linguistic isolation, poor air quality, and other factors. These vulnerabilities often make these communities least able to adapt or recover from climate change impacts. For more information on climate resiliency, including sea level rise, emergency preparedness, and community resilience hubs, please see the Safety Element.

To identify areas that would be most affected by climate change-related factors, indicators that measure projected maximum temperatures during future heat health events, energy cost burdens, and flood hazards due to sea level rise were combined. As seen in **Figure EJ-28**, areas in southwest Oakland are the most cumulatively vulnerable to climate change effects, notably those closest to downtown and San Francisco Bay. Improving climate resiliency in these areas, such as by increasing urban forestry, can help lessen the burden on these frontline communities.

In many areas of Oakland, there are opportunities to create greener, more environmentally sustainable and livable communities by creating new parks, improving existing parks and green spaces, green walls, and planting trees. With the right design, these projects can filter stormwater, improve groundwater recharge, and improve water quality. Projects may also provide additional benefits such as reducing urban heat island effects, improving air quality, increasing walkability and increasing neighborhood safety. Urban greening’s co-benefits have been included in the 2019 Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan, and several community plans, including the West Oakland Community Action Plan and East Oakland Neighborhoods Initiative, have identified urban greening projects as one of the top community priorities. The City can also prioritize projects in Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs), which qualify for funding from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).

<<FIGURE>>

#### Table EJ-9: Top 10th Percentile Tracts by Indicator — Promoting Physical Activity

| TRACT NAME (WITH SCORE) | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **TREE CANOPY** | **PARK ACCESS** | **ROAD SAFETY[^p93-1]** |
| Port Lower* (1.00) | Glen Highlands (1.00) | **Chinatown (1.00)** |
| **Melrose (0.98)** | Lincoln Highlands (0.99) | **Fruitvale (0.99)** |
| Acorn Industrial* (0.98) | Montclair North (0.98) | Adams Point East (0.98) |
| **Brookfield Village/Hegenberger (0.96)** | Adams Point North (0.97) | **Downtown/Old Oakland (0.97)** |
| **Port Upper (0.96)** | Millsmont (0.96) | Downtown (0.96) |
| **Jingletown/Kennedy (0.95)** | **Oakland Estuary (0.96)** | **Jingletown/Kennedy (0.96)** |
| **Oakland Estuary (0.95)** | Trestle Glen (0.95) | **Acorn (0.95)** |
| **McClymonds (0.91)** | Redwood Heights Central (0.94) | **Fruitvale/Hawthorne (0.94)** |
| **Chinatown (0.91)** | Adams Point West (0.93) | **Chinatown/Laney (0.93)** |
| Downtown (0.91) | Crocker Highland (0.92) | **Fitchburg (0.92)** |
| **Uptown/Downtown (0.91)** | Redwood Heights East (0.91) | **Bunche/MLK Jr (0.91)** |
| | Durant Manor (0.90) | |

*Note: Bolded and blue census tracts are EJ Communities.*
*\* Indicates census tract with low population.*
*1. Includes only 11 tracts in top decile due to ties. Next highest score for Tree Canopy is 0.87 and next highest for Road Safety is 0.89.*

[^p93-1]: Includes only 11 tracts in top decile due to ties. Next highest score for Tree Canopy is 0.87 and next highest for Road Safety is 0.89.

<!-- page 94 -->
# Figure EJ-28: Climate Change Category Score

This map shows the EJ Communities Screening Analysis score for the Climate Change Category, calculated from the Heat Health Events, Energy Cost Burden, and Sea Level Rise indicators.

<<FIGURE>>

SOURCE: City of Oakland, 2021; ALAMEDA County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022

<!-- page 95 -->
## 7.2 GOALS AND POLICIES

### GOAL EJ-7 CREATE ENVIRONMENTS THAT SUPPORT PHYSICAL ACTIVITY, RECREATION, AND HEALTHY LIFESTYLES THROUGH SAFE, COMFORTABLE AND ADA-COMPLIANT WALKABLE, BIKEABLE NEIGHBORHOODS, WITH ACCESS TO TRANSIT, GREEN SPACE, TREES, PATHS, AND PARKS.

#### Land Use Planning

*Additional policies will primarily be developed as part of the Phase 2 LUTE update.*

**EJ-7.1 Complete Neighborhoods.** Promote "complete neighborhoods"— where residents have safe and convenient access to goods and services on a daily or regular basis—that address unique neighborhood needs and support physical activity, including walking, bicycling, active transportation, recreation, and active play.

**EJ-7.2 Accessible Neighborhoods.** Encourage active modes of transportation and transit accessibility by supporting neighborhoods that provide access to a range of daily goods, services, and recreational resources within comfortable walking or biking distance. Encourage transit providers to prioritize, establish, and maintain routes to jobs, shopping, schools, parks and healthcare facilities that are convenient to EJ Communities.

#### Collisions

*Additional policies will primarily be developed as part of the Phase 2 LUTE update.*

**EJ-7.3 Street Design for Safe Speeds.** Work to maximize the safety of the transportation network by designing/redesigning streets for lower driving speeds and enforcing speed limits as well as promoting safe driving behavior. Strategies could include implementing leading pedestrian intervals for crosswalks in residential neighborhoods and providing pedestrian scale lighting. Prioritize speed reduction efforts in EJ Communities with the highest concentrations of pedestrian and bicyclist crashes. Study enforcement patterns annually to avoid racial profiling.

**EJ-7.4 Safe Oakland Streets.** Use a community engagement-rooted, data-driven and systematic approach to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while increasing safety, health, and equitable mobility for all.

**EJ-7.5 Bicyclist-and Pedestrian-Friendly Design.** Prioritize designs that protect people biking and walking, such as improvements that increase visibility of bicyclists and pedestrians, traffic calming, and safer intersection crossings and turns. Improvements should also prioritize universal design so that improvements are usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialization.

**EJ-7.6 Collaborative Safety Solutions.** Collaborate with educational institutions, senior living facilities, community organizations, and other stakeholders, particularly those who reside in EJ Communities, when developing and implementing programs and improvements that increase safety and encourage the use of active transportation modes. Identify and plan for improvements in collaboration with existing neighborhood residents and businesses to address concerns about gentrification and displacement.

**EJ-7.7 Equitable Paving.** Continue to plan and distribute paving program resources based on equity, road condition and safety metrics. Align paving programs with other city infrastructure priorities including the West Oakland Specific Plan, the 2019 Oakland Bike Plan, and the 2017 Oakland Walks Pedestrian Plan. In addition, align the paving program with the GSI Plan to ensure flood resilience and pollution prevention is incorporated.

#### Parks, Programming, and Access

*Additional policies will primarily be developed as part of the Phase 2 OSCAR update.*

**EJ-7.8 Park Distribution.** As part of park planning efforts, prioritize development of new parks in EJ Communities that are underserved, as identified in Figure EJ-26.

**EJ-7.9 Enhancing Access to Parks.** Pursue strategies that increase community access to safe, high quality-open space, parks and recreational facilities, including increasing access to pedestrian and bicycle amenities around open space or recreational areas, expanding joint use agreements with schools and educational institutions; removing of physical barriers to access (ex: fences); and providing a choice of legible routes to and from park areas through the installation of new or improved multi-use shared paths, wayfinding, and signage.

**EJ-7.10 Parks Programming.** Create high-quality inclusive programming that encourages the use of the park facilities by a variety of users including older adults, youth, and people with disabilities throughout the day and evenings. Opportunities should be taken to incorporate local heritage and culture.

**EJ-7.11 Partnerships.** Coordinate partnerships with Caltrans and the Port to activate and increase access to parks and greenways with community programming and events, as well as to explore the potential for new greenway resources, including ways to reconnect areas divided by I-980 and I-880.

<!-- page 96 -->
**EJ-7.12 Park Safety.** Use Crime Prevention Through Environmental design (CPTED) and other best practices for landscaping, lighting, and other components when designing open space and recreational spaces. Take into consideration locational indicators related to crime and perception of safety when prioritizing park safety improvements or programs.

**EJ-7.13 Park Maintenance.** When evaluating park projects and funds for maintenance—such as routine trash collection, cleaning of restroom facilities, provision of safety lighting, and other operational functions—include equity and presence in EJ Communities as a priority weighted factor.

**EJ-7.14 Community Input.** Provide ongoing opportunities for public engagement and input into the parks and recreation planning process, including priorities for amenities, facilities, programming, and improvements.

### Greening and the Urban Forest

**EJ-7.15 Urban Forest.** Implement the Urban Forest Master Plan, a comprehensive, area-wide urban canopy and vegetation plan that identifies locations where trees can be added and maintained, such as parks, streets, and rights-of-way. Develop a plan to maintain and protect existing trees that provide shade, reduce urban heat island impacts, reduce flooding, reduce pollution, and reduce exposure to air pollution emissions in communities most affected by air pollution. Align tree canopy with climate resilience planning, including green stormwater infrastructure. Trees should be low on the allergenic scale, to serve EJ communities most impacted by air pollution and asthma. This includes partnering with local nonprofit groups, encouraging trees on private property, and working with the community on tree maintenance and (as needed) removal. Prioritize tree canopy in EJ Communities with the least amount of canopy, as shown in **Figure EJ-27**.

**EJ-7.16 Urban Greening.** Promote collaboration with community-based organizations in identifying, funding, developing, and maintaining specific green infrastructure projects in EJ Communities. Align urban greening efforts with flood and pollution prevention, prioritizing green stormwater infrastructure, especially in areas at risk of flooding.

<<FIGURE>>

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

# 8. Engaged Communities

SB 1000 seeks to facilitate transparency and public engagement in local governments' planning and decision-making processes, reduce harmful pollutants and the associated health risks in environmental justice communities, and promote equitable access to health-inducing benefits to address the inequitable distribution of pollution and associated health effects in low-income communities and communities of color. Meaningful participation of all people in decisions that affect their lives and communities is a critical component of environmental justice and a prerequisite for a sustainable and equitable city. As discussed in Chapter 2, the most socioeconomically disadvantaged and environmentally impacted communities in Oakland have been institutionally barred out of decision-making processes, and the result has been a pattern of underinvestment and disinvestment in these communities. Redressing inequities will require a sustained effort to rebuild trust, engage and empower historically underrepresented communities, and focus investments and actions in areas that are cumulatively most affected by environmental, social, and economic burdens.

### ENGAGEMENT BEST PRACTICES

Achieving inclusive, authentic community engagement and closing equity gaps requires direct participation by impacted communities in the development and implementation of solutions and policy decisions that directly affect them. As shown in the image below, community engagement can be conducted on a spectrum that ranges from informing to power sharing. This spectrum can also be thought of as series of steps essential for building capacity for community collaboration and governance, and the City will assess and orient community engagement efforts that advance the level of public impact toward greater community ownership. When the City conducts community engagement, it will start by identifying community assets and build sustained partnerships to support cultural brokers and community-based organizations who already have in-depth knowledge and established relationships in the community.

When designing community engagement efforts, it is crucial to identify potential barriers and address them as part of

#### Figure EJ-29: Community Engagement Spectrum

<<FIGURE>>

| INFORM | CONSULT | INVOLVE | COLLABORATE | EMPOWER |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Provide residents with info and assist in understanding problems, alternatives, and solutions | Obtain public feedback on an analysis, alternatives, and decisions. | Work directly with residents and consistently consider their concerns and aspirations. | Partner with residents in decision-making, including in indentification of solutions. | Residents are making decisions and leading solution-based efforts. |

*Credit: Graphic designed by Local Initatives Support Corporation (LISC), based on the framework developed by the Internationanl Association for Public Participation (IAP2).*

<!-- page 98 -->
implementation. The City will seek to remove technology, language, education, cultural, and other barriers that have limited participation of Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC); low-income; non-English speaking people; older adults; youth; people with disabilities; individuals across the sexual orientation/gender identity spectrum; unhoused people; formerly incarcerated persons; and other historically marginalized groups. Strategies to address barriers include provision of food and childcare at meetings; transportation vouchers; compensation for time and effort; translation services and materials available in people’s desired language, including Braille or other languages accessible to people with disabilities or limited reading ability; venues and materials that are accommodating of work schedules and cultures; physically accessible venues; accessible marketing and informational materials with simple, relevant language; culturally relevant events and meeting formats; partnerships with trusted community organizations; expansion of internet access and coaching in digital skills; and establishment of pathways and resources for City staff follow-up.

<<FIGURE>>

## 8.1 ISSUES AND DISPARITIES

### LINGUISTIC ISOLATION

One of Oakland’s strengths is its diversity: residents come from many different cultures and backgrounds. Nearly 27 percent were born in another country, and common languages spoken at home (by at least one percent of the city’s population, ages 5 and over) include Spanish, Vietnamese, Arabic, and Chinese (including Mandarin and Cantonese).[^p98-1]

However, many of these residents do not speak or read English as a first language or at all and experience barriers to civic engagement, health and safety as a result. The people and institutions that provide social services and medical care often fail to provide translation or interpretation for adults who are not able to speak or read English well, which means they may not get the health care and information they need. Linguistically isolated households may not hear or understand important information when there is an emergency like a fire, earthquake, or extreme heat waves. A household’s limited English proficiency can create even more barriers to social and civic inclusion. A household is considered linguistically isolated when all adults primarily speak a language other than English and have limited English proficiency. Figure EJ-30 shows areas of linguistic isolation, which are greatest in the Jack London Gateway, Chinatown, Lower Laurel/Allendale, and Elmhurst Park tracts in addition to a large portion of south-central Oakland throughout Fruitvale and adjacent neighborhoods. The City will prioritize interpretation, translation, and connection to linguistically appropriate services in these communities. Policies in the Safety Element address linguistic barriers in community education, emergency preparedness, and emergency response.

### INTERNET ACCESS

Reliable access to the internet and telecommunications systems plays an increasingly important part in daily and civic life, helping people to work, learn, access services, participate in government, and stay connected to friends and family. Despite this importance, there are still households without access to the Internet or to computers at home. The impacts of digital isolation, especially for older adults, people with disabilities, and communities of color, include less access to resources and decreased ability to participate in civic political and non-political activities, which compounds other barriers to civic engagement and increases impacts of racial disparities in access to resources and opportunities. Figure EJ-31 shows that tracts with the greatest proportion of households without Internet access are located in the Lockwood/Coliseum neighborhood in East Oakland and neighborhoods in Jack London Square. According to the 2018 Equity Indicators Report, Black individuals were the most likely to not have high speed internet access at home (40.8 percent), followed by Hispanic/Latinx individuals (33.5 percent). White individuals were least likely to lack high speed Internet access at home (14.6 percent). Among Asian individuals, 25.2 percent did not have access to high-speed internet at home, slightly lower than the citywide percent (26.8 percent). Black residents were 2.79 times more likely than white residents to not have high speed Internet access at home. Additional strategies to foster digital equity may include leveraging City infrastructure to provide access to households in underserved areas and partnering with telecommunications and cable providers to offer discounted wireless and broadband plans to low-income customers.

[^p98-1]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019American Community Surveys 1-Year Estimates Table B16002 [generated for Oakland city, California], https://data.census.gov/table?q=b16002+oakland,+ca&t=Language+Spoken+at+Home&tid=ACSDT1Y2019.B16002.

<!-- page 99 -->
# Figure EJ-30: Limited English-Speaking Ability, Population Ages 5 and Over, 2019

*Limited English-speaking ability defined as population ages 5 and older who speak a language other than English at home and speak English less than "very well."*

<<FIGURE>>

**Percent Limited English-speaking**
Natural Jenks
*   33% - 61%
*   22% - 32%
*   13% - 21%
*   7% - 12%
*   0% - 6%
*   No Data/Low Population Area

**Base Map**
*   [---] City of Oakland
*   [---] Alameda County

SOURCE: ACS 2015-2019; City of Oakland, 2021; ALAMEDA COUNTY GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021

<!-- page 100 -->
# Figure EJ-31: Internet Access at Home, 2019

<<FIGURE>>

**Percent Households w/No Internet**
Natural Jenks
| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| ■ | 24.4% - 36.3% |
| ■ | 16.8% - 24.3% |
| ■ | 9.7% - 16.7% |
| ■ | 4.5% - 9.6% |
| ■ | 0% - 4.4% |
| | No Data/Low Population Area |

**Base Map**
| | |
| :--- | :--- |
| [---] | City of Oakland |
| | Alameda County |

SOURCE: ACS 2015-2019; City of Oakland, 2021; ALAMEDA COUNTY GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021

<!-- page 101 -->
### Building Resilience: Bridging the Digital Divide

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, essential activities like completing homework, finding a job, working from home, starting a business, making appointments, and accessing government services increasingly take place online. Yet, according to 2019 American Community Surveys (ACS) five-year estimates, over 15,000 Oakland residents do not have a computer and 27,600 do not have internet at home. Inability to access internet or broadband excludes the marginalized from educational and economic benefits available to those who are connected; this disparity between the have and have-nots is referred to as the "digital divide." The City has developed a program for "digital inclusion" with the objective of achieving digital equity. By targeting four intervention points—advocacy and awareness, internet access, devices, and digital literacy (skills)—the program can positively impact education, healthcare, employment, and economic development.

Funded through the federal CARES Act, the Oakland CARES Act: OAK WiFi Initiative provides free internet access for students, older adults, job seekers, small businesses, the underserved, and unconnected. Beginning in November 2020, the City has provided OAK WiFi live hotspots throughout the city, greatly expanding coverage from West Oakland through Downtown and along the International Boulevard corridor to the San Leandro border.

The #OaklandUndivided campaign is a partnership between the City Office of Education, Oakland Promise, Oakland Public Education Fund, Oakland Unified School District, and Tech Exchange that provides free school-loaned laptop computers, reliable internet connection, and ongoing tech support to public school students.

The City of Oakland also has also collaborated with the Greenlining Institute to address barriers to digital access through a year-long program called The Town Link, which builds digital inclusion and digital literacy through trainings and educational programs; builds awareness around free and affordable broadband plans; provides computers and tablets to residents that lack devices; and provides $100,000 in grants and technical assistance to 10 local organizations ($10,000 per organization) with the goal of increasing internet adoption and digital literacy in priority communities and neighborhoods. In October 2021, the Greenlining Institute announced the grant recipients, which included the following 10 grassroots Oakland organizations: Allen Temple Baptist Church, El Timpano, Homies Empowerment, Oakland Workers Fund, Vietnamese American Community Center of East Bay, Center for Empowering Refugees and Immigrants, Roots Community Health Center, The Unity Council, St. Mary’s Center, and Building Opportunities for Self-Sufficiency.

*Sources: ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2019; City of Oakland Digital Inclusion Report; City of Oakland “OAK WiFi – A Small Step to Closing the Digital Divide” website; #OaklandUndivided website; Greenlining website*

### ECONOMIC WELL-BEING

Economic well-being and employment represent a means by which people engage in community life. A state of economic well-being, where people can meet their basic needs, can also make it easier for people to participate in civic processes. Access to jobs and employment opportunities is an indicator of a place’s economic health, and many of Oakland’s smaller businesses represent the beating heart of Oakland’s culture. As the city plans for employment of the future, the city is well-positioned to capture additional jobs in fast-growing Bay Area sectors related to software, social media, life sciences,- and the “green economy”, given its burgeoning labor force already employed in these industries as well as its central, transit-accessible location and abundant real estate redevelopment opportunities. By providing enough jobs and the means to live near those jobs, cities can significantly help foster community and support residents. Figure EJ-32 shows where high-wage jobs are located in Oakland by census block group, based on data from 2017 in the EPA Smart Location 3.0 database. Currently, areas between International Boulevard and I-580 throughout central and East Oakland have a lower percentage of high-wage employment. Downtown Oakland and the industrial area of West Oakland have high proportions of high-wage jobs, ranging between 73 and 90 percent of workers in the census block group.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 102 -->
<<FIGURE>>

### Figure EJ-32: High-Wage Jobs by Census Block Group, 2017 (EPA Smart Location Database 3.0)

| Percent High-Wage Workers (by workplace) |
| :--- |
| *Natural Jenks (See Appendix for definition)* |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 0% - 14% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 15% - 31% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 32% - 45% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 46% - 62% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 63% - 90% |
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; No Data/Low Population Area |
| **Base Map** |
| [---] City of Oakland |
| [___] Alameda County |

SOURCE: US EPA, 2021; ALAMEDA COUNTY GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021

<!-- page 103 -->
Preserving existing Oakland businesses is a key component in an equitable economic future. Many of these businesses represent the “beating heart” of Oakland’s culture that strengthens and reflects the neighborhoods they are a part of. However, new economic growth can also mean displacement pressures, and the City must take action to protect these important community assets.

Entrepreneurship, specifically business ownership, is also an indicator of economic opportunity at both an individual and neighborhood level. Policies in the General Plan seek to overcome racial disparities in entrepreneurship opportunities. Additionally, through industry, government, and community partnerships, the City can help build a support system of education, training, and mentorship for industries of the future. These resources can support youth, women, people of color, and formerly incarcerated individuals with the skills and connections to new economic pathways.

The LUTE update will include additional strategies for employment related to business attraction, land use and infrastructure planning, revitalization of underperforming commercial corridors, and a more comprehensive equitable business development and support strategy. The EJ Element includes a focus on opportunities that promote equitable, inclusive, and sustainable growth and support for existing Oakland businesses, culture keepers, and entrepreneurs.

### Table EJ-10: Top 10th Percentile Tracts by Indicator – Civic Engagement

| TRACT NAME (WITH SCORE) | | |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **LINGUISTIC ISOLATION** | **UNEMPLOYMENT** | **INTERNET[^p103-1]** |
| **Chinatown (1.00)** | **DeFremery/Oak Center (1.00)** | **Webster (1.00)** |
| **Lower San Antonio East (0.99)** | **Acorn (0.99)** | **Lockwood/Coliseum/ Rudsdale (0.99)** |
| **Fruitvale/Hawthorne (0.98)** | **Oakland Estuary (0.98)** | **Chinatown (0.98)** |
| Eastlake (0.97) | **Fremont District (0.97)** | **Fremont District (0.96)** |
| **Jack London Gateway (0.96)** | **Seminary (0.96)** | **Arroyo Viejo (0.96)** |
| San Antonio/Sausal Creek (0.96) | Eastmont Hills (0.96) | **Uptown/Downtown (0.95)** |
| **Chinatown/Laney (0.95)** | **Cox/Elmhurst (0.95)** | **Fitchburg (0.95)** |
| **Lower San Antonio West (0.94)** | **Fruitvale (0.94)** | **Stonehurst (0.93)** |
| Downtown (0.93) | **Lower San Antonio West (0.93)** | **Castlemont (0.93)** |
| **Oakland Estuary (0.92)** | **Melrose (0.92)** | **New Highland (0.91)** |
| **Harrington/Fruitvale (0.91)** | **Jack London Gateway (0.90)** | **Elmhurst (0.91)** |
| Eastlake Clinton East (0.90) | Mills College (0.90) | |

*Note: Census tract names that appear in red are EJ Communities.*

*1. Includes only 11 tracts in the top decile due to ties. Next highest score for is 0.88.*

<<FIGURE>>

[^p103-1]: Includes only 11 tracts in the top decile due to ties. Next highest score for is 0.88.

<!-- page 104 -->
## 8.2 GOALS AND POLICIES

### GOAL EJ-8 FOSTER MEANINGFUL CIVIC ENGAGEMENT AND SUPPORT COMMUNITY POWER- AND CAPACITY-BUILDING.

**EJ-8.1 Meaningful, Relevant Engagement.** Design and implement public engagement processes and events that facilitate participation from low-income communities and communities of color; are driven by resident priorities, are easily accessible and understandable, and provide meaningful opportunities for participants to influence outcomes.

**EJ-8.2 Sustained Engagement.** Develop and maintain communication channels that allow for ongoing dialogue with neighborhood groups and individual residents; consult with AB 617 Steering Committees; track issues and priorities at the neighborhood level; and foster transparency and accountability. Use this information to inform development of City programs, projects, and services, sharing information across departments to optimize the effectiveness of efforts, and share outcomes with groups.

**EJ-8.3 Innovative Methods and Creative Strategies.** Explore innovative strategies for increasing community involvement in civic processes and ownership of outcomes, tailoring strategies to best reach target audiences. Strategies to explore may include participatory budgeting, participatory action research, providing staff assistance to support community-driven planning and policy efforts, or other approaches that emphasize the active participation of community members most affected by the questions at issue.

**EJ-8.4 Community Partners.** Partner with community-based organizations that have relationships, trust, and cultural competency with target communities as to support engagement for local initiatives and issues. Seek opportunities to support community partners in these efforts such as by providing technical assistance, data, meeting spaces, funding and other support services as feasible.

**EJ-8.5 Community Capacity Building.** Empower historically marginalized community members to participate in local decision-making and engage meaningfully in planning efforts, including through increased representation in employment and civic life; providing educational/training workshops and programs about civic involvement and processes, such as through fellowships and internships; providing organizational support to community-based organizations; and other capacity building activities.

**EJ-8.6 Engagement Infrastructure.** Build City technology, staffing, funding and systems resources to conduct more inclusive, meaningful and community-empowered engagement, including seeking grant funding. Develop flexible but sustained infrastructure for two-way information sharing between City and partner agencies and community members.

**EJ-8.7 Interagency and Interdepartmental Collaboration.** Collaborate with and among public agencies and City departments to leverage resources, avoid duplication of effort and enhance the effectiveness of public participation.

**EJ-8.8 Youth-Centered Events.** Seek out opportunities for meaningfully and authentically involving young people—particularly from EJ Communities—in the planning and implementation of youth-centered events that develop confidence and leadership skills.

**EJ-8.9 Events for Older Adults.** Provide greater opportunity for older adults (ages 65 and over), particularly those from EJ Communities, to be integrated into community events and intergenerational exchanges. Involve older adults in the planning and implementation of events that are accessible to older adults.

**EJ-8.10 Linguistically Isolated Communities.** Continue to provide interpretation and translation services, assistance in accessing community services and programs, and direct engagement with specific demographic groups. Prioritize EJ Communities as identified in **Figure EJ-30.**

**EJ-8.11 Digital Access.** Ensure that all meetings, materials, and other engagement that use technology are easily accessible by mobile devices. Invest in high-speed internet in underserved low-income communities to expand digital access and engagement opportunity. Prioritize expanded internet in public facilities and EJ Communities as identified in **Figure EJ-31.**

**EJ-8.12 Mental Health and Community Well-Being.** Support programs and services that support the health and well being of residents through community-based collaboration with a range of partners.

<<FIGURE>>

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 105 -->
### GOAL EJ-9 EXPAND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, INCOME EQUALITY, AND OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL OAKLANDERS.

#### Economic Development and Opportunity

**EJ-9.1 Investments for Inclusive, Equitable Growth.** Make intentional investments to increase and diversify economic growth and living wage jobs in an inclusive and equitable manner that focuses on neighborhoods and their unique needs, particularly in EJ Communities.

**EJ-9.2 Small Business/Startup Support.** Support the development and retention of small business startups and new firms — particularly POC/women/veteran owned businesses - by providing assistance with business planning, expansion, and access to capital.

**EJ-9.3 Business Incubators.** Encourage occupancy of existing buildings with incubators for specific industry/trade groups and for artisans and craftspeople, where small startup businesses can share existing facilities and equipment.

**EJ-9.4 Public Procurement.** Continue to use the public procurement process to stimulate small business development, prioritize certified underrepresented business enterprises, including businesses owned by people of color, women, LGBTQIA+ community members, veterans, and individuals with disabilities, and locally-owned businesses in particular, and coordinate with anchor institutions such as universities, hospitals, public agencies, and school districts to help launch new products and services.

**EJ-9.5 Local Business Needs Assessment.** Continually assess business workforce needs and other requirements and use the findings to assist in developing a qualified workforce that meets the demands of established and emerging business and smaller, value-added businesses such as artisan foods, digital media, recording and sound technologies, smart engineered, cooling technologies, green industries (such as urban agriculture, urban forestry, riparian restoration, infrastructure resilience, and others and green building product development.

#### Workforce Development and Training

**EJ-9.6 Labor Force Skills Development.** The City shall partner with educational institutions, employers, and community-based organizations to develop a local labor force with skills to meet the needs of the area's businesses and industries. Continue and expand local-hire initiatives, just transition and clean energy training, apprenticeships, and partnerships with employers.

**EJ-9.7 Barriers to Workforce Participation.** The City shall collaborate with regional and local partners to identify and address barriers to workforce participation and access to training. Solutions to explore may include:

* Two-generation programs that link education, job training, and career-building for low-income parents with supports for their children;
* Bridge programs that prepare people with low academic skills for further education and training; and
* Transitional jobs programs that provide short-term subsidized employment or training for formerly incarcerated individuals.

**EJ-9.8 Entrepreneurship and Social Enterprise Training.** Support education and training in entrepreneurship and social enterprise as an alternative pathway to traditional jobs.

<<FIGURE>>

<!-- page 106 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 107 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# 9. Implementation Actions and Programs

## 9.1 PRIORITIZING IMPROVEMENTS AND PROGRAMS THAT MEET THE NEEDS OF EJ COMMUNITIES

SB 1000 requires that Cities prioritize programs and public and private investment in EJ Communities to meet identified community needs. Goals and policies related to monitoring and evaluation will also serve as a tool to track outcomes in EJ communities as they are implemented over time.

The following table includes **specific actions** that address the unique needs of EJ Communities as identified in the prior sections.

Each of the actions includes a “Responsibility” field, which indicates departments or agencies that will lead and/or coordinate on implementing the action, as well as a “Timeframe” field, which indicates approximately how long it could take to complete the action. The timeframes are defined as follows:

*   Short: 0-5 years
*   Medium: 5-10 years
*   Long: 10+ years
*   Ongoing: Efforts currently underway that the City will continue to implement

<<FIGURE>>

### GOAL EJ-10 PRIORITIZE IMPROVEMENTS AND PROGRAMS THAT MEET THE NEEDS OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES.

**EJ-10.1 Prioritizing EJ Communities.** Implement topic-specific actions as shown in the Goals, Policies, and Actions table, prioritizing improvements, programs, investments, and partnerships in Environmental Justice Communities, as shown in Figure **EJ-7**. Implementation could include technical assistance, support with grant applications seeking federal, state and philanthropic funding, access to data sources, and other resources. Spend or distribute resources to EJ communities in ways that meet the existing community’s priority needs and improve resident’s quality of life.

**EJ-10.2 Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation Plan.** To increase transparency and accountability, adopt an implementation monitoring and evaluation plan with achievable milestones, periodic evaluation, and a reporting mechanism, such as an online portal or newsletter to track outcomes and keep residents informed.

<!-- page 108 -->
### Table EJ-11: Implementation — Goals, Policies, and Actions

| POLICY | ACTION |
| :--- | :--- |
| **GOAL EJ-1: REDUCE POLLUTION, MITIGATE THE IMPACTS OF POLLUTION ON EXISTING SENSITIVE LAND USES, AND ELIMINATE ASSOCIATED PUBLIC HEALTH DISPARITIES.** | |
| **EJ-1.1 Toxic Air Contaminants.** Reduce the public's exposure to toxic air contaminants through appropriate land use and transportation strategies, identified through the LUTE update in Phase 2 of the GPU process, particularly in Environmental Justice Communities and other areas most burdened by air pollution, as identified in **Figure EJ-12** | **EJ-A.1.** Amend the City's Zoning code to include the following changes:<br><br>• Allow greater residential density in less-polluted areas, including existing single-family residential neighborhoods.<br>• Condition the permitting of heavy industrial uses within six hundred (600) feet or whatever minimum is required by State Law of a zone that permits residential activities.<br>• Establish special permit criteria for truck-intensive industrial activities located within five hundred (600) feet or whatever minimum is required by State Law of any zone that permits residential activities.<br>• Establish special performance standards and standard conditions of approval for Truck-Intensive Industrial Activities located within six hundred (600) feet or whatever minimum is required by State Law of any zone that permits residential activities.<br>• Amend the permit procedures for nonconforming Truck-Intensive Industrial Activities<br>• Condition the permitting of commercial kitchen operations designed for online ordering and food delivery.<br>• Modify the S-19 Health and Safety Protection Combining Zone to prohibit use of diesel generators as the primary source of power within six hundred (600) feet or whatever minimum is required by State Law from any Residential, Open Space, or Institutional Zone boundary.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Planning & Building<br>**Timeframe:** Short-term |
| **EJ-1.2 Truck Emissions and Pollution Exposure.** Minimize air pollution and exposure of sensitive uses to truck pollution, particularly in EJ Communities and other areas most burdened by air pollution, while recognizing the Port of Oakland's role as the highest-volume shipping port in Northern California. | |
| **EJ-1.3 Industrial Uses Near Sensitive Land Uses.** Ensure that heavy industrial uses are adequately buffered from residential areas, schools, and other sensitive land uses. In new developments, require adequate mitigation of air contaminant exposure and vegetative barriers near large stationary and mobile sources of air pollution. Prioritize nature-based mitigation solutions such as vegetative barriers wherever feasible, and align with other greening opportunities such as canopy need, green stormwater infrastructure, and high heat areas to plan for multiple benefits. | |
| **EJ-1.4 Performance Standards.** Develop zoning standards applicable to new industrial and commercial developments in order to minimize or avoid the potential for adverse effects related to air quality, noise, or safety on adjacent existing residential uses and Environmental Justice Communities, including the possibility of creating an overlay that focuses on air quality issues. | |
| **EJ-1.5 Regulate Polluting Uses.** Develop more stringent permitting standards and limit the number of variances approved for new, high-intensity, industrial or commercial land uses near sensitive uses in Environmental Justice Communities. See also Policy SAF-5.1 and EJ-1.15. | **EJ-A.2.** Adopt more stringent air quality construction and operations requirements for development near or within industrially zoned land as part of standard conditions of approval.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Planning & Building<br>**Timeframe:** Medium |
| **EJ-1.6 Enhanced Enforcement.** Prioritize code enforcement to address illegal land uses and activities that cause pollution and are hazardous to health in EJ Communities. | |
| **EJ-1.7 Truck-Related Impacts.** For new warehouses and truck-related businesses, reduce impacts from truck loading and delivery including noise/vibration, odors, air pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. | **EJ-A.3.** Work with BAAQMD and other partners in the region to explore creation of a grant program for installation and maintenance of air filtration devices/systems in existing buildings. Develop a list of priority buildings near heavy industrial uses, including schools, nursing homes, and other sensitive uses within EJ Communities, AB617 designated communities, and areas most affected by air quality issues, shown in **Figure EJ-12**.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Planning & Building, Office of Sustainability and Resilience Division, City Administrator's Office<br>**Timeframe:** Medium |
| **EJ-1.8 Air Filtration.** Consistent with the State's Building Energy Efficiency Standards for air filtration in effect as of January 1, 2023, require newly constructed buildings of four or more habitable floors to include air filtration systems equal to or greater than Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 16 (ASHRAE Standard 52.2), or a particle size efficiency rating equal to or greater than 50 percent in the 0.3-1.0 µm micrometer range and equal to or greater than 85 percent in the 1.0-3.0 µm micrometer range (AHRI Standard 680). | |

<!-- page 109 -->
### Table EJ-11: Implementation — Goals, Policies, and Actions

| POLICY | | ACTION |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **EJ-1.9** | **Electric Vehicle Charging.** Require industrial and warehouse facilities and truck-attracting businesses to provide electrical connections for electric trucks and transport refrigeration units in support of CARB regulations. | **EJ-A.4.** | In partnership with representative groups from EJ Communities, develop a Carbon Sequestration Incubator in Oakland to incubate and develop green jobs in urban agriculture, urban forestry, green stormwater infrastructure maintenance and management, aquatic and riparian restoration, and/or other forms of carbon removal. Establish a program for both voluntary and compliance GHG mitigation fees to be invested locally and fund the Incubator.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Public Works, Parks Recreation, and Youth Services Department, Office of Sustainability and Resilience Division, City Administrator’s Office, Economic & Workforce Development Department<br>**Timeframe:** Medium |
| **EJ-1.10** | **Reduce Emissions from Port Operation.** Support Port of Oakland’s efforts reduce emissions as part of operation and compliance with CARB regulations. This could include:<br><ul><li>Support of zero-emission drayage truck operations through appropriate local ordinance amendments, including allowable weight limits for single-axle, zero-emission trucks on local streets, and developing an investment plan for needed upgrades.</li><li>Provision of data or staff time to study of the effects on truck flow and congestion due to increasing visits from larger container ships, the feasibility of an off-terminal container yard that utilizes zero-emission trucks to move containers to and from the marine terminals, and the potential efficiency gains from increasing the number of trucks hauling loaded containers on each leg of a roundtrip to the Port.</li></ul> | | |
| **EJ-1.11** | **Building Electrification.** Continue to enforce compliance with Oakland’s Building Electrification Ordinance, which requires new and newly renovated buildings to be natural gas-free and support the transition of existing buildings to natural gas alternatives in order to improve safety and air quality and reduce health risks. This could include:<br><ul><li>Ensuring that all new developments reduce on-site natural gas combustion through electrification of heating and cooking technologies.</li></ul> | **EJ-A.5.** | As part of a feasibility study implement an amortization pilot in AB617 areas, which allows the City to identify and prioritize nonconforming land uses (which could include existing polluting industries, truck-intensive uses, autobody uses, recycling uses, etc) to phase out over time prioritizing areas within 1,000 feet of primarily residential impacted areas.<br><br>The study/pilot should include an implementation plan that includes with criteria to determine which industries to amortize. Criteria should include total cost of land and improvements; cost of moving and reestablishing the use elsewhere in the city; whether the use is significantly non-conforming; compatibility with existing land use patterns and densities; and possible threat to public health, safety, or welfare.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Planning & Building (in coordination with BAAQMD)<br>**Timeframe:** Medium |
| **EJ-1.12** | **Construction Site Impacts.** Through standard conditions of project approval, code enforcement, and other regulatory mechanisms, require new development to minimize disturbances of natural water bodies and natural drainage systems caused during construction and to implement measures to protect areas from road dust, erosion, and sediment loss. | | |
| **EJ-1.13** | **Emissions from Construction Activities.** Require projects to implement construction air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions controls and applicable mitigation strategies for all construction sites to the maximum extent feasible. Refer to Best Construction Practices and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) recommended by BAAQMD. | **EJ-A.6.** | Prioritize and implement vegetative buffer projects, including those between industrial land and sensitive land uses, and along heavy-duty truck/goods movement corridors and freeways as identified in specific plans and community plans, including EONI and WOCAP, and the City’s Priority Conservation Area/Sustainable Communities Plan (PCA).<br><br>**Responsibility:** Planning & Building<br>**Timeframe:** Short |
| **EJ-1.14** | **Reduced Exposure to Air Pollution for Project Occupants.** Incorporate measures to improve indoor air quality and reduce exposure to air pollution in new development projects. | **EJ-A.7.** | As part of the LUTE update in Phase 2, evaluate residential/industrial conflicts, especially in areas such as West and East Oakland, and evaluate measures, including limiting additional residential development in high pollution areas and ensuring adequate buffering between industrial and residential land uses through land use designations.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Planning & Building<br>**Timeframe:** Short |

<!-- page 110 -->
### Table EJ-11: Implementation — Goals, Policies, and Actions

| POLICY | | ACTION |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **EJ-1.15** | **Sensitive Uses.** Coordinate with BAAQMD and community partners in evaluating human exposure to toxic air contaminants, particularly in Environmental Justice Communities, and impose conditions as appropriate on projects to protect public health and safety beyond those in the City’s 2020 standard conditions of approval. | **EJ-A.8.** | As part of the LUTE update in Phase 2, explore modifications to truck routes and truck management in partnership with the Port of Oakland and WOIEP and Communities for a Better Environment. The West Oakland Truck Management Plan (WOTMP), approved by the City and Port of Oakland in 2019, should be used as the framework to explore modifications to truck routes.<br><br>**Responsibility:** OakDOT, Planning & Building<br>**Timeframe:** Short |
| **EJ-1.16** | **Community Air Protection.** On an ongoing basis, support BAAQMD, community members, businesses, and other stakeholders in developing and implementing Community Air Monitoring Plans, Community Emissions Reduction Plans, and other air pollution control initiatives pursuant to AB 617. Supportive City actions may include:<br><ul><li>Participation on steering committees and technical advisory committees.</li><li>Co-investments that leverage additional funding for actions in EJ Communities.</li><li>Utilization of community-collected air quality data in policy development and evaluation.</li><li>Co-development of a public information campaign targeting residents living 1,000 feet of freeways that focuses on education about air pollution mitigation measures.</li><li>Contracts with community partners and other air pollution monitoring organizations to obtain more granular pollution data.</li></ul> | **EJ-A.9.** | Designate an adequate system of roads connecting port terminals, warehouses, freeways and regional arterials, and other important truck destinations that minimizes impacts to sensitive uses. This system should rely upon arterial streets away from residential neighborhoods.<br><br>**Responsibility:** OakDOT, Planning & Building<br>**Timeframe:** Short |
| **EJ-1.17** | **Data-Informed Efforts.** Collaborate with BAAQMD, community organizations, and other stakeholders, to use air quality monitoring data to inform area-specific improvement actions outside of AB 617-related efforts. Such actions may include:<br><ul><li>Prioritizing areas for capital investments with co-benefits for air quality, such as the planting of trees, green stormwater infrastructure for flood management, and installation of EV charging infrastructure. Ideally, to maximize resiliency co-benefits will address multiple climate and environmental hazards.</li><li>Integrating air quality improvement actions into planning efforts, such as new specific plans, master plans, or area plans that will guide development in impacted areas.</li><li>Limiting the establishment of new sources of air pollutants in areas with elevated levels of pollutant concentrations unless appropriate mitigation is implemented.</li><li>Obtaining and using hyperlocal data along with community ground-truthing to more accurately inform development of air quality improvement strategies that are most effective and responsive to the needs of EJ Communities. This data will be accessible for residents to utilize.</li><li>Seeking opportunities to enhance existing air monitoring efforts, such as by working with BAAQMD and helping to expand the current monitoring network, especially where sensitive uses are within close proximity (within 500 feet) of pollution sources.</li><li>Partnering with industrial and warehouse facility owners, community-based environmental and energy justice organizations to install rooftop solar PV systems to power EV charging stations.</li></ul> | **EJ-A.10.** | Adopt requirements that new commercial and employment uses that generate truck traffic are located along existing truck routes to the extent feasible and work with project proponents to develop preferred truck routing that avoids sensitive land uses, such as schools, hospitals, elder and childcare facilities, and residences wherever feasible<br><br>**Responsibility:** OakDOT, Planning & Building<br>**Timeframe:** Short |
| | | **EJ-A.11.** | Work with OakDOT and Oakland Sustainability program to develop a zero emission Medium Heavy Duty Fleets Vehicle Charging Overlay Zone.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Oakland Planning and Building<br>**Timeframe:** Short (2025, as indicated in the State’s Zero Emissions Vehicle Action Plan) |
| | | **EJ-A.12.** | Work with Caltrans and other regional/state/federal agencies to promote the greening of Oakland’s primary goods-movement freeways including equipping the freeways with ZEV truck infrastructure, developing strategic green canopies or lids, as well as installing vegetative buffers alongside freeway corridors.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Oakland Planning and Building, OakDOT<br>**Timeframe:** Medium |

<!-- page 111 -->
### Table EJ-11: Implementation — Goals, Policies, and Actions

| POLICY | | ACTION |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **EJ-1.18** | **Impact Assessment and Mitigation.** Continue to use BAAQMD modeling tools and guidance documents as appropriate to identify and mitigate air quality impacts from proposed development projects. | **EJ-A.13.** | Coordinate with public agencies in the Bay Area region to catalyze the development and deployment of zero emission medium- and heavy-duty fleets and support development of shared charging hubs and resources. Support advocacy efforts for significant additional funding for retrofitting or replacing diesel trucks with zero-emission EV trucks, prioritizing a just transition approach by including economic support for independent truckers to compensate for lost wages while waiting for retrofitted or new EV trucks.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Office of Sustainability and Resilience Division, OakDOT, City Administrator’s Office, Planning & Building<br>**Timeframe:** Ongoing |
| **EJ-1.19** | **Regional Coordination.** Support air quality planning efforts led by other local, regional, and State agencies while simultaneously leveraging City authority and resources to focus on reducing air pollution burden in EJ Communities. | | |
| | | **EJ-A.14.** | Work with the Port of Oakland to establish permanent locations for parking and staging of Port-related trucks and cargo equipment, i.e. tractors, chassis, and containers. Such facilities will provide long-term leases to parking operators and truck owner-operators at competitive rates. Such facilities will be at the City or Port logistics center or otherwise not adjacent to Oakland residents who are disproportionately impacted by poor air quality.<br><br>**Responsibility:** City Administrator’s Office, Planning & Building, OakDOT<br>**Timeframe:** Medium |

<!-- page 112 -->
### Table EJ-11: Implementation — Goals, Policies, and Actions

| POLICY | | ACTION |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **GOAL EJ-2: PROTECT OAKLAND WATER SUPPLIES FROM CONTAMINATION.** | | |
| **EJ-2.1** | **Clean Water Programs.** In partnership with Oakland community organizations, promote environmental stewardship and pollution prevention activities with outreach, assistance and incentives for residents and businesses, particularly in EJ Communities and areas with impaired surface and groundwater, as identified in **Figure EJ-13**. | **EJ-A.15.** | Continue to participate in the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program to protect creeks, wetlands, and the San Francisco Bay. Prioritize creek restoration projects in Environmental Justice Communities with the lowest Tree Canopy and Park Access scores.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Public Works, Sustainability and Resilience Division, City Administrator's Office<br>**Timeframe:** Ongoing |
| **EJ-2.2** | **Water Quality Hazard Prevention.** Remediate and clean up sites with known or potential contamination, as mapped in **Figure EJ-14** or identified on GeoTracker, that impact or potentially impact water quality. Continue to support the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board and California Department of Toxic Substances Control to assess cleanup sites, leaking underground storage tanks, and gasoline stations in EJ Communities with high water contamination threat. | | |
| **EJ-2.3** | **Protect and Restore Creeks and Wetlands.** Protect, enhance, and restore riparian corridors and wetlands, increasing biodiversity as well as increasing access for residents to existing creeks and wetlands. Collaborate with environmental justice organizations and EJ community residents to co-develop environmental stewardship and pollution prevention programs with outreach, assistance, and incentives for residents and businesses. | **EJ-A.16.** | Fund and implement a green infrastructure program for the installation and maintenance of projects and existing civic resources such as the parks system and public spaces, to improve stormwater management, support biodiversity, reduce air pollution exposure, improve water quality, and increase access to natural spaces, including trees. Prioritize investment in frontline communities, and particularly in residential neighborhoods dominated by concrete and asphalt with limited green space and elevated air pollution, in Priority Conservation Areas, and in areas where green infrastructure, including trees and other types of vegetated buffers, can effectively address stormwater management issues and reduce air pollution exposure among sensitive populations.<br><br>• Consider and give priority to specific projects identified in the West Oakland Specific Plan, EONI and other community and specific plans. Continue to work with community groups throughout the implementation process and to develop & implement community-based stewardship models.<br><br>• Utilize the Priority Conservation Areas “Equity Checklist”<br><br>**Responsibility:** Public Works, Sustainability and Resilience Division, City Administrator's Office<br>**Timeframe:** Medium |
| **EJ-2.4** | **Stormwater Management.** Reduce stormwater runoff by implementing the Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan to help conserve water, protect water bodies, comply with stormwater protection regulations, and mitigate localized flood risk from large storm events. Review opportunities for greening, additional open space, and safe Non-Motorized Transportation (NMT) infrastructure and prioritize improvements, workforce development, programs, investments, and partnerships in Environmental Justice Communities. | | |

<!-- page 113 -->
### Table EJ-11: Implementation — Goals, Policies, and Actions

| POLICY | ACTION |
| :--- | :--- |
| **GOAL EJ-3: PREVENT, REDUCE AND CLEAN UP ILLEGAL DUMPING.** | |
| **EJ-3.1 Design for Graffiti Reduction.** Establish guidelines based on Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) standards and other best practices that decrease opportunity for graffiti. | **EJ-A.17. In partnership with school districts, community college networks, local vocational programs, labor unions, Community Based Organizations, businesses, in the recycling and waste diversion sector, and unhoused residents who depend on recycling for their survival, co-create a community reuse and repair program to increase waste diversion, reduce material consumption, and create green jobs. Target this program for residents of neighborhoods with the highest unemployment rates.** |
| **EJ-3.2 Blight Control and Prevention.** Control and mitigate impacts of blight-producing industrial and commercial activities with a high tendency of attracting trash and litter, such as recyclers, fast food restaurants, warehouses and industrial sites, and other businesses that may attract blight. Additionally, vacant lots should be routinely maintained by property owners and kept clean. | **Responsibility:** Public Works<br>**Timeframe:** Medium |
| **EJ-3.3 Proactive Illegal Dumping Cleanup.** Support the expansion of proactive cleanup crews that target illegal dumping “hot spot” areas first in EJ Communities, as identified in **Figure EJ-15**. | |
| **EJ-3.4 Illegal Dumping Enforcement.** Continue to enforce dumping as an illegal activity, including increased monitoring of hot spots on weekends and before/after business hours, ticketing, and expansion of Environmental Enforcement Officers (EEO). Every two years, as part of the budget process, assess enforcement efforts to ensure discriminatory patterns do not emerge. | |
| **EJ-3.5 Community Education on Illegal Dumping.** Expand community campaigns in EJ Communities in partnership with community members to prevent dumping, inform neighbors about affordable services and ways to report illegal dumping, and support youth leadership. Develop campaign outreach materials in a variety of languages. *Examples include education about Bulky Block parties and engagement of the Oaktown PROUD Student Ambassadors.* | |
| **GOAL EJ-4: COORDINATE RESOURCES TO IMPROVE HOUSING QUALITY AND HABITABILITY.** | |
| **EJ-4.1 Resource Optimization.** Coordinate across City departments and with relevant partner agencies including Oakland Housing Authority, EBMUD, BAAQMD, ABAG and others, to optimize the use of grant monies, incentives, financial resources, staffing, investments, and programs in addressing displacement and tenant protections; sanitary housing and maintenance issues; environmental hazards in homes and neighborhoods; and other concerns related to stable, safe, and sanitary housing. | **EJ-A.18. As part of the LUTE update in Phase 2, explore incentives and strategies to promote health-promoting features in housing projects that are built in EJ Communities. Health-promoting features may included, but are not limited to, enhanced filtration and ventilation systems; low-emitting and environmentally responsible materials; bicycle storage facilities; access to open spaces; and enhanced protection from external pollution sources and indoor air contaminants.** |
| | **Responsibility:** Planning & Building, Oakland Housing and Community Development<br>**Timeframe:** Short |

<!-- page 114 -->
### Table EJ-11: Implementation — Goals, Policies, and Actions

| POLICY | | ACTION |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **EJ-4.2** | **Supplemental Funding Sources for Building Rehabilitation.** Place a high priority on identifying supplemental funding sources/resources for retrofit, rehabilitation, and upgrade projects that address health and safety in housing occupied by low-income renters and homeowners, including air quality improvements. Supplemental funding sources could include loans and grants available from the California Strategic Growth Council, CalEPA, CARB, and other entities. | |
| **EJ-4.3** | **Healthy Homes Inspections.** As part of the Joint Lead Hazard Abatement Program in partnership with ACPHD, improve ongoing ability to screen for and eliminate lead hazards through proactive approaches, including proactive inspections of rental property dwellings and lead-safe certification requirements for childcare facilities and schools. Prioritize abatement, testing, outreach, and education activities in high-risk areas and serving the populations most likely to live in high-risk dwellings in EJ Communities, as identified in **Figure EJ-18**. *See also Action 2.1.2 in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.* | **EJ-A.19.** | Compile a database of all lead hazards identified within the City of Oakland and maintain comprehensive and up-to-date public records on lead hazards and rehabilitation and remediation efforts. Enter every dwelling or other facility where habitability issues are found into an Equitable Lead Hazard Abatement Program database. Once ready, the database will be publicly accessible on the city's website.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development, Residential Lending Division; Sustainability and Resilience Division, City Administrator's Office<br>**Timeframe:** Medium |
| **EJ-4.4** | **Healthy Homes Awareness.** Continue to work with Oakland HCD, Alameda Department of Public Health, and community organizations to promote safe and sanitary housing in EJ Communities in **Figure EJ-17** by providing owners and occupants with culturally appropriate and linguistically accessible information and resources about home health, including lead/Lead Safe Home Program grants, indoor air pollutants, asthma triggers, hazard zones, and other information. Efforts may include the development and dissemination of healthy home checklists, conducting trainings, workshops, or audits. | **EJ-A.20.** | Increase Renovation, Repair, and Painting training and certification opportunities for existing small local businesses through targeted outreach to businesses registered to do business in Oakland, particularly those owned by people of color.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Economic and Workforce Development Department<br>**Timeframe:** Ongoing |
| **EJ-4.5** | **Improve Indoor Air Quality in Existing Buildings.** For new projects and significant rehabilitations of existing buildings, improve indoor air quality and energy efficiency through weatherization and strategies to prevent buildup of mold and mildew. | |
| **EJ-4.6** | **Environmental Quality.** In private and non-profit housing projects in EJ Communities, promote and seek ways to incentivize the inclusion of features and amenities that support and enhance the health of occupants and the environment, including:<br>• On-site health and human services;<br>• Energy-efficient and electric appliances;<br>• Green infrastructure, such as green roofs or appropriate tree planting;<br>• Car sharing;<br>• Community gardens or sponsored rides to farmers markets; and<br>• Transit and bus passes for lower income workers to reduce emissions. | |

<!-- page 115 -->
### Table EJ-11: Implementation — Goals, Policies, and Actions

| POLICY | ACTION |
| :--- | :--- |
| **GOAL EJ-5: SUPPORT A FOOD SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES NUTRITIOUS, AFFORDABLE, CULTURALLY RELEVANT, AND AFFORDABLE FOOD TO ALL OAKLANDERS.** | |
| **EJ-5.1 New Healthy Food Grocers.** Leverage tax and fee deferral/reduction, California Food Financing Initiative funding, and other economic development grant monies to attract new healthy food grocers and co-ops and help them establish and/or make necessary improvements. As shown in **Figure EJ-19**, allow small grocery stores within residential areas. As a priority, efforts should be focused in areas underserved by healthy food retail with good access to the transportation network, where grocery stores and food co-ops are most economically viable. | **EJ-A.21.** Promote availability of permits – such as for Cottage Food Operations or Microenterprise Home Kitchen Operation (MEHKO) – that allow for preparation, cooking and serving food to consumers on the same day from a private residence, either through delivery, take-out, or dine-in the home. Focus outreach and promotional efforts in EJ Communities where home-based operations or other innovations can serve as both a source of healthy food and an opportunity for entrepreneurship. Reduce permit fee for income-qualified individuals.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Planning & Building<br>**Timeframe:** Medium |
| **EJ-5.2 Community Gardens Program.** Partner with nonprofits, especially indigenous groups, to expand the City’s Community Gardens Program in areas with low food access, with policies to address maintenance and permit Indigenous community harvesting/ foraging of parks. The program should include garden spaces, community-maintained edible landscapes, and amenities in public spaces. | **EJ-A.22.** In underserved areas shown on **Figure EJ-19** for existing where convenience stores and other retail outlets, develop and implement a program to incentivize and assist business owners to stock fresh and healthy food at affordable prices. Prioritize local neighborhood resident-owned businesses, such as corner stores and liquor stores. Program elements could include:<br><ul><li>Funding for refrigeration equipment;</li><li>Business counseling and technical assistance;</li><li>Nutritional education; and</li><li>Store design support.</li></ul><br>**Responsibility:** Economic and Workforce Development, Planning & Building<br>**Timeframe:** Medium |
| **EJ-5.3 Community and Home Gardening.** Support community and home gardening efforts and – particularly in EJ Communities underserved by healthy food retail – by providing financial incentives such as land transfers and technical assistance in the form of online and library resources and workshops on gardening basics and cooking easy, healthy meals with fresh produce. Work with community groups to increase the prevalence of accessible, local gardens. Other incentives may include:<br><ul><li>Explore the expansion of outright permitting of community gardens in areas where a Conditional Use Permit is currently required, particularly in the Broadway Valdez District (D-BV) and Central Estuary (D-CE) zones.</li><li>Incentivize urban agriculture in urbanized areas by offering reduced property tax assessments or Oakland vacancy tax in exchange for converting vacant or unimproved property to an agricultural use through a contract agreement for an initial period of five years.</li></ul> | **EJ-A.23.** As part of the LUTE update in Phase 2, explore potential locations and other strategies, such as incentives, zoning overlays, land use changes, density or intensity bonuses, or others, for prioritization of new full-service grocery stores over a certain square footage. Prioritize grocery store development in EJ Communities with the lowest food access, so that more neighborhoods are within walking distance of a grocery store, and incentivize community-led, neighborhood resident-owned and coopera- tively-owned full-service grocery stores that also provide culturally appropriate foods for BIPOC communities.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Planning & Building<br>**Timeframe:** Short |
| **EJ-5.4 Urban Agriculture in New Development.** Promote rooftop gardens, edible gardens, and other sustainable agricultural landscaping alternatives within multi-unit, commercial, and industrial developments.<br><ul><li>Target creation of rooftop gardens highly visible from neighboring properties.</li><li>Permit indoor “vertical food farms” in appropriate areas in the City.</li><li>Reduce permit fees for large-scale farming of edible products.</li></ul> | **EJ-A.24.** Community Gardens Initiative. Consider community gardens an integral part of the city’s park, recreation, and open space system. Acquire land for public community gardens, leveraging the City’s park impact fee, along with the Parks & Recreation Fund and grant money from sources such as Proposition 84 (which funded the City Slickers Community Garden). Collaborate with EJ Community groups, schools, food justice and urban farming organizations to collaboratively steward and develop standards for community gardens as part of the OSCAR Element update in Phase 2.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Planning & Building, Public Works<br>**Timeframe:** Short |
| **EJ-5.5 Entrepreneurship and Food Innovation.** Actively support food innovations such as street (sidewalk) vending, food cooperatives, pop-up markets and similar innovations that do not fit into the traditional brick-and-mortar storefront, farmers market, or community garden models. Promote indoor farming of fruits and vegetables in industrial zones. Support individual residents in small-scale agriculture and distribution, through education and financial assistance. | |

<!-- page 116 -->
### Table EJ-11: Implementation — Goals, Policies, and Actions

| POLICY | | ACTION |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **EJ-5.6** | **Food Assistance Programs.** Work to increase community awareness of and participation in existing federal food assistance programs, such as the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) nutrition program and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Approaches can include:<br><br><ul><li>Providing information in City newsletters, on the City's website, and at community centers and other City facilities.</li><li>Explaining to merchants the incentive to registering to accept WIC and SNAP payments (immediate expansion of market of potential customers).</li><li>Supporting additional programs for local grocers to supplement CalFresh benefits with cash match incentives, healthy food incentives, or fruit and vegetable supplemental benefits. Some program examples include Market Match, Fresh Creds, and SPUR's Double Up Food Bucks program.</li><li>Partnering with community organizations that support low-income community members who are not eligible for food assistance through identification of funding or grants.</li></ul> | **EJ-A.25.** | Healthy Community Markets Program—utilize grants, funding, etc. to promote the creation of local businesses that sell produce in areas where healthy food access is limited including food innovations such as street (sidewalk) vending, food cooperatives, pop-up markets and similar innovations that do not fit into the traditional brick-and-mortar storefront, or community garden models. Increase the size, frequency, and number of farmers markets.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Economic and Workforce Development<br>**Timeframe:** Long |
| **EJ-5.7** | **Food Security Resources & Partnerships.** Coordinate with Citywide community-serving organizations, the Oakland Unified School District, Alameda County, and other public agencies to ensure that residents and families have access to federal, state, and local food programs, as well as emergency food assistance during public health and other crises. For undocumented food insecure residents, that do not qualify for public food assistance, work with partner agencies and organizations to provide food and benefits to all residents, regardless of legal status. During emergencies, support the Alameda County Community Foodbank to expand hours and keep distribution centers operational. | | |
| **EJ-5.8** | **Education and Awareness.** In partnership with local agencies and community organizations, develop curriculum and marketing materials encouraging the growth and consumption of healthy food. Provide these to the Oakland Unified School District and community organizations focused on food justice and nutritional education. Support community organizations with financial incentives such as land transfers or discounted water rates and technical assistance in the form of online and library resources and workshops on gardening basics and cooking easy, healthy meals with fresh produce. | | |
| **EJ-5.9** | **Food Recovery Program.** Support existing capacity of organizations within Oakland's food system, and develop new capacity, to recover edible food that is otherwise wasted, and distribute that food for human consumption. This includes:<br><br><ul><li>Exploring potential for agroforestry, where trees, shrubs, and agricultural crops are interspersed, in community gardens or parks, to create and recover other food sources</li><li>Engaging with stakeholders including local food donation, recovery, and collection organizations to build robust collection and food storage capacity, and reliable distribution systems to the neediest populations.</li><li>Engaging with food generators such as supermarkets, wholesale distributors, large hotels, and institutions, to donate surplus edible food that food recovery partners want or will accept, and ensuring food generators comply with the Edible Food Recovery requirements of SB 1383.</li><li>Informing edible surplus food generators about strategies, existing programs, and best practices for preventing the waste of surplus food.</li><li>Expanding community education efforts and marketing of existing recovery programs, such as Oakland Recycles.</li></ul> | | |

<!-- page 117 -->
### Table EJ-11: Implementation — Goals, Policies, and Actions

| POLICY | | ACTION |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **GOAL EJ-6: SUPPORT A NETWORK OF WELL-MAINTAINED COMMUNITY FACILITIES THAT ARE EASILY ACCESSIBLE, CULTURALLY SUPPORTIVE, AND RESPONSIVE TO COMMUNITY NEEDS.** | | |
| **EJ-6.1** | **Public Facilities Distribution.** Ensure equitable distribution of beneficial public safety, civic, and cultural facilities. Prioritize new facilities, resilience hubs, and creative spaces in traditionally underserved areas. Locations for these public facilities should be identified in collaboration with local schools and neighborhood groups. | **EJ-A.26.** | As part of the update of the LUTE and OSCAR Elements, and the creation of a new Infrastructure and Facilities Element, include policies that address equitable distribution and maintenance of public facilities in EJ Communities.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Planning & Building, Public Works<br>**Timeframe:** Short |
| **EJ-6.2** | **Childcare Facilities.** As part of long-range planning efforts, ensure appropriate land use designations, zoning, and incentives to facilitate additional affordable and high-quality childcare facilities in areas without sufficient access, as shown in **Figure EJ-20**. | **EJ-A.27.** | As part of the LUTE update in Phase 2, explore land use changes that are supportive of cultural organization operation in partnership with community groups, small business associations, and the Cultural Affairs office.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Planning & Building, Economic and Workforce Development<br>**Timeframe:** Short |
| **EJ-6.3** | **Healthcare Facilities.** As part of long-range planning efforts, ensure appropriate land use designations and zoning to facilitate additional healthcare facilities in areas without sufficient access, as shown in **Figure EJ-21**. | | |
| **EJ-6.4** | **Facilities Maintenance.** Maintain and improve existing civic and public facilities to ensure safer, more attractive facilities that are responsive to community needs. Prioritize equitable capital improvements and maintenance projects, and investments in public and community-driven social infrastructure in EJ Communities. | | |
| **EJ-6.5** | **Public Service Coordination.** Maintain interagency coordination agreements with neighboring jurisdictions and partner agencies that provide urban public facilities and services within the City/County to ensure effective and efficient service delivery. Ensure strong coordination between agencies during climate emergencies, with in-language and culturally appropriate outreach targeted to the most vulnerable communities. | | |
| **EJ-6.6** | **Public Restroom Facilities.** Distribute restrooms equitably across the city to support all residents, including Oakland’s unhoused population. Access to safe, clean sanitation is globally recognized as essential for public health. Public toilets should be accessible to all Oaklanders, without social or physical barriers preventing usage. A public toilet facility’s design and upkeep should offer privacy and safety, ensure cleanliness, provide required sanitation-related resources, and be gender equitable | | |

<!-- page 118 -->
### Table EJ-11: Implementation — Goals, Policies, and Actions

| POLICY | ACTION |
| :--- | :--- |
| **GOAL EJ-7: CREATE ENVIRONMENTS THAT SUPPORT PHYSICAL ACTIVITY, RECREATION, AND HEALTHY LIFESTYLES THROUGH SAFE AND COMFORTABLE WALKABLE, BIKEABLE NEIGHBORHOODS, WITH ACCESS TO GREEN SPACE, TREES, PATHS, AND PARKS.** | |
| **EJ-7.1 Complete Neighborhoods.** Promote “complete neighborhoods”— where residents have safe and convenient access to goods and services on a daily or regular basis—that address unique neighborhood needs, and support physical activity, including walking, bicycling, active transportation, recreation, and active play. | **EJ-A.28.** As part of the LUTE update in Phase 2, include policies that promote a fine-grained neighborhood land use pattern that encourages walking, biking, and getting around without a car. <br><br> **Responsibility:** Planning & Building <br> **Timeframe:** Short |
| **EJ-7.2 Accessible Neighborhoods.** Encourage active modes of transportation and transit accessibility by supporting neighborhoods that provide access to a range of daily goods, services, and recreational resources within comfortable walking or biking distance. Encourage transit providers to prioritize, establish and maintain routes to jobs, shopping, schools, parks and healthcare facilities that are convenient to EJ Communities. | **EJ-A.29.** As part of the LUTE update and creation of the new Capital Facilities and Infrastructure Element in Phase 2, include policies that prioritize bicyclist, pedestrian, and roadway improvements that prioritize safety and comfort of non-auto users. Target and prioritize these improvements in EJ Communities and areas identified in **Figure EJ-22.** <br><br> **Responsibility:** Planning & Building, OakDOT <br> **Timeframe:** Short |
| **EJ-7.3 Street Design for Safe Speeds.** Work to maximize the safety of the transportation network by designing/redesigning streets for lower driving speeds and enforcing speed limits as well as promoting safe driving behavior, while protecting against discriminatory policing, racial profiling, or racial bias in enforcement. Strategies could include implementing leading pedestrian intervals for crosswalks in residential neighborhoods and providing pedestrian scale lighting. Prioritize speed reduction efforts in EJ Communities with the highest concentrations of pedestrian and bicyclist crashes. Study enforcement patterns annually to avoid racial profiling. | **EJ-A.30.** As part of the updates to the LUTE and OSCAR in Phase 2, develop a citywide greenway network that will connect communities via an active transportation network that includes trails, bikeways, walking paths, etc., and expand access to open recreation and green spaces. This network should prioritize establishing connections between Oakland’s neighborhoods, parks on the Bay shoreline, and regional parks (such as the MLK Jr. Shoreline Park and Middle Harbor Shoreline Park) as well as identify zones in need of green infrastructure investments. <br><br> **Responsibility:** Planning & Building, Oakland Public Works, Sustainability and Resilience Division <br> **Timeframe:** Short |
| **EJ-7.4 Safe Oakland Streets.** Utilize a community-engagement-rooted, data-driven, and systematic approach to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while increasing safety, health, and equitable mobility for all. | |
| **EJ-7.5 Bicycle- and Pedestrian-Friendly Design.** Prioritize designs that protect people that are biking and walking, such as improvements that increase visibility of bicyclists and pedestrians, traffic calming, and safer intersection crossings and turns. Improvements should also prioritize universal design so that improvements are usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialization. | **EJ-A.31.** As part of LUTE update and creation of the new Capital Facilities and Infrastructure Element in Phase 2, study shuttles and other local transit programs that are supportive of AC Transit’s core service to foster local mobility and connections between neighborhoods and rail transit. Prioritize investments in EJ Communities that lack active transportation infrastructure. <br><br> **Responsibility:** Planning & Building, OakDOT <br> **Timeframe:** Short |

<!-- page 119 -->
### Table EJ-11: Implementation — Goals, Policies, and Actions

| POLICY | | ACTION |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **EJ-7.6** | **Collaborative Safety Solutions.** Collaborate with educational institutions, senior living facilities, community organizations, and other stakeholders, particularly those who reside in EJ Communities, when developing and implementing programs and improvements that increase safety and encourage the use of active transportation modes. Identify and plan for improvements in collaboration with existing neighborhood residents and businesses to address concerns about gentrification and displacement. | **EJ-A.32.** Prioritize urban greening projects identified in community plans, such as EONI, WOCAP, and others. Implement projects in partnership with community groups in EJ Communities.<br><br>**Responsibility:** OakDOT, CAO Sustainability & Resilience Division, Planning & Building<br>**Timeframe:** Medium |
| **EJ-7.7** | **Equitable Paving.** Continue to plan and distribute paving program resources based on equity, road condition and safety metrics. Continue to plan and distribute paving program resources based on equity, road condition and safety metrics. Align paving programs with other city infrastructure priorities including the West Oakland Specific Plan, the 2019 Oakland Bike Plan, and the 2017 Oakland Walks Pedestrian Plan. In addition, align the paving program with the GSI Plan to ensure flood resilience and pollution prevention is incorporated. | |
| **EJ-7.8** | **Park Distribution.** As part of park planning efforts, prioritize development of new parks in EJ Communities that are underserved, as identified in Figure EJ-26. | |
| **EJ-7.9** | **Enhancing Access to Parks.** Pursue strategies that increase community access to parks and recreational facilities, including expanding joint use agreements with schools and educational institutions; removing of physical barriers to access (ex: fences); and providing a choice of legible routes to and from park areas through the installation of new or improved multi-use shared paths, wayfinding, and signage. | |
| **EJ-7.10** | **Parks Programming.** Create high-quality inclusive programming that encourages the use of the park facilities by a variety of users including older adults, youth, and people with disabilities throughout the day and evenings. Opportunities should be taken to incorporate local heritage and culture. | |
| **EJ-7.11** | **Partnerships.** Coordinate partnerships with Caltrans and the Port to activate and increase access to parks and greenways with community programming and events, as well as to explore the potential for new greenway resources, including ways to reconnect areas divided by I-980 and I-880. | |
| **EJ-7.12** | **Park Safety.** Use Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) and other best practices for landscaping, lighting, and other components when designing open space and recreational spaces. Take into consideration locational indicators related to crime and perception of safety when prioritizing park safety improvements or programs. | |
| **EJ-7.13** | **Park Maintenance.** When evaluating park projects and funds for maintenance, include equity and presence in EJ Communities as a priority weighted factor. | |

<!-- page 120 -->
### Table EJ-11: Implementation — Goals, Policies, and Actions

| POLICY | | ACTION |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **EJ-7.14** | **Community Input.** Provide ongoing opportunities for public engagement and input into the parks and recreation planning process, including priorities for amenities, facilities, programming, and improvements. Focus engagement in EJ Communities. EJ-7.15 | |
| **EJ-7.15** | **Urban Forest.** Implement the Urban Forest Master Plan, a comprehensive, area-wide urban canopy and vegetation plan that identifies locations where trees can be added and maintained, such as parks, streets, and rights-of-way. Develop a plan to maintain and protect existing trees that provide shade, reduce urban heat island impacts, reduce flooding, reduce pollution, and reduce exposure to air pollution emissions in communities most affected by air pollution. Align tree canopy with climate resilience planning, including green stormwater infrastructure. Trees should be low on the allergenic scale, to serve EJ communities most impacted by air pollution and asthma. This includes partnering with local nonprofit groups, encouraging trees on private property, and working with the community on tree maintenance and (as needed) removal. Prioritize tree canopy in EJ Communities with the least amount of canopy, as shown in **Figure EJ-27.** | |
| **EJ-7.16** | **Urban Greening.** Develop equitable partner agreements with community-based organizations and collaboratively work to identify, fund, develop, and maintain specific green infrastructure projects in EJ Communities. Align urban greenening efforts with flood and pollution prevention, prioritizing green stormwater infrastructure, especially in areas at risk of flooding. | |
| **GOAL EJ-8: FOSTER MEANINGFUL CIVIC ENGAGEMENT AND SUPPORT COMMUNITY POWER- AND CAPACITY-BUILDING.** | | |
| **EJ-8.1** | **Meaningful, Relevant Engagement.** Design and implement public engagement processes and events that emphasize participation from low-income communities and communities of color; that are driven by resident priorities, that are easily accessible and understandable and that provide meaningful opportunities for participants to influence outcomes. | **EJ-A.33.** | Study the feasibility of establishing a fund that City departments draw on for community outreach, including funding for community group partnerships. The fund would provide a source of funds to supplement departmental budgets and grant funding in order to ensure that City objectives for community outreach can be achieved, and that community groups are fairly compensated for their engagement.<br><br>**Responsibility:** City Administrator’s Office, Department of Finance<br>**Timeframe:** Long |
| **EJ-8.2** | **Sustained Engagement.** Maintain communication channels that allow for ongoing dialogue with neighborhood groups and individual residents; consult with AB 617 Steering Committees; track issues and priorities at the neighborhood level; and foster transparency and accountability. Use this information to inform development of City programs, projects, and services, sharing information across departments to optimize the effectiveness of efforts, and share outcomes with groups. | | |
| | | **EJ-A.34.** | Develop a participatory budgeting process for EJ Community investments and explore expansion into other departments. *Related to Housing Element Action 5.2.9.*<br><br>**Responsibility:** City Administrator’s Office, Department of Finance<br>**Timeframe:** Long |
| **EJ-8.3** | **Innovative Methods and Creative Strategies.** Explore innovative strategies for increasing community involvement in civic processes and ownership of outcomes, tailoring strategies to best reach target audiences. Strategies to explore may include participatory budgeting, participatory action research, or other approaches that emphasize the active participation of community members most affected by the questions at issue. | | |

<!-- page 121 -->
### Table EJ-11: Implementation — Goals, Policies, and Actions

| POLICY | | ACTION |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **EJ-8.4** | **Community Partners.** Partner with community-based organizations that have relationships, trust, and cultural competency with target communities as to support engagement for local initiatives and issues. Seek opportunities to support community partners in these efforts such as by providing technical assistance, data, meeting spaces, funding and other support services as feasible. | **EJ-A.35.** | Host an annual City-wide conference of Neighborhood Empowerment Councils, where community-based organizations, neighborhood councils, neighborhood organizing support networks, youth networks, and residents plan proactively for healthy communities and provide feedback on General Plan implementation.<br><br>**Responsibility:** City Administrator’s Office<br>**Timeframe:** Long |
| **EJ-8.5** | **Community Capacity Building.** Empower historically marginalized community members to participate in local decision-making and engage meaningfully in planning efforts, including through increased representation in employment and civic life; providing educational/training workshops and programs about civic involvement and processes, such as through fellowships and internships; providing organizational support to community-based organizations; and other capacity building activities. | **EJ-A.36.** | Integrate community-led and community-driven initiatives into City planning processes, such as other General Plan elements, future action and area plans, the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process, the adopted City budget, bond measures, and other City investments and resource allocations.<br><br>**Responsibility:** City Administrator’s Office<br>**Timeframe:** Ongoing |
| **EJ-8.6** | **Engagement Infrastructure.** Build City technology, staffing, funding and systems resources to conduct more inclusive, meaningful and community-empowered engagement, including seeking grant funding. Develop flexible but sustained infrastructure for two-way information sharing between City and partner agencies and community members. | **EJ-A.37.** | Support opportunities for providing mental health education and resource-sharing, especially for youth, as part of an inclusive and meaningful community involvement strategy.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Department of Violence Prevention<br>**Timeframe:** Ongoing |
| **EJ-8.7** | **Interagency and Interdepartmental Collaboration.** Collaborate with and among public agencies and City departments to leverage resources, avoid duplication of effort and enhance the effectiveness of public participation. | | |
| **EJ-8.8** | **Youth-Centered Events.** Seek out opportunities for meaningfully and authentically involving young people – particularly from EJ Communities - in the planning and implementation of youth-centered events that develop confidence and leadership skills. | | |
| **EJ-8.9** | **Events for Older Adults.** Provide greater opportunity for older adults (ages 65 and over), particularly those from EJ Communities, to be integrated into community events and intergenerational exchanges. Involve older adults in the planning and implementation of events that are accessible to older adults. | | |
| **EJ-8.10** | **Linguistically Isolated Communities.** Continue to provide interpretation and translation services, assistance in accessing community services and programs, and direct engagement with specific demographic groups. Prioritize EJ Communities as identified in **Figure EJ-30**. | | |
| **EJ-8.11** | **Digital Access.** Ensure that all meetings, materials, and other engagement that use technology are easily accessible by mobile devices. Invest in high-speed internet in underserved low-income communities to expand digital access and engagement opportunity. Prioritize expanded internet in public facilities and EJ Communities as identified in **Figure EJ-31**. | | |

<!-- page 122 -->
### Table EJ-11: Implementation — Goals, Policies, and Actions

| POLICY | | ACTION |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **EJ-8.12** | **Mental Health and Community Well-Being.** Support programs and services that support the health and well being of residents through community-based collaboration with a range of partners. | |
| **GOAL EJ-9: EXPAND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, INCOME EQUALITY, AND OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL OAKLANDERS.** | | |
| **EJ-9.1** | **Investments for Inclusive, Equitable Growth.** Make intentional investments to increase and diversify economic growth and living wage jobs in an inclusive and equitable manner that focuses on neighborhoods and their unique needs, particularly in EJ Communities. | **EJ-A.38.** | As part of land use planning efforts, explore the following strategies in partnership with community organizations based in EJ Communities:<br><br>• Corridor revitalization<br>• Zoning opportunities to facilitate smaller, “microretail” spaces that are more affordable to new or smaller businesses.<br>• Cultural Districts that showcase, support, and preserve existing cultural identity of retail and commercial services. For example, programs that support restoration of historical Black business districts in West Oakland.<br>• Neighborhood retail and local business conservation strategies to prevent conversion of existing neighborhood-retail uses in neighborhoods that would otherwise lose easy access to nearby shops and neighborhood services, including through anti-displacement strategies.<br>• Anti-displacement strategies for artists and creative businesses<br>**Responsibility:** Planning & Building<br>**Timeframe:** Short |
| **EJ-9.2** | **Small Business/Startup Support.** Support the development and retention of small business startups and new firms — particularly POC/women/veteran owned businesses - by providing assistance with business planning, expansion, and access to capital. | | |
| **EJ-9.3** | **Business Incubators.** Encourage occupancy of existing buildings with incubators for specific industry/trade groups and for artisans and craftspeople, where small startup businesses can share existing facilities and equipment. | | |
| **EJ-9.4** | **Public Procurement.** Continue to use the public procurement process to stimulate small business development, prioritize certified underrepresented business enterprises, including businesses owned by people of color, women, LGBTQIA+ community members, veterans, and individuals with disabilities, and locally-owned businesses in particular, and coordinate with anchor institutions such as universities, hospitals, public agencies, and school districts to help launch new products and services. | | |
| **EJ-9.5** | **Local Business Needs Assessment.** Continually assess business workforce needs and other requirements, using the findings to assist in developing a qualified workforce that meets the demands of established and emerging business and smaller, value-added businesses such as artisan foods, digital media, recording and sound technologies, smart engineered, cooling technologies, green industries (such as urban agriculture, urban forestry, riparian restoration, infrastructure resilience, and others) and green building product development. | | |
| **EJ-9.6** | **Labor Force Skills Development.** Partner with educational institutions, employers, and community-based organizations to develop a local labor force with skills to meet the needs of the area’s businesses and industries. Continue and expand local-hire initiatives, just transition and clean energy training, apprenticeships, and partnerships with employers. | | |

<!-- page 123 -->
### Table EJ-11: Implementation — Goals, Policies, and Actions

| POLICY | | ACTION |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **EJ-9.7** | **Barriers to Workforce Participation.** Collaborate with regional and local partners to identify and address barriers to workforce participation and access to training. Solutions to explore may include:<br><br>• Two-generation programs that link education, job training, and career-building for low-income parents with supports for their children;<br>• Bridge programs that prepare people with low academic skills for further education and training; and<br>• Transitional jobs programs that provide short-term subsidized employment or training for formerly incarcerated individuals | |
| **EJ-9.8** | **Entrepreneurship and Social Enterprise Training.** Support education and training in entrepreneurship and social enterprise as an alternative pathway to traditional jobs. | |
| **GOAL EJ-10: PRIORITIZE IMPROVEMENTS AND PROGRAMS THAT MEET THE NEEDS OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES.** | | |
| **EJ-10.1** | **Prioritizing EJ Communities.** Implement topic-specific actions as shown in the Goals, Policies, and Actions table, prioritizing improvements, programs, investments, and partnerships in Environmental Justice Communities, as shown in Figure EJ-7. Implementation could include technical assistance, support with grant applications seeking federal, state and philanthropic funding, access to data sources, and other resources. Spend or distribute resources to EJ communities in ways that meet the existing community’s priority needs and improve resident’s quality of life. | **EJ-A.39.** | In partnership with community groups, develop an implementation monitoring and evaluation plan framework and reporting mechanism. The EJ Element reporting system will be updated regularly and accessible online to the public. The EJ Element reporting system will be updated regularly and accessible online to the public.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Planning & Building<br>**Timeframe:** Short |
| **EJ-10.2** | **Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation Plan.** To increase transparency and accountability, adopt an implementation monitoring and evaluation plan with achievable milestones, periodic evaluation, and a reporting mechanism, such as an online portal or newsletter to track outcomes and keep residents informed. | **EJ-A.40.** | Staff will provide a biennial report on the progress on climate actions identified in the 2030 ECAP and actions identified in the Environmental Justice Element.<br><br>**Responsibility:** Planning and Building Department, CAO Sustainability and Resilience Division<br>**Timeframe:** Ongoing |

<!-- page 124 -->
(blank page)

<!-- page 125 -->
<<FIGURE>>

# OAKLAND 2045
# GENERAL PLAN