⬚ 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

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.

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

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

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

Table of Contents, continued

          Wildlife ........................................................................................ 3-49
    Air Resources .................................................................................... 3-52
    Energy Resources .............................................................................. 3-59

CHAPTER 4: RECREATION

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

CHAPTER 5: PLANNING AREA STRATEGIES

    Introduction ....................................................................................... 5-1
    North Oakland ................................................................................... 5-2
    West Oakland .................................................................................... 5-6
    Chinatown/ Central ............................................................................. 5-10
    San Antonio ...................................................................................... 5-15
    Fruitvale ........................................................................................... 5-19
    Central East Oakland ........................................................................... 5-24
    Elmhurst ........................................................................................... 5-28
    Lower Hills ....................................................................................... 5-33
    North Hills ....................................................................................... 5-37
    South Hills ....................................................................................... 5-44
    Airport ............................................................................................. 5-49
    Harbor ............................................................................................. 5-52

APPENDIX A: Proposed Park Classification

APPENDIX B: Implementation Matrix

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Objective REC-3: Parkland and Park Facility Deficiencies ................... 4-39     Policy REC-3.1: Level Of Service Standards ................................. 4-40     Policy REC-3.2: Systematic Allocation of Funds ............................. 4-41         Action REC-3.2.1: Annual List of Projects ............................. 4-42         Action REC-3.2.2: Regular Needs Assessments .......................... 4-42     Policy REC-3.3: Park Location Factors ...................................... 4-44         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     Policy REC-4.1: Systematic Maintenance Provisions .......................... 4-46         Action REC-4.1.1: Priority on Maintenance ............................. 4-47         Action REC-4.1.2: Improvements which Reduce Maintenance Costs .......... 4-47         Action REC-4.1.3: School District Coordination ........................ 4-47     Policy REC-4.2: Environmental Responsibility ............................... 4-47         Action REC-4.2.1: Integrated Pest Management Program .................. 4-47     Policy REC-4.3: Renovation and Rehabilitation Priorities ................... 4-48         Action REC-4.3.1: Annual List of Priority Projects .................... 4-48

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

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

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

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

(blank page)

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.

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.

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.

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;

• 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

(blank page)

Chapter 1

Overview

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.

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

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

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

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.

⬚ 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.

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.

(blank page)

Chapter 2

Open Space

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

⬚ figure

City of Oakland Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element

Figure 1: Location of Major Open Spaces

Office of Planning & Building, 1995

⬚ figure

City of Oakland Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element

Figure 2: Planning Area Boundaries

Source: Office of Planning & Building, 1995

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.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.

⬚ 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

OPEN SPACE LAND USES

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.

⬚ 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.

City of Oakland Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element

Figure 4: Potential Resource Conservation Areas

Office of Planning & Building 1995

Table 3: Proposed Resource Conservation Area Parks

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.

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.

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.

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

⬚ 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

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,

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.

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.

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.

⬚ 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

⬚ figure

City of Oakland Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element

Figure 6: Citywide

Pedestrian Trail System

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.

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.

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.

⬚ 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

SHORELINE AND CREEKS

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

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

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.

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.

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

⬚ 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

City of Oakland Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element

Figure 7: Shoreline Access

• 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

• 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.

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

⬚ 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

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/

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.

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.

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.

⬚ figure

City of Oakland Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element

Figure 8: Potential Areas for Creek Improvement

Source: Office of Planning & Building, 1995

⬚ figure

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

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.

OPEN SPACE FOR COMMUNITY CHARACTER

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.

⬚ figure

City of Oakland Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element

Figure 9: Urban Form

Source: Office of Planning & Building, 1995

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

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.

⬚ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

⬚ 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.

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.

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.

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).

(blank page)

Chapter 3

Conservation

INTRODUCTION

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.

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.

⬚ 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.

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.

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.

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.

⬚ 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

• 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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

⬚ 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.

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.

⬚ 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

⬚ 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).

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

⬚ figure

City of Oakland Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element

Figure 12:

Plant & Animal Communities

Office of Planning * leg. 1995

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.

⬚ 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.

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).

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.