⬚ 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