View Attachment C — Rules & Legislation Committee, October 26, 2023 (part 2 of 2)

CITY OF OAKLAND
Equitable Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 2114, Oakland, CA 94612-2031 Zoning Information: 510-238-3911
https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/planning
The purpose of this Equitable Climate Action Plan Consistency Review Checklist is to determine, for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), whether a development project complies with the City of Oakland Equitable Climate Action Plan (ECAP) and the City of Oakland’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets. CEQA Guidelines require the analysis of GHG emissions and potential climate change impacts from new development.
- If a dev
elopment project completes this Checklist and can qualitatively demonstrate compliance with the Checklist items as part of the project’s design, or alternatively, demonstrate to the City’s satisfaction why the item is not applicable, then the project will be considered in compliance with the City’s CEQA GHG Threshold of Significance. - If a development project cannot meet all of the Checklist items, the project will alt
ernatively need to demonstrate consistency with the ECAP by complying with the City of Oakland GHG Reduction Plan Condition of Approval.
- If the project cannot demonstrate consistency with the ECAP in either of those two ways, the C
ity will consider the project to have a significant effect on the environment related to GHG emissions.

Application Submittal Requirements

1. The ECAP Consistency Checklist applies to all development projects needing a CEQA GHG emissions analysis, including a specific plan consistency analysis.

2. If required, the ECAP Consistency Review Checklist must be submitted concurrently with the City of Oakland Basic Application.

Application Information
Applic
ant’s Name/Company: ____________________________________________________ Property Address: _____________________________________________________________ Assessor’s Parcel Number: ______________________________________________________ Phone Number: _______________________________________________________________ E-mail:
_______________________________________________________________________ City of Oakland Parks Recreation Youth Development
1701 E 19th St, Oakland, CA 94606
20-295-1
[email protected]
510.238.3087
Equitable Climate Action Plan (ECAP) Consistency Review Checklist 2 Checklist Item (Check the appropriate box and provide explanation for your answer).

Transportation & Land Use

1. Is the proposed project substantially consistent with the City’s over-all goals for land use and urban form, and/or taking advantage of allowable density and/or floor area ratio (FAR) standards in the City’s General Plan? (TLU1)
Yes No N/A
Please explain how the proposed project is substantially consistent with the City’s General Plan with respect to density and FAR standards, land use, and urban form.

2. For developments in “Transit Accessible Areas” as defined in the Planning Code, would the project provide: i) less than half the maximum allowable parking, ii) the minimum allowable parking, or iii) take advantage of available parking reductions?
(TLU1)
Yes No N/A
Please explain how the proposed project meets this action item.

3. For projects including structured parking, would the structured parking be designed for future adaptation to other uses? (Examples include, but are not limited to: the use of speed ramps instead of sloped floors.). (TLU1)
Yes No N/A
Please explain how the proposed project meets this action item.

4. For projects that are subject to a Transportation Demand Management Program, would the project include transit passes for employees and/or residents?
(TLU1)
Yes No N/A
Please explain how the proposed project meets this action item.

X
there is no change to density and FAR standards. Land use is not altered and urban form maintained X
iii)take advantage of available parking reductions, converting portion existing street parking to ADA compliant X
No structured parking is recommended as part of the Long Range Master Plan.

X
This is a park. There are no residents or employees
Equitable Climate Action Plan (ECAP) Consistency Review Checklist 3 5. For projects that are not subject to a Transportation Demand Management Program, would the project incorporate one or more of the optional Transportation Demand Management measures that reduce dependency on single-occupancy vehicles? (Examples include but are not limited to transit passes or subsidies to employees and/or residents; carpooling; vanpooling; or shuttle programs; on-site carshare program; guaranteed ride home programs)
(TLU1 & TLU8)
Yes No N/A
Please explain how the proposed project meets this action item.

6. Does the project comply with the Plug-In Electric Vehicle (PEV) Charging Infrastructure requirements (Chapter 15.04 of the Oakland Municipal Code), if applicable?
(TLU2 & TLU-5)
Yes No N/A
Please explain how the proposed project meets this action item.

7. Would the project reduce or prevent the direct displacement of residents and essential businesses? (For residential projects, would the project comply with SB 330, if applicable? For projects that demolish an existing commercial space, would the project include comparable square footage of neighborhood serving commercial floor space.)
(TLU3)
Yes No N/A
Please explain how the proposed project meets this action item.

X
This is a park. Most users walk from nearby residence.

X
This application is for a long-range Master Plan. No specific project is being undertaken. As projects are implemented under separate ECAP checklist, PEV may be incorporated as applicable.

X
This is a park. No residences, essential businesses of commercial space is affected.

Equitable Climate Action Plan (ECAP) Consistency Review Checklist 4 8. Would the project prioritize sidewalk and curb space consistent with the City’s adopted Bike and Pedestrian Plans? (The project should not prevent the City’s Bike and Pedestrian Plans from being implemented. For example, do not install a garage entrance where a planned bike path would be unless otherwise infeasible due to Planning Code requirements, limited frontage or other constraints.)
(TLU7)
Yes No N/A
Please explain how the proposed project meets this action item.

Buildings

9. Does the project not create any new natural gas connections/hook-ups? (B1 & B2)
Yes No N/A
Please explain how the proposed project meets this action item.

10. Does the project comply with the City of Oakland Green Building Ordinance (Chapter 18.02 of the Oakland Municipal Code), if applicable? (B4)
Yes No N/A
Please explain how the proposed project meets this action item.

11. For retrofits of City-owned or City-controlled buildings: Would the project be all-electric, eliminate gas infrastructure from the building, and integrate energy storage wherever technically feasible and appropriate? (B5)
Yes No N/A
Please explain how the proposed project meets this action item.

X
The Master Plan recommends improvements to Pedestrian pathways around and connected through the park. Universally accessible pathways will enable pedestrian to access any portion of the park from any starting point. Future improvements would add several bike parking facilities at entrance points.

X
The proposed "project" is a Long Range Master Plan, Each individual improvement project that results would be subject to City of Oakland Green Building Ordinance, if applicable.

X
The Master Plan does not call for retrofit of any City-owned or City-controlled buildings No recommendation for future improvements in the Long Range Master Plan would require new natural gas connections.

X
Equitable Climate Action Plan (ECAP) Consistency Review Checklist 5 Material Consumption & Waste

12. Would the project reduce demolition waste from construction and renovation and facilitate material reuse in compliance with the Construction Demolition Ordinance (Chapter 15.34 of the Oakland Municipal Code)? (MCW6)
Yes No N/A
Please explain how the proposed project meets this action item.

City Leadership

13. For City projects: Have opportunities to eliminate/minimize fossil fuel dependency been analyzed in project design and construction? (CL2)
Yes No N/A
Please explain how the proposed project meets this action item.

Adaptation

14. For new projects in the Designated Very High Wildfire Severity Zone:

Would the project incorporate wildfire safety requirements such creation of defensible space around the house, pruning, clearing and removal of vegetation, replacement of fire resistant plants, as required in the Vegetation Management Plan?
(A4)
Yes No N/A
Please explain how the proposed project meets this action item.

X
The proposed "project" is a Long Range Master Plan, Each individual improvement project that results would be subject to City of Oakland Construction Demolition Ordinance, if applicable.

The proposed "project" is a Long Range Master Plan, Each individual improvement project that results would analyze fossil fuel dependency as applicable.

X
No portion of San Antonio Park falls in Oakland's Designated Very High Wildfire Severity Zone X
Equitable Climate Action Plan (ECAP) Consistency Review Checklist 6 Carbon Removal

15. Would the project replace a greater number of trees than will be removed in compliance with the Tree Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 12.36 of the Oakland Municipal Code) and Planning Code if applicable and feasible given competing site constraints?
(CR-2)
Yes No N/A
Please explain how the proposed project meets this action item.

16. Does the project comply with the Creek Protection, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Chapter 13.16 of the Oakland Municipal Code), as applicable?
(CR-3)
Yes No N/A
Please explain how the proposed project meets this action item.

I unders
tand that answering yes to all of these questions, means that the project is in compliance with the City’s Energy and Climate Action Plan as adopted on to July 28, 2020 and requires that staff apply the Project Compliance with the Equitable Climate Action Plan (ECAP) Consistency Checklist Condition of Approval as adopted by the Planning Commission on December 16, 2020 and all Checklist items must be incorporated into the project I unders
tand that answering no to any of these questions, means that the project is not in compliance with the City’s Energy and Climate Action Plan as adopted on to July 28, 2020 and requires that staff apply the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Plan Condition of Approval as adopted by the Planning Commission on December 16, 2020 which will require that the applicant prepare a quantitative GHG analysis and GHG Reduction Plan for staff’s review and approval. The GHG Reduction Plan and all GHG Reduction measures shall be incorporated into the project and implemented during construction and after construction for the life of the project. ____________
_ Date
X
The Long Range Master Plan recommends that any future project implementation replace a greater number of trees than would be removed. However, the proposed plan minimizes impact to existing tree canopy wherever possible.

X
No recommended improvements within the Long Range Master Plan would affect existing stormwater runoff and discharge control features. As individual projects are developed, they would be subject to review per Creek Protection, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance with the goal of improving existing condition.
____________________________________
Name and Signature of Preparer
Mi Kyung Lew
03/09/23
90 San Antonio Park Master Plan
Appendix8
This page intentionally left blank
91 San Antonio Park Master Plan
Fire Station 4
Relocation Impact Report
Oakland Fire Station 4
Relocation Impact Report

2021
STUDY ON THE IMPACT RELOCATION OF STATION 4 TO THREE

DIFFERENT CANDIDATE LOCATIONS
DECCAN INTERNATIONAL | February 26, 2021
Oakland Fire Station 4
Relocation Impact Report

2021
STUDY ON THE IMPACT RELOCATION OF STATION 4 TO THREE

DIFFERENT CANDIDATE LOCATIONS
DECCAN INTERNATIONAL | February 26, 2021
Deccan International, pg. 1
Contents
Analysis Needs .............................................................................................................................................. 2 Explanation of Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 2 Call Volume ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Unit Hour Utilization ............................................................................................................................. 2 Comparison of Scenario Results ........................................................................................................... 2 Ranking of Scenario Results .................................................................................................................. 3 Call Volume, Unit Hour Utilization, Incident Reporting ................................................................................ 4 All Oakland: Current Total Call Volume from January 1, 2019 – December 31, 2019 .......................... 4 Truck 2 First Due Area: Current Total Call Volume from January 1, 2019 – December 31, 2019 ......... 4 Unit Hour Utilization: UHU information for Oakland Engines from January 1, 2019 – December 31, 2019 ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 Incident Reporting from January 1, 2019 – December 31, 2019 .......................................................... 6 Scenario 1: New Station 4 Location A (Foothill and 18th Ave) ...................................................................... 7 1710 First Truck Travel Time (Enroute to Onscene) for Structure Fire Calls (Time Target: 5:20): ....... 7 Scenario 2: New Station Location B (International Blvd. and 7th Ave) .......................................................... 7 1710 First Truck Travel Time (Enroute to Onscene) for Structure Fire Calls (Time Target: 5:20): ....... 7 Scenario 3: New Station Location C (2121 E. 12th Street) ............................................................................. 8 1710 First Truck Travel Time (Enroute to Onscene) for Structure Fire Calls (Time Target: 5:20): ....... 8 Scenario Comparison 1: New Station Location A Against New Station Location B ...................................... 9 1710 First Truck Travel Time (Enroute to Onscene) for Structure Fire Calls (Time Target: 5:20): ....... 9 Analysis Comparison 2: New Station Location A Against New Station Location C ....................................... 9 1710 First Truck Travel Time (Enroute to Onscene) for Structure Fire Calls (Time Target: 5:20): ....... 9 Analysis Comparison 3: New Station Location B Against New Station Location C ..................................... 10 1710 First Truck Travel Time (Enroute to Onscene) for Structure Fire Calls (Time Target: 5:20): ..... 10 Scenario Ranking: ........................................................................................................................................ 10

Deccan International, pg. 1
Contents
Analysis Needs .............................................................................................................................................. 2 Explanation of Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 2 Call Volume ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Unit Hour Utilization ............................................................................................................................. 2 Comparison of Scenario Results ........................................................................................................... 2 Ranking of Scenario Results .................................................................................................................. 3 Call Volume, Unit Hour Utilization, Incident Reporting ................................................................................ 4 All Oakland: Current Total Call Volume from January 1, 2019 – December 31, 2019 .......................... 4 Truck 2 First Due Area: Current Total Call Volume from January 1, 2019 – December 31, 2019 ......... 4 Unit Hour Utilization: UHU information for Oakland Engines from January 1, 2019 – December 31, 2019 ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 Incident Reporting from January 1, 2019 – December 31, 2019 .......................................................... 6 Scenario 1: New Station 4 Location A (Foothill and 18th Ave) ...................................................................... 7 1710 First Truck Travel Time (Enroute to Onscene) for Structure Fire Calls (Time Target: 5:20): ....... 7 Scenario 2: New Station Location B (International Blvd. and 7th Ave) .......................................................... 7 1710 First Truck Travel Time (Enroute to Onscene) for Structure Fire Calls (Time Target: 5:20): ....... 7 Scenario 3: New Station Location C (2121 E. 12th Street) ............................................................................. 8 1710 First Truck Travel Time (Enroute to Onscene) for Structure Fire Calls (Time Target: 5:20): ....... 8 Scenario Comparison 1: New Station Location A Against New Station Location B ...................................... 9 1710 First Truck Travel Time (Enroute to Onscene) for Structure Fire Calls (Time Target: 5:20): ....... 9 Analysis Comparison 2: New Station Location A Against New Station Location C ....................................... 9 1710 First Truck Travel Time (Enroute to Onscene) for Structure Fire Calls (Time Target: 5:20): ....... 9 Analysis Comparison 3: New Station Location B Against New Station Location C ..................................... 10 1710 First Truck Travel Time (Enroute to Onscene) for Structure Fire Calls (Time Target: 5:20): ..... 10 Scenario Ranking: ........................................................................................................................................ 10

Deccan International, pg. 2
Analysis Needs
The Oakland Fire Department is trying to determine the best location to rebuild current Station 4 (located at 1235 International Blvd.). There are currently 3 different areas designated as candidate locations:

Corner of Foothill and 18th Ave (New Station Location A), Corner of International Blvd and 7th Ave (New Station Location B), and 2121 E. 12th Street (New Station Location C). Station 4 is a double housed station with 2 full time staffed apparatuses: Engine 4 and Truck 2. As there are only 7 full timed staffed Trucks servicing Oakland, this analysis will focus on the response performance impact of: 11771100 FFiirrsstt TTrruucckk TTrraavveell TTiimmee ((EEnnrroouuttee ttoo OOnnsscceennee)) ffoorr SSttrruuccttuurree FFiirree CCaallllss in Truck 2’s First Due Are Things to take into consideration with this analysis: the predictive modeling component (ADAM) has been calibrated with the last year of data from January 2020. It does not include a calibration of data since COVID-19 started, as this time represents a potential anomaly of call volume data and response performance due to the impact of the virus. Please note that when using ADAM projections these results are projected based off of historical performance but are not hard & fast values.

Explanation of Methodology
Call Volume
The first part of the analysis is to provide a baseline of where the Oakland is regarding call volume, incident distribution, and Unit Hour Utilization of current units. This report will provide the baseline of January 1, 2019 – December 31, 2019 call volume wwiitthhiinn Oakland. As noted above, this report is focusing on 2019 data in order to not include call volume and response performance anomalies as a result of COVID-19.

Unit Hour Utilization
This report will also provide a Unit Hour Utilization report of the units housed at the Oakland Stations.

Unit Hour Utilization calculates the On Call UHU using the starting timestamp of Time of Dispatch and the ending timestamp for Time Back in Service. If incidents do not have both these timestamps, they are not used to calculate UHU or the number of runs per unit during the time period of January 1, 2019 – December 31, 2019. In addition, incidents are filtered out using Deccan’s methodology of identifying “bad data” (as opposed to outliers). This methodology involves using time intervals between any two timestamps and determining what is the maximum time interval that constitutes an error or “bad data” as opposed to a true outlier. If an incident has an interval that exceeds the “maximum time interval” allowance, the second timestamp will be blanked out, so other useable timestamps may be included in response performance calculations. For UHU, if either the time of dispatch or the time back in service timestamps are blanked out, the incident will not be used in the calculations.

Comparison of Scenario Results
The “Scenario Comparison” tool in ADAM shows the delta change between any 2 scenarios as well as a visualization of the areas most impacted on the map itself. With this tool the different analyses are compared to find the predicted change in response performance and unit workloads:

A. Comparing the Impact of New Station Location A against New Station Location B B. Comparing the Impact of New Station Location A against New Station Location C C. Comparing the Impact of New Station Location B against New Station Location C Deccan International, pg. 3
Ranking of Scenario Results
A ranking system for this analysis has been deployed where scores for each criterion are ranked against their peers from the various scenarios, in a matrix. A description of this methodology is below:

1. Each scenario’s related Response Criteria values are recorded in their respective columns

2. The performance for both value sets is ranked from best to worst (for Averages, the lower the Average the higher the rank)

3. All the rankings for each of the criteria results are then added together and sorted, where the lower the score, the better the cumulative rank that scenario achieved

4. The cumulative rank is then revised to identify the best combination starting at 1 and then onwards getting progressively less optimal results
By ranking each criterion and cumulatively scoring them, users have the ability to make a decision to act on one criterion’s ranking or all of them depending on the situation’s needs.

Deccan International, pg. 4
Call Volume, Unit Hour Utilization, Incident Reporting
This represents the baseline of Oakland. Call Volume, UHU, and Incident Reporting is based on data from January 1,2019 – December 31, 2019
All Oakland: Current Total Call Volume from January 1, 2019 – December 31, 2019

Truck 2 First Due Area: Current Total Call Volume from January 1, 2019 – December 31, 2019

Deccan International, pg. 5
Unit Hour Utilization: UHU information for Oakland Engines from January 1, 2019 – December 31, 2019

On-call UHU by Unit % Runs
B2 1.91% 702
B3 1.48% 515
B4 2.18% 821
E1 11.35% 4574
E10 7.71% 2593
E12 11.37% 3901
E13 12.57% 4024
E15 9.80% 3949
E17 9.01% 2919
E18 11.02% 3891
E19 3.73% 1171
E20 12.53% 3867
E21 1.45% 348
E22 0.57% 124
E22A 2.37% 768
E23 12.79% 4220
E24 2.93% 811
E25 3.79% 990
E26 10.30% 3130
E27 9.88% 2781
E28 1.52% 396
E29 13.25% 4353
E3 7.36% 2733
E4 8.97% 3150
E5 6.99% 2581
E6 1.50% 364
E7 1.36% 333
E8 8.28% 2947
T1 4.39% 2048
T2 3.66% 1439
T3 2.82% 996
T4 3.77% 1744
T5 2.62% 1052
T6 4.47% 1787
T7 4.36% 1732

Deccan International, pg. 5
Unit Hour Utilization: UHU information for Oakland Engines from January 1, 2019 – December 31, 2019

Deccan International, pg. 6
Incident Reporting from January 1, 2019 – December 31, 2019

6413
5590
6349
6220 6148
6424
6196
6414
6286
6560
6288 6277
5000
5200
5400
5600
5800
6000
6200
6400
6600
6800Count
Incident Counts over time
9947 10546
3857
9196
7843
17360 16395
0 5000
10000
15000
20000
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
Count
Incident Counts by Truck First Due Areas
Deccan International, pg. 7
Scenario 1: New Station 4 Location A (Foothill and 18th Ave) Predicted Response Performance measuring: Average Response Time, Time Target Compliance AAvveerraaggee RReessppoonnssee TTiimmee refers to the average predicted time for all responses for any given response criteria
TTiimmee TTaarrggeett CCoommpplliiaannccee represents the percentage of responses predicted to meet the time target for any given response Criteria
1710 First Truck Travel Time (Enroute to Onscene) for Structure Fire Calls (Time Target: 5:20):

Truck 2 First Due Area
Average Response Time: 03:37 Time Target Compliance: 88.72%

Scenario 2: New Station Location B (International Blvd. and 7th Ave) Predicted Response Performance measuring: Average Response Time, Time Target Compliance 1710 First Truck Travel Time (Enroute to Onscene) for Structure Fire Calls (Time Target: 5:20):

Truck 2 First Due Area
Average Response Time: 03:53 Time Target Compliance: 83.68%

Deccan International, pg. 8
Scenario 3: New Station Location C (2121 E. 12th Street) Predicted Response Performance measuring: Average Response Time, Time Target Compliance 1710 First Truck Travel Time (Enroute to Onscene) for Structure Fire Calls (Time Target: 5:20):

Truck 2 First Due Area
Average Response Time: 03:54 Time Target Compliance: 85.26%

Deccan International, pg. 9
Scenario Comparison 1: New Station Location A Against New Station Location B
Comparison of New Station Location A Against New Station Location B 1710 First Truck Travel Time (Enroute to Onscene) for Structure Fire Calls (Time Target: 5:20):

Truck 2 First Due Area
Average Response Time Change: (- 00:16) Time Target Compliance Change: (+ 5.04%)

Analysis Comparison 2: New Station Location A Against New Station Location C
Comparison of New Station Location A Against New Station Location C 1710 First Truck Travel Time (Enroute to Onscene) for Structure Fire Calls (Time Target: 5:20):

Truck 2 First Due Area
Average Response Time Change: (- 00:17) Time Target Compliance Change: (+ 3.46%)

Truck 2 First Due Area
Average Response Time Change: (- 00:16) Time Target Compliance Change: (+ 5.04%)

Truck 2 First Due Area
Average Response Time Change: (- 00:17) Time Target Compliance Change: (+ 3.46%)

Deccan International, pg. 10
Analysis Comparison 3: New Station Location B Against New Station Location C
Comparison of New Station Location B Against New Station Location C 1710 First Truck Travel Time (Enroute to Onscene) for Structure Fire Calls (Time Target: 5:20):

Truck 2 First Due Area
Average Response Time Change: (- 00:01) Time Target Compliance Change: (- 1.58%)

Scenario Ranking:

Below is a chart ranking the 3 scenarios of the relocation of Station 4. From there, each selected criteria score is presented adjacent to the corresponding scenario, and the ranking of the score is to the right of the projected performance value. At the far right of cells engaged, a Comp Rank (or cumulative rank) is presented to add each of the criteria rankings together. Finally, a Final Ranking is provided that simplifies the cumulative scores down to a simple ranking of that scenario where each result is compared fairly against its peer scenarios.

New Location
Scenario
Structure Fire
Avg
Rank
Structure Fire
Compliance
Rank
Comp Rank
Final Rank
A 3:37 1 88.72% 1 2 1
B 3:53 2 83.68% 3 5 2
C 3:54 3 85.26% 2 5 2

102
San Antonio Park Master Plan
Appendix8
This page intentionally left blank
103
San Antonio Park Master Plan
11 Fire Station 4
Current Location
Ubicación actual
de la estación de
bomberos n.º 4
第四消防局目前位置
Process
 Spring 2019 two City real estate agents assigned.
 They search and monitor the market throughout 2019, 2020 and 2021 using proprietary databases, field surveys, word of mouth and recommendations from the community.
 Potentially suitable sites shared with OFD as they are discovered.

Site Selection Process/Proceso de selección del sitio/選址過程 FIRE STATION 4 RELOCATION

COMMUNITY MEETING
Proceso
 Primavera de 2019 dos agentes inmobiliarios de la Ciudad asignados.  Buscan y supervisan el mercado a lo largo de 2019, 2020 y 2021 utilizando bases de datos propias, encuestas de campo,
recomendaciones de palabra y recomendaciones de la comunidad.  Sitios potencialmente adecuados compartidos con OFD a medida que se descubren.
過程
2019 年春季，指派兩名本市房地產仲介。
仲介於 2019、2020 及 2021 年使用物業資料庫、田野調查、口耳相
傳以及社區建議等方式，搜尋並密切觀察房地產市場。
在發現潛在合適地點後，便與 OFD 分享資訊。
Real Estate Analysis Summary
12 Fire Station 4
Current Location
Ubicación actual
de la estación de
bomberos n.º 4
第四消防局目前位置
 Few potentially suitable sites identified given site requirements and the dense, developed nature of the service area.
 Acquiring and preparing any other site is expected to add up to $9 million to costs and up to 2 years to the completion schedule.

Key Findings/Descubrimientos clave/主要發現
FIRE STATION 4 RELOCATION

COMMUNITY MEETING
 Se han identificado pocos sitios potencialmente adecuados, dados los requisitos del sitio y la naturaleza densa y desarrollada del área de servicio.
 Se espera que la adquisición y preparación de cualquier otro sitio añada hasta $9 millones a los costos y hasta 2 años al calendario de finalización. 由於地點要求，以及服務區域稠密且高度發展之故，潛在合適地點
並不多。
收購或準備任何其他地點都預期會增加最多 900 萬美元的成本和 2 年
的時間，才能完成計畫。
13 Fire Station 4
Current Location
Ubicación actual
de la estación de
bomberos n.º 4
第四消防局目前位置
The following representative sites were selected for discussion based on community interest and/or relative viability
Many additional sites were evaluated
Se seleccionaron los siguientes sitios representativos para su discusión basados en el interés de la comunidad y/o la
viabilidad relativa
Se evaluaron varios sitios adicionales
選擇以下代表性地點來討論的依據是社區利益及/或相對可行性
已評估過許多其他地點
Analysis of Select Sites/Análisis de sitios selectos/所選地點分析 FIRE STATION 4 RELOCATION

COMMUNITY MEETING
 City owned Property
 Pros
 No acquisition costs
 Minimal demolition costs
 Minimize completion schedule
 Cons
 Displace Park/Open Space
 Require re-engineering streets, traffic patterns, utility relocation  Conflicts with Bus Rapid Transit operation
 Propiedad de la Ciudad
 Ventajas
 No hay costos de adquisición
 Costos de demolición mínimos
 Minimizar el calendario de finalización
 Desventajas
 Desplazar el parque/espacio abierto
 Requeriría la re-ingeniería de las calles y los patrones de tráfico  Requeriría una gran reubicación de servicios públicos  Conflictos con el funcionamiento de los Autobuses de Tránsito Rápido  市政所屬財產
 優點
 無收購成本
 最低拆除成本
 完成時間最短
 缺點
 需搬遷公園/開放空間
 需要進行街道和交通模式再造工程
 需要重新布置主要的水電配置
 與快速公交系統衝突
Vantage Point Park Site Sitio del Parque VantagePoint VVaannttaaggee PPooiinntt 公公園園選選址址 Fire station 4 relocation
Community meeting

14  Identified by community members
 Pros
 Central location
 No acquisition costs, minimal demolition costs, achievable mitigation  Cons
 Unsafe for OFD Personnel
 Zoned Open Space
 Would require re-engineering 14th Ave
 Would require major utility relocation
 Identificado por los miembros de la comunidad
 Ventajas
 Ubicación central
 Sin costos de adquisición, costos mínimos de demolición, mitigación alcanzable
 Desventajas
 Inseguridad para el personal del OFD
 Espacio abierto zonificado
 Requeriría la re-ingeniería de 14th Ave
 Requeriría una gran reubicación de servicios públicos  由社區成員所選
 優點
 中心位置
 無收購成本、最低拆除成本、可達成的緩和補救方案
 缺點
 對 OFD 人員而言並不安全
 分區開放空間
 需要進行 14th Ave 再造工程
 需要重新布置主要的水電配置
14th Avenue Median
FIRE STATION 4 RELOCATION

COMMUNITY MEETING
15  Owned by Oakland Housing Authority
 Pros
 Vacant lot, 12,300 SF
 Somewhat centrally located
 Owned by another public agency
 Possibly willing seller
 Cons
 Insufficient size, 12,300 SF
 Residential displacement required to expand
 Not on thoroughfare
 Propiedad de Oakland Housing Authority
 Ventajas
 Lote vacante, 12,300 pies cuadrados
 Algo centralizado
 Propiedad de otra agencia pública
 Vendedor posiblemente dispuesto
 Desventajas
 Tamaño insuficiente, 12,300 pies cuadrados
 Desplazamiento residencial requerido para
expandir
 No está en la vía pública
 由屋崙住宅管理局所有
 優點
 12,300 平方英尺的空地
 算是位於中心位置
 由另一個公家機關所有
 可能願意出售的賣家
 缺點
 12,300 平方英尺的占地不夠大
 需要進行住宅搬遷以擴大空間
 並非位於主幹道
1236 East 17th Street
FIRE STATION 4 RELOCATION

COMMUNITY MEETING
16  Identified by community members
 Pros
 Very large site, 70,000 SF lot, 20,000 SF building
 Central location
 Cons
 Not presently for sale
 Would likely require re-engineering 14th Ave
 Would displace local, small business
 Identificado por los miembros de la comunidad
 Ventajas
 Sitio muy grande, lote de 70,000 pies cuadrados, edificio de 20,000 pies cuadrados
 Ubicación central
 Desventajas
 Actualmente no está a la venta
 Probablemente requeriría la re-ingeniería de 14th Ave  Desplazaría a los pequeños negocios locales
 由社區成員所選
 優點
 地點非常大，空地為 70,000 平方英尺，建物為 20,000 平方英尺
 中心位置
 缺點
 目前並未出售
 可能需要進行 14th Ave 再造工程
 需要遷離當地小型商家
East Bay Blueprint & Supply
FIRE STATION 4 RELOCATION

COMMUNITY MEETING
17  Formerly Kevin’s Noodle House Identified by community members  Pros
 Sufficiently large site, 23,068 SF
 Corner of two thoroughfares
 Meets response time requirements
 Cons
 Not presently for sale
 Under development
 Anteriormente Kevin's Noodle House Identificado por los miembros de la comunidad
 Ventajas
 Sitio suficientemente grande, 23,068 pies cuadrados
 En la esquina de dos vías públicas
 Cumple los requisitos de tiempo de respuesta
 Desventajas
 Actualmente no está a la venta
 Bajo desarrollo
 前身為 Kevin’s Noodle House 由社區成員所選
 優點
 地點夠大，有 23,068 平方英尺
 兩條主幹道的轉角
 符合反應時間要求
 缺點
 目前並未出售
 正在開發中
1402 E 12th St
FIRE STATION 4 RELOCATION

COMMUNITY MEETING
18 Identified by community members
Pros
Large site, 20,583 SF
On thoroughfare
Cons
Not presently for sale
Does not meet response time criteria
Identificado por los miembros de la comunidad
Ventajas
Sitio grande, 20,583 pies cuadrados
En la vía pública
Desventajas
Actualmente no está a la venta
No cumple los requisitos de tiempo de respuesta
由社區成員所選
優點
地點很大，有 20,583 平方英尺
位於主幹道
缺點
目前並未出售
不符合反應時間標準
2032 E 12th St
FIRE STATION 4 RELOCATION

COMMUNITY MEETING
19  Vacant lot across Foothill Blvd from San Antonio Park  Pros
 Central location
 Relatively small acquisition cost (was listed at $630,000)  Cons
 Insufficient size at 10,500 square feet
 Insufficient ingress and egress
 Residential displacement required to expand
 Lote vacante al otro lado de Foothill Blvd. del Parque San Antonio
 Ventajas
 Ubicación central
 Costo de adquisición relativamente pequeño (se cotizó en $630,000)
 Desventajas
 Tamaño insuficiente con 10,500 pies cuadrados
 Insuficiente entrada y salida
 Desplazamiento residencial requerido para expandir
 與 San Antonio Park 相隔 Foothill Blvd 的空地
 優點
 中心位置
 相對較少的收購成本（刊登價為 63 萬美元）
 缺點
 不夠大，面積為 10,500 平方英尺
 出入口不夠
 需要進行住宅搬遷以擴大空間
1715 Foothill Blvd
FIRE STATION 4 RELOCATION

COMMUNITY MEETING
20  Utilize approx. 19,000 square feet in the southeast corner  Displacement of one tennis court
 Would require general plan amendment
 Pros
 Central location
 No acquisition costs, minimal demolition costs, achievable mitigation  Minimize completion schedule
 Can be designed with community benefits (e.g. community room, educational gardens, utilities for park, public gathering space, recreational improvements)  Cons
 Displace park/open space (under ½ acre)
 Utilizar aproximadamente 19,000 pies cuadrados en la esquina sureste  Desplazamiento de una cancha de tenis
 Requeriría una modificación del plan general (proceso de 8 a 12 meses)  Ventajas
 Ubicación central
 Sin costos de adquisición, costos mínimos de demolición, mitigación alcanzable  Minimizar el calendario de finalización
 Puede diseñarse con beneficios comunitarios (por ejemplo, salón comunitario, jardines educativos, servicios para el parque, espacio de reunión pública, mejoras recreativas)
 Desventajas
 Desplazar parque/espacio abierto (menos de ½ acre)
 利用東南角約 19,000 平方英尺的空間
 需搬遷一個網球場
 需要修改整體計畫（過程需 8-12 個月）
 優點
 中心位置
 無收購成本、最低拆除成本、可達成的緩和補救方案
 完成時間最短
 可依據社區利益設計（例如社區活動室、教育花園、公共停車設施、公共空間、休閒娛樂改善
等）
 缺點
 需搬遷公園/開放空間（小於 ½ 英畝）
San Antonio Park

114
San Antonio Park Master Plan
Appendix8
Fire Station Design
What has prompted the need for a new Fire
Station?
• Station 4 is in the top third of busiest fire
stations, responding to nearly 4000 calls per
year. Currently a 2-apparatus station, additional
equipment to respond to demand and types of
emergencies require expansion to 3-bays.
• The narrow width of the building barely fits a
modern fire apparatus, and the lack of distance
between the street and the firehouse doors
creates traffic safety and other related hazards
for OFD personnel, neighbors, drivers, and
pedestrians.
• Station 4 does not meet Seismic, Title 2, Title
24, and ADA compliance, or align with NFPA
(National Fire Protection Association) and OSHA
(Occupational Safety and Health Administration)
standards.
• Age of building has resulted in extensive dry rot
and leaks around windows, failing exterior walls,
failing plumbing, and has exposed potential
health risks, including cancer.
• The building is incapable of meeting the range
of community response and resilience needs and
is unable to serve as a hub for disaster recovery
activities due to limited available training,
storage, and meeting space.

How was San Antonio Park identified as a
solution?
• Criteria established for lot size, shape, location to accommodate 3-bay station
• Appropriate frontage, depth, access, effect on
response time, centrality within coverage area
• Time and expense required to obtain and
prepare site for construction
• Locations identified & evaluated from 2019 to
present:
- Properties for sale
- Properties with willing sellers if not currently on
sale market
- City owned properties
- San Antonio Park identified as ONLY viable
potential site
• OFD explores option with OPRYD, DHS,
Planning. Depts agree to study
What concerns have we heard from
community who oppose FS 4 in San Antonio
Park?
• Fire stations don’t belong in a park
• Violates OSCAR re: loss of usable open space
• Will create noise and traffic in residential
neighborhood
• City ignoring other viable locations
115
San Antonio Park Master Plan
All concerns expressed addressed in Master Plan development process:

Fire Station Design in the Park: In response to the community feedback and to improve the Park, the design team has sited the fire station in the park to minimize disturbance to existing usable park space, minimized the footprint of the Fire Station building, and provided community amenities and ‘give-backs’ to the park. • Site Selection: To take up the least amount of usable open space, the team has located the Fire Station at the corner of Foothill Blvd. and 18th Ave. This area is currently occupied by a small strip of underused lawn area as well as tennis courts that are in poor condition. • Minimized footprint: Most modern fire stations do not build over the top of the Apparatus Bays. Locating as much of the living quarters over the Apparatus Bays as possible significantly reduced the gr ound level
footprint. We also minimized the rear parking, providing about half the number of parking spaces that would be typical in a station of this size and staffing. We also shrunk the front apron that is less than the optimal for safe egress and ingress at the station and designed the station as a back-in station vs. typical drive through station. The Fire Station area utilizes ½ acre and takes up 3% of the park area. • Community Amenities: As part of the construction of the Fire Station in the park, the Fire Department has agreed to significantly upgrade the adjacent park area and include some community amenities inside the building envelope. These include: a generously sized community room that opens out to the event lawn at the Park, renovated hardcourt areas which includes new fencing, surfacing, and seating areas, a new multi- use court over the Fire Station parking, new pedestrian entries to the park including new paths and seating, renovated event lawn including new sod and irrigation, new pedestrian plaza ‘knuckle’ with seating and a community art piece, and a new native plant garden including trees and labeled plants.

How all this relates to San Antonio Park Master Plan process and community’s input. 116
San Antonio Park Master Plan
Appendix8
This page intentionally left blank
117
San Antonio Park Master Plan
Friends of San Antonio Park
friendsofsapark.org

COMMUNITY REPORT

RECOMMENDATIONS&

FOSAP COMMUNITY REPORT

RECOMMENDATIONS
&

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary and 01
Intentions

Context and Background on 03
Friends of San Antonio Park
Context and Background 05

FOSAP COMMUNITY REPORT

RECOMMENDATIONS
&

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary and 01
Intentions

Context and Background on 03
Friends of San Antonio Park
Context and Background 05

of the FOSAP-led
Community Engagement Process
Outcomes and Findings of 07
FOSAP-led Community
Engagement Process
August Meeting #1 06
September Meeting #2 10
October/November Meeting #3 16
Final Recommendations 19
Addenda 25
www.friendsofsapark.org | [email protected] | Oakland, California 2021 page 1 friendsofsapark.org

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

AND INTENTIONS
F
riends of San Antonio Park (FOSAP) formed in April 2021 to ensure that long-term residents of all ages living close to San Antonio Park, and families and youth attending the schools near the park, would be adequately represented in the Master Planning process for San Antonio Park. It is our belief that the San Antonio Park Master Plan should prioritize the needs and visions of these constituents. FOSAP is uniquely positioned to conduct community engagement with these constituents as its member organizations represent the largest, and longest standing community non-profits operating in the neighborhood and schools immediately adjacent to the park.

FOSAP worked with D2 Council President Nikki Fortunato Bas to advocate for the extension of the San Antonio Master Planning process to ensure adequate community engagement. From August through November 2021, FOSAP led a Community Visioning Process which consisted of three large meetings in San Antonio Park and associated outreach.

An analysis of the community input and ideas captured during the first two meetings and community outreach in August and September, led FOSAP to develop four Community Recommendations, which were reviewed and “ratified” by the San Antonio community during our last Community Visioning Meeting in October and the following weeks. This process resulted in the following four Community Recommendations:
1) Expand Park Programming: We recommend to the City of Oakland that it enter a formal multi-year agreement with FOSAP member organizations to expand the schedule of community serving programs, activities, and events operating at San Antonio Park. 2) Construct Community Center with a Library and Sports Deck. We recommend to the City of Oakland that a new, multi-purpose, multi-generational Community Center, inclusive of a new public library and a roof-top sport deck, be constructed on the footprint currently containing the tennis courts.
3) Repair Park Infrastructure: We recommend a range of immediate and medium term repairs to San Antonio Park’s built infrastructure, with the immediate priority being the renovation of the T ot Lot and Children’s Play area into a common and expanded location. 4) Strengthen Park Stewardship: We recommend the City of Oakland and FOSAP enter into a formal multi-year agreement to establish and implement Park Stewardship standards, roles, and accountability.

FOSAP’ s commitment
to engaging and
representing the San
Antonio neighborhood
should earn us a seat at
the table working with the
City’ s Planning T eam to
create a unified
Master Plan that
represents the
best possible future
for our community.

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY AND

INTENTIONS
FOSAP plans to work closely with City Officials to ensure that these recommendations are incorporated into the San Antonio Master Plan and the ongoing management plans for the park.

These recommendations are the result of a huge output of time and effort by over 340 community members who took time over several weekends to engage in shaping the future of their park and by the community organizations and volunteers who make up FOSAP . We hope that FOSAP’s demonstrated commitment to engaging and representing the San Antonio neighborhood will earn us a spot at the table, to work side by side with the City’s Planning T eam to create a unified Master Plan that represents the best possible future for our community.

We hope this effort, and the actions that follow mark the start of a new chapter for San Antonio Park, and a renewed commitment by both City of Oakland staff and officials, and neighborhood leaders to work in new and productive ways towards a thriving park.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND INTENTIONS (continues)
www.friendsofsapark.org | [email protected] | Oakland, California 2021 page 2 W e hope this effort,
and the actions
that follow mark the start
of a new chapter
for San Antonio Park,
and a renewed
commitment by both
City of Oakland staff
and officials, and
neighborhood leaders to
work in new and
productive ways
towards a
thriving park.

CIP AWARDED
IN 2020

CITY SELECTS

CONSUL TANT
TEAM
THREE

COMMUNITY

OUTREACH

MEETINGS

SCHEDULED
www.friendsofsapark.org | [email protected] | Oakland, California 2021 page 3 T
he City of Oakland announced in late fall of 2020 that San Antonio Park had been awarded Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funding. Sean Maher, City Public Information Officer II, issued a citywide email blast requesting ideas for the CIP funding.

In January 2021, the City of Oakland, with the help of Luster Consultants, LCA Architects, and Keller Mitchell and Associates began conducting a Master Planning process for San Antonio Park.

From January 2021 to April 2021, Luster Consultants led a community engagement process around the Master Planning process. For outreach, they sent mailed paper announcements encouraging residents within 1 mile of the park to attend three Zoom meetings and respond to two on-line sur- veys. They also reached out to community organizations in the neighborhood to forward emails to their mailing lists informing them of the community engagement meetings. Information about their process can be found here: https://www.oaklandca.gov/projects/sanantoniopark Friends of San Antonio Park formed because many community leaders were concerned that the consultant-led community engagement process was inadequate. These community leaders were concerned that the design choices offered to the community were too limited, and did not sufficiently prioritize the stated desires of people in the neighborhood with whom they had been working, specifically families attending Garfield Elementary School and Roosevelt Middle School, teens, and parents of small children. They felt that the community engagement process, which took place largely with on-line surveys and zoom meetings, did not sufficiently engage all community members and reflect what they were hearing at schools, on the street, and in the park.

These desires included an expanded and re-imagined recreation center and extensive round the clock programming. Some of these desires had already been formally articulated, for example in the San Antonio Family Resource Center community visioning document, created by three community organizations with long term roots in the neighborhood over a months long community engagement process. They were also concerned that community members did not have any choice about certain elements of the design that would heavily impact the neighborhood, such as the relocation of a fire station into the park. Finally, they were concerned that opposition to certain elements of the plan, particularly the fire station, was not being heard by the planning team, and was not being captured in the formats they were using for community engagement, namely on-line surveys and zoom meetings.

CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND

ON FRIENDS OF SAN ANTONIO PARK

Many directors of long-standing community non-profits and other community leaders began sharing with each other their concerns and their constituents’ concerns about the consultant-led Community Engagement Process. They recognized a need to come together and collectively organize. These community leaders decided to form Friends of San Antonio Park to ensure that the voices of the neighborhood immediately surrounding the park, its school communities and long term residents, were properly represented in the Master Planning process for the park.

Friends of San Antonio Park is anchored by the following organizations and leaders: East Bay Asian Y outh Center and E.D. David Kakishiba, T rybe and E.D. Andrew Park, Eastside Arts Alliance and Collective Member Elena Serrano, Lotus Bloom and E.D. Angela Louie Howard and Director of Programs Dawn Edwards, San Antonio Family Resource Center Parent Action Research T eam and coordinator Liz Sullivan, and San Antonio Park Steward Wendy Jung. Key staff and volunteers from these organizations as well as a few neighborhood residents have also played key roles in FOSAP leadership. They include T rybe Associate Director Karen Heida, T rybe Executive Assistant and Social Media Manager Lucia Lorea, T rybe Program Assistant Hector Cruz, Parent Action Research T eam volunteer T eddie Morehead, EBAYC Communtiy Organizer Evangelina Lara, EBAYC Roosevelt Middle School Managing Director Marisela DeAnda, neighborhood resident and architect Diego Gonzalez, and neighborhood resident and outdoor educator Mira Manickam-Shirley. Other neighborhood residents and members of the above organizations’ constituencies have helped organize and execute FOSAP’s work.

FOSAP has met weekly since its formation in April, with a collective leadership structure, with David Kakishiba of EBAYC acting as a senior decision maker when needed. At the time of FOSAP’s formation, Eastside Arts Alliance had a grant of $10,000 from the LISC foundation.

This grant was originally associated with a soccer field renovation project LISC was planning in the park. After the city conducted their own soccer field renovation, the money was reallocated to supporting general community engagement in the park. This grant money constituted FOSAP’s only dedicated funding stream for its operations in 2021. Beyond that, FOSAP has drawn from volunteer labor and the financial support of its member organizations to cover event costs and member organization staff time. The value of the hours put in by individuals working for FOSAP easily totals over $100,000 over the course of the Community Engagement Process. FOSAP member organizations have prioritized the work of FOSAP for their staff and within their budgets.

They have done this because FOSAP’s work contributes directly to their missions by engaging their constituents to shape the future of their own neighborhood and by working towards a thriving park that serves their constituents’ needs.

It should be noted that while concern about the relocation of Fire station 4 was a catalyzing factor for the formation of FOSAP , FOSAP’s primary goal since its formation has been to conduct rigorous on-the-ground, in-person outreach, to learn and represent the desires of long-term neigh- borhood residents and the surrounding school communities. All FOSAP members agreed that whatever stance the group took on this topic would be informed by the community.

CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND ON FRIENDS
OF SAN ANTONIO PARK (continues)
www.friendsofsapark.org | [email protected] | Oakland, California 2021 page 4 Many directors of
long-standing
community non-profits
and other community
leaders, began sharing
with each other their
concerns and their
constituents’ concerns
about the
Community
Engagement Process.

They recognized a
need to come together
and collectively organize.

CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND

OF THE FOSAP-LED COMMUNITY

ENGAGEMENT PROCESS
I
n May and June, Friends of San Antonio Park worked with District 2 Council President Nikki Fortunato Bas to ensure two key developments in the Master Planning Process for San Antonio Park:
• The removal and separation of the Fire Station 4 relocation process from the San Antonio Master Planning process so that the Fire Station relocation and the San Antonio Master Planning process were two separate processes, and multiple sites would be considered for the Fire Station relocation. • Extending the Master Planning process to engage considerably more neighbor- hood residents and current and potential park users in establishing priorities for park improvement. FOSAP proposed and pledged to work closely with City Administration to organize and facilitate a robust resident-led planning process for the park.

FOSAP wanted to create a forum for neighbors to meet, learn, converse, and put their hopes and desires forward, and imagine what it would look like to have a thriving and healthy San Antonio Park that supports a thriving and healthy neighborhood. FOSAP is uniquely positioned to conduct such outreach as it has extensive experience with community outreach, and its member organizations represent the largest, and longest standing community non-profits operating on the ground, closest to the park, and in the park-adjacent school communities.

At the time of proposing these changes to the Master Planning process, FOSAP had hoped that the extended community engagement process conducted in August, September and October would be co-planned and financed in partnership between the city’s planning team and FOSAP , with both parties working hand in hand. Early conversations indicated that the city planning team and FOSAP held very different visions for the outcomes of the meetings. It was unclear that these differences would be resolved in the timeline allocated in the extended community engagement process (August through October). Thus the decision was made by FOSAP to proceed with holding Community Visioning Meetings, with the support of D2 Council President Nikki Fortunato Bas. These meetings were financed almost entirely through FOSAP member organizations operating budgets and FOSAP volunteer labor, with additional support from D2 Council President Nikki Fortunato Bas’s office.

City staff supported FOSAP’s community engagement process through their attendance at several of the Community Visioning Meetings. This made the meetings much stronger, and helped build trust and relationship between FOSAP members and constituents, and city officials and staff. Invitations were extended to Heads of all the City Departments involved in, or impacted by, the San Antonio Park Master Planning Process. These departments included: Department of www.friendsofsapark.org | [email protected] | Oakland, California 2021 page 5

FOSAP-LED

COMMUNITY

ENGAGEMENT

PROCESS
Shape a
healthy future.

CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND

OF THE FOSAP-LED COMMUNITY

FOSAP-LED

COMMUNITY

ENGAGEMENT

PROCESS
Shape a
healthy future.

Public Works, Office of Parks, Recreation, and Y outh Development, Department of Human Services, Oakland Fire Department, Oakland Public Library, Office of Race and Equity, and Planning and Building. Invitations were also extended to the City’s planning team for the San Antonio Master Plan, as well as our PRAC representative Jinhee Ha. All of these officials, plus additional staff and personnel attended at least one of our Community Visioning Meetings.

The last meeting was also attended by City Administrator Ed Reiskin.

All meetings were held outdoors in San Antonio Park on Saturdays from 10am to 12:30pm. All meetings included complimentary breakfast coffee and snacks, and lunch at the end. The first of these meetings was conducted in 4 languages, English, Chinese, Spanish, and Vietnamese with all printed materials available in all 4 languages. In addition survey cards in all 4 languages were distributed and collected throughout the month of August from those who could not attend the meeting. Our second and third meetings were conducted in English, Chinese, and Spanish.

Care was taken to ensure strong COVID safety protocols, and to ensure language specific small group set ups, with separate groups for youth. Each meeting welcomed all ages and included activities for small children too young to participate in youth engagement groups.

Outreach for the meetings was conducted through a variety of forums. Each of the member organizations sent emails through their mailing lists and distributed flyers in 4 languages to their constituents. For example, EBAYC distributed flyers to parents at back to school events at Roosevelt Middle School and Garfield Elementary School, and T rybe distributed flyers at their weekly food distribution event at San Antonio Park and their other weekly family events throughout the neighborhood. In person outreach was conducted with local churches, community groups, and early childhood education programs, including the Intertribal Friendship House, Harbor House, St. James Church, St. Anthony’s Church and School, Community School for Creative Education, Manzanita Child Development Center, Bella Vista Child Development Center and the San Antonio Community Development Corporation Head Start. In person outreach in and around the park and from neighbor to neighbor also took place. For example, each member of San Antonio Family Resource Center’s Parent Action Research team, a group of parents of young children in the neighborhood, committed to bringing 10 people to the first community engagement meeting. After the first two meetings, FOSAP also texted, emailed, or called attendees of the earlier meetings to remind them and encourage them to attend the next meeting.

The first two Community Visioning Meetings in August and September were attended by well over 125 people. Outreach and a request for feedback on the Draft Community Recommendations continued until November 23, and engaged 207 people, who submitted feedback via 128 paper ballots and 79 online ballots. In total, over 340 separate individuals, ages 9 to 90, provided feed- back over the course of the FOSAP led Community Engagement Process.

CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND ON FRIENDS
OF SAN ANTONIO PARK (continues)
www.friendsofsapark.org | [email protected] | Oakland, California 2021 page 6 ¿Qué cambios quiere USTED
ver en el parque
San Antonio?
Comparta sus ideas
con los vecinos
Sábado 28 de agosto
FUERA DEL CENTRO DE RECREACIÓN SAN ANTONIO
1701 East 19th Street at 17th Avenue
CUÁNDO: • de 10am a 12.30
• Música en vivo • Una rifa
• Actividades infantiles supervisadas
REGÍSTRESE: https:/ /bit.ly/2Ttkx5P
q SÍ, voy a asistir a la reunión el 28 de agosto..

Nombre: _____________________________________________________________ T eléfono: _______________________________
Dirección: ____________________________________________________________ Correo electrónico
______________________________________
¿Cuántas personas de tu familia asistirán? _______
[email protected]
amigos de
el SAN ANTONIO PARK
Forma un
futuro
saludable.

ENCUESTA
Cuando pienso en el San Antonio Park ...

1. Me gusta ir al parque San Antonio porque ...
___________________________________________________
______________________________

2. No visito el parque San Antonio porque ...
___________________________________________________
_______________________________

3. Usaría más San Antonio Park si ...
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________

4. ¿Qué haría que San Antonio Park se sintiera más seguro? _____________
_______________________________
_________________________________________

5. Si yo pudiera cambiar el parque, haría lo siguiente ... ________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
Survey samples shown
above in Spanish
:

OUTCOMES AND FINDINGS

OF FOSAP-LED COMMUNITY

ENGAGEMENT PROCESS
August:

Listening and Visioning
September:

What’s Here Now and
What We Would Like to See
in the Future
October and November:

Reviewing the Recommendations
Addenda
AUGUST: LISTENING AND VISIONING
www.friendsofsapark.org | [email protected] | Oakland, California 2021 page 7 OVER 100

SMALL GROUP

PARTICIPANTS

SMALL LISTENING

GROUP FORMAT
DESIGN

CHARRETTES

SHOWING FOUR

DESIGN OPTIONS
(see our website)

STICKER DOT
VOTING
O
n August 28,2021 over 130 park neighbors of all ages gathered in the Oak Grove by San Antonio Recreation Center. This group included, among others, about 25 students from Roosevelt Middle School and several of their parents. Council President Nikki Fortunato Bas co-hosted the meeting and addressed the community along with community leaders who wel- comed neighbors in 4 different languages. T en facilitators from the San Antonio community host- ed ten listening sessions in small groups of 8 to 15 participants. Facilitators were available to host groups in English, Spanish, Cantonese, and Vietnamese. While this happened, activities for kids were provided by T rybe on the adjacent lawn. Several city staff and officials attended the meeting.

They included Oakland Fire Department Deputy Chief Melinda Drayton, OFD Chief of Staff Michael Hunt, OFD Battalion Chief James Bowden, Oakland Public Library Director Jamie T urbak, Director of the Department of Human Services Sara Bedford, Oakland Public Works Park Services Manager Brian Carthan, Recreation General Supervisor Donte Watson and additional staff from OPRYD, Mi Kyung Lew of Planning and Building, Sean Maher of Communications, and staff of Council President Nikki Fortunate Bas and Council Member Noel Gallo.

What happened in the small group sessions:
• Listening and Surveys: Participants had a group discussion about why they did or did not use San Antonio Park and what changes they’d like to see in San Antonio Park. Responses were recorded on large posters, and each participant had an opportunity to fill out a survey (available in 4 languages) with their personal responses to questions on this topic. Survey cards were also collected from neighbors who could not attend the meeting. • Charrettes: Participants viewed 4 different design ideas to inspire them to think of new possibilities for the park. The designs were presented on large poster boards in each small group, with talking points in 4 languages. After seeing each design, participants had a chance to note their thoughts and questions about each design using post it notes. All drawings are on our website at friendsofsapark.org/jan2022reportaddenda. The drawings include:
– Design 1: A re-imagined park entryway and expanded Community Center with a Social Hall in the current Recreation Center location
– Design 2: A Community Center complex with multi-sport deck in the tennis court area – Design 3: The City of Oakland’s most recent Master Plan options, with various new park amenities, and Fire Station 4 replacing the bottom two tennis courts in all designs – Design 4: An amendment to the City of Oakland’s proposed fire station relocation, which included lifting up all the tennis courts to create a multi-sports deck and adding a new recreation center under the upper 2 tennis courts, to accompany the Fire Station. • Sticker Dot V oting: Participants had a chance to express support for the things that they most wanted to see in the park, and express opposition to the things that they did not want to see in the park. Each group had a poster board that compiled all the possible park additions presented in the 4 designs. Participants could add new ideas to this list. With the additions generated by the various groups, 78 possible park additions were presented and voted on.

Each participant received 5 “yes” stickers and 5 “no” stickers which they could place next to whatever park additions they most wanted to see and that they most opposed. Sticker dot voting was conducted by all groups on August 28, as well as with staff of the event who are also regular park users and/or neighbors.

Y outh Session from
Roosevelt Middle School
Sticker Dot V oting
www.friendsofsapark.org | [email protected] | Oakland, California 2021 page 8 AUGUST: LISTENING AND VISIONING (continues)
Based on 131 Completed Surveys, we learned:

What we Like about San Antonio Park?
— open space, nature, spaciousness, beauty, views,
trees, fresh air (52 responses)
— close and convenient (24 responses)
— our kids play here (23 responses)
What we Dislike about San Antonio Park?
— doesn’t feel safe (52 responses)
— lack of maintenance, trash, broken, outdated play
structures and facilities (25 responses)
People Would Use the Park More if ...
— it was cleaner and better maintained (57 responses)
— it felt safe (40 responses)
— there was more programming, activities, and presence of people using the park for its intended use
(26 responses)
Results of Sticker Dot Voting: Each voter had 5 “yes
votes” and 5 “no votes”. 516 “Yes” votes and 394
“No” votes were cast.
— Most Popular Possible Addition to the Park — a library (66 yes responses)
— Least Popular Possible Addition to the Park — a fire station (102 no responses)
Visit friendsofsapark.org/jan2022reportaddenda for
more details on sticker dot voting results, survey results, and recorded data from small group listening.

Survey Findings at a glance
131 Unduplicated Survey Respondents
105 completed surveys at August Meeting.
26 additional surveys received online (2),
at facilitator training (4), and via commitment cards
distributed before the event (20).

CHART 4:

FREQUENCY OF PARK VISITS
* Note: 20 respondents filled out commitment card surveys which did not request age data. Percentages may not add up perfectly to 100 since percentage segments were rounded to the nearest whole number.
73%*
10%***

17%**
CHART 3:

PROXIMITY TO PARK
73%* Lives or attends school
(Roosevelt) within 94606
zip code or 1 mile radius
17%** Address NOT in 94606 or
1 mile radius
10%*** Address not provided
Never 6%
1-5 times a year: 19%
6-10 times a year*: 8%
1-3 times a month: 21%
1-3 times a week: 15%
4-7 times a week: 11%
1+times a day** 1%
No Answer 19%
Asian
(28%)
Latinx
(24%)
Not
Stated
(34%)
CHART 1: RACIAL/

ETHNIC BACKGROUND
Not Stated
Asian
Latinx
White*
Black**
More than
one race/
ethnicity***
34%
28%
24%
8%
4%
2%
Note: 20 respondents filled out
commitment card surveys which did not
request information about frequency of park visitation
1-3 x/mo:
21%
4-7 x/wk:
11%
1-5 x/yr:
19%
No
Answer:
19%
8%*
1%** 1-3 x/wk:
15%
CHART 2: AGE (SEE NOTES)
Not Stated
9 to 10*
11 to 17
18 to 24**
25 to 34***
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
65 to 74****
75 and up
19%
1%
21%
5%
8%
18%
11%
8%
5%
5%
5%**
11-17:
21%
45-54:
11%
Not Stated:
19%
5%****
75+: 5%
55-64:
8%
8%***
2%*
35-44:
18%
4%*
8%*
2%***
Never:
6%
O
n September 25, over 125 park neighbors and their family members gathered in San Antonio Park for an interactive meeting with the following goals:

1. T o share information about what is currently happening in San Antonio

2. T o hear residents’ questions, feedback, and ideas about what they would like to see in San Antonio Park.

After the first FOSAP-led community engagement meeting in August, it became clear that many residents had limited interaction with the park for a variety of reasons including a sense that it was unsafe, poorly maintained, and that there was a lack of programming and activities. Therefore, FOSAP felt it was important in this September meeting to share information with residents about the successful initiatives that have occurred in the park. This would provide residents with a better understanding of what was already available to them, so they could build on this knowledge with ideas of what they would like to see in the future.

Who Attended:

On September 25, 128 people received programs, and visited the various information stations.

Many of these folks were accompanied by other family members, including children who participated in the children’s activity area or accompanied their parents from station to station.

In attendance were about 25 students from Roosevelt Middle School and several of their parents and teachers.

The emphasis of this meeting was on providing information, having conversations, and sharing ideas. All residents were provided with programs which included response forms, on which they could note their questions, responses, ideas and contact information. Because of the decentralized nature of the meeting which included moving around from station to station, only 56 people submitted these programs with their registration information at the end of the meeting. Thus we are only able to report demographic information and form responses from a sample of those who were present.

SEPTEMBER: WHAT’S HERE NOW AND WHAT WE WOULD

LIKE TO SEE IN THE FUTURE
www.friendsofsapark.org | [email protected] | Oakland, California 2021 page 9 OVER 125

PARTICIPANTS

MANY CITY

LEADERS

ATTENDED

FIVE STATIONS

FOR SMALL

LISTENING GROUP

MEETINGS ON

THESE TOPICS
AND ISSUES:
• SAFETY
• COMMUNITY
CENTER
• GARDENS &

MAINTENANCE
• ARTS/CUL TURE
• SPORTS
Latinx
(32%)
Asian
(23%)
White: (9%)
Black: (5%)
45 (80%) of the 56 form respondents reported living or attending school within 1 mile of the park or within the 94606 zip code.

Demographic and Age Information Gathered from 56 Form Respondents.

CHART 1:

RACIAL/ETHNIC
BACKGROUND*
CHART 2: AGE
Not
Stated:
(30%)
Not Stated
11 to 17
18 to 24*
25 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 64
65 to 74**
75 and up***
9%
25%
2%
9%
21%
16%
9%
5%
4%
25-34:
9%
11-17:
25%
5%**
2%*
35-44:
21%
45-54:
16%
55-64:
9%
4%***
Not
Stated:
9%
* Note: Percentages may not add up perfectly to 100 since percentage segments were rounded to the nearest whole number.

Several City of Oakland officials, department leaders, and department staff attended. In attendance were:
• District 2 CP Nikki Fortunato Bas Office: CP Bas and Lia Salaverry • Office of Parks, Recreation, and Y outh Development: Director Nick Williams • Oakland Public Works: Director G. Harold Duffey, Park; Supervisors Clinton Pugh and Kevin Charles • Planning and Building: Mi Kyung Lew
• Communications: Public Information Officer II Sean Maher • Oakland Library: Director Jamie T urbak
• Oakland Fire Department: Deputy Chief Melinda Drayton, Chief of Staff Michael Hunt • Department of Human Services: Director Sara Bedford
Group Rotation and Structure of the Day:

Five different groups rotated among five stations. Each Group had 10-30 people in it at any given time.

Group Configurations:
• T wo student groups from Roosevelt Middle School • Chinese-speaking adults and families • Spanish-speaking adults and families • English-speaking adults and families Group Focus Areas and Leaders:
1 Safety - Liz Sullivan (San Antonio Family Resource Center), Jonathan Mann, Park Ambassador (T rybe) 2 Community Center - Lucia Lorea (T rybe), Karen Heida (T rybe) 3 Landscaping and Maintenance - Wendy Jung (Park Steward), OPW, Kevin Charles, Park Supervisor II 4 Sports - Diego Gonzalez (neighbor and regular soccer player, FOSAP member, and owner, Orta Design Studio), Intern DeSean T aylor (V ertical Skillz boxing program)
5 Arts/Culture/Library - Elena Serrano and Susanne T akehara (Eastside Arts Alliance), Jamie T urbak (Director, Oakland Library) Each of the five stations was led by a community member and/or FOSAP leader personally connected to the topic. In most cases group leaders were representatives of organizations providing services in the park relating to the topic.

Group Intentions:
• T o facilitate language translation by keeping speakers of the same language together. • T o ensure that Roosevelt students were in groups consisting only of youth. We know that young people express themselves more freely with peers, as compared to when they are placed in mixed groups with adults.

Individual Station Goals:
• T o share with participants what is currently happening at the park related to these five subject areas. • T o gather participant questions and suggestions for what they would like to see in the future related to these five subject areas.

T wo Ways to Participate at Each Station:
• Sharing verbally with facilitators recording their ideas on a newsprint pad. • Submitting a written form sharing their “wows” - what they were impressed with from what they learned, their “wonders” - what additional questions they have, and their “what else” - what they would like to see in the park in the future. www.friendsofsapark.org | [email protected] | Oakland, California 2021 page 10 SEPTEMBER: WHAT’S HERE NOW AND WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO
SEE IN THE FUTURE (continues)
Information shared with participants
Safety was the number one issue brought up by participants in our August 28 listening sessions about why they don’t use the park, and what they wish to see improved. Many, though not all, recommended armed security to make the park safer. At this sta- tion, Liz Sullivan of San Antonio Family Resource Center shared research from the National Parks and Recreation Association about the key factors affecting park safety. These studies show that the number one factor impacting park safety, much more than armed police, is increased park activation and programming.

These findings have been corroborated by many other research groups as well as by the lived experience of many park users.

She was joined by Jonathan Mann from T rybe. They described T rybe’s Park Ambassador program. Neighbors wear brightly marked vests, have a regular visible presence, serve as “community eyes” in the park, and escort park users to and from their cars.

Jonathan shared his own personal experience as a youth growing up in the neighborhood, and passing through the park every day on his way to Roosevelt Middle School, and what it has been like for him to take on a leadership role in keeping the park safe for kids like himself.

This station was located near the children’s playground because at our August 28 meeting, many families complained about groups of men who loiter and drink alcohol at the picnic tables in and next to the children’s area. Some of these men were present when we were setting up our meeting station.

Comments from Newsprint
Participants generated many ideas, several of them quite creative, about how to increase safety in the park. Here are some topics that were extensively discussed and/or mentioned in more than one group session.
• Strong interest in T rybe’s Ambassador Program. Some participants wanted to become volunteers.
• Concerns about bathroom safety, cleanliness, location, and lighting. Suggestions included having multiple locations for restrooms, utilizing a translucent ceiling for better visibility, raised bathroom walls so you could see who is in the bathroom, and more bathrooms instead of port-a-potties.
• The importance of fixing, activating, adding new lighting and illuminating walkways throughout the Park. Solar
lighting/motion-activated lighting were also recommended. • Playground safety was discussed as well as the desire for new playground equipment. The distance between the T ot Lot and the children’s playground makes it difficult for parents to supervise all their children at once. It was suggested that the two areas be combined, expanded, and securely fenced. • The power of signage to share values (safe place for kids) and set a tone for park users.
• Discussion about the potential of festivals and regular events (Family Fridays) to activate the park, and build on the cultural diversity of the neighborhood.

SEPTEMBER: SUMMARY OF STATION DISCUSSIONS (continues)
IMPORTANT NOTE REGARDING ALL STATION REPORTING. The text and bullet pointed summaries for each station below were developed by cross-referencing three sources of data: 1) the newsprint notes of participant comments taken by facilitators, 2) the written response forms submitted by 56 of the over 128 participants, 3) the verbal report back that the station leaders shared with FOSAP after the September 25 meeting.

Station #1: SAFETY
Survey Form Data
When reviewing response forms from the Safety Station, we noted how many times respondents mentioned either a positive response to, an inquiry about, or a desire for more information about these specific park items. The list includes only those issues receiving five or more mentions.

These data function as a snapshot of questions and ideas that came up, rather than the results of a formal survey.
www.friendsofsapark.org | [email protected] | Oakland, California 2021 page 11 INTEREST IN:

Ambassadors/Patrol 11
Lighting 7
More Programming/ 7
Classes/Events
Cameras 6
Information was shared with participants
Karen Heida and Lucia Lorea of T rybe shared with participants about the many services that are available in the park both through T rybe and Head Start. T rybe organizes a massive food and diaper distribution program, the Park Ambassador Program, family fellowship events, Summer Camps for kids, and workshops and programs for adults and kids. The Department of Human Services oversees a Head Start Program in a building adjacent to the Recreation Center.

This station was located in the fenced courtyard shared by the Rec Center and Head Start. Many participants had never seen the inside of the Rec Center since the facility is rarely open to the public. Courtyard access is extremely limited by Head Start operating restrictions. T rybe holds its programs outdoors. It uses the Rec Center to store food, supplies and equipment.

Comments from Newsprint
Participants generated many ideas about what they would like to see at a Recreation Center in the future. The youth groups were especially creative and far-ranging in their ideas. Many families stayed after the session to sign up for T rybe’s popular food distribution program. Here are some topics that were extensively discussed and/or mentioned in more than one group session. • ESL services, literacy services.
• Computers and computer skills.
• Early childhood services, both childcare programs and early childhood enrichment and education for parents
(like those offered by Lotus Bloom). Families who do not meet the low income threshold required by Head Start still wanted access to programming for their children.
• Multilingual services.
• Activities and space specifically for seniors.
• More cultural events at the park to celebrate the ethnic diversity of neighborhood.
• Y outh asked for more sports like volleyball, football, skating, basketball gym, biking, camping, etc.
• Y outh asked for enhancement programs like cooking
classes, a dance studio, a dark room, a restaurant/cafe, a LGBT+ Community Center, party spaces, places for board games, art classes, and more.
• Other creative ideas included movie nights, camp outs, T ai Chi, Drum Circles, Binoculars for Estuary water views, a medicinal garden, yoga, etc.

SEPTEMBER: SUMMARY OF STATION DISCUSSIONS (continues)
Station #2:

COMMUNITY CENTER
Survey Form Data
When reviewing response forms from the Community Center Station, we noted how many times respondents mentioned either a positive response to, an inquiry about, or a desire for more information about these specific park items. The list includes only those issues receiving five or more mentions. These data function as a snapshot of questions and ideas that came up, rather than the results of a formal survey. www.friendsofsapark.org | [email protected] | Oakland, California 2021 page 12 INTEREST IN:

General and Misc. After School/Youth 7
Programming
Food Distribution 6
General/Misc Family Support 6
English Classes 5
Information was shared with participants
Park Steward Wendy Jung presented an overview of the many ongoing volunteer efforts to maintain Park landscaping and infrastructure. She distributed a handout about city services, like bathroom cleaning, garbage can collection, litter pick up, lawn mowing, and tree care and which division was responsible. She also described volunteer actions since 2004 to plant and water trees and remove litter as well as two renovation projects to repair play areas, install artificial turf for the heavily utilized soccer field, and add more picnic tables and seating benches. Kevin Charles of OPW explained how residents can report maintenance problems to 311. Unfortunately, we were unable to schedule a representative from the City’s Community Gardens to discuss that program and how to sign up.

Comments from Newsprint
Participants generated many ideas about topics regarding land- scaping and maintenance issues. We covered a lot of ground! Issues mentioned in more than one group or that received extensive discussion in other groups regarding landscape and maintenance issues included:
• More plants in the park, particularly colorful flowers and native plants.
• More access to the community garden, and possibly
expanding that area.
• Opportunities to plant trees and remove litter.
• A great interest in trees: Labeling park trees by species.

Where to report an ailing tree? Roosevelt students suggested constructing a tree house and mounting swings on the large trees throughout the park.
• V ery strong feelings for and against the dog park. If a dog area is added, it should be securely fenced and pet owners must remove the waste generated by their animals.
• Safety concerns about homeless encampments.
• Cleaner surroundings and facilities, especially the
bathrooms.
• The Chinese speaking group recommended a Chinese
language hot line to report crime. This group is extremely worried about personal safety. Many acknowledge that
elders who used to walk the park regularly and practice tai chi have been afraid to visit the park for the last two years. • More trash pick up, recycling and compost bins.
• Roosevelt students had many exciting ideas including a petting zoo, a rock climbing area, a duck pond, a pop-up plant nursery, a tree house and tree swings.

SEPTEMBER: SUMMARY OF STATION DISCUSSIONS (continues)
www.friendsofsapark.org | [email protected] | Oakland, California 2021 page 13 Survey Form Data
When reviewing response forms from the Landscape and Maintenance Station, we noted how many times respondents mentioned either a positive response to, an inquiry about, or a desire for more information about these specific items. The list includes only those issues receiving five or more mentions. These data function as a snapshot of questions and ideas that came up, rather than the results of a formal survey.

INTEREST IN:

More flowers and plants 9
More gardens or increased access 7
to current garden
More trees and greenery, including fruit trees 5
Station #3:

LANDSCAPING & MAINTENANCE
Information was shared with participants
Park Steward Wendy Jung presented an overview of the many ongoing volunteer efforts to maintain Park landscaping and infrastructure. She distributed a handout about city services, like bathroom cleaning, garbage can collection, litter pick up, lawn mowing, and tree care and which division was responsible. She also described volunteer actions since 2004 to plant and water trees and remove litter as well as two renovation projects to repair play areas, install artificial turf for the heavily utilized soccer field, and add more picnic tables and seating benches. Kevin Charles of OPW explained how residents can report maintenance problems to 311. Unfortunately, we were unable to schedule a representative from the City’s Community Gardens to discuss that program and how to sign up.

INTEREST IN:

More flowers and plants 9
More gardens or increased access 7
to current garden
More trees and greenery, including fruit trees 5
Station #3:

LANDSCAPING & MAINTENANCE
Information was shared with participants
Elena Serrano and Susanne T akehara of Eastside Arts Alliance spoke about the annual cultural events in San Antonio Park, such as the Malcolm X Jazz festival, the Chicano Moratorium Day and Dia de la Raza. They explained how Eastside Arts Alliance promotes arts in the community, and its plans for a mosaic mural at the historic gazebo. Jamie T urbak, Oakland Public Libraries Director shared that the San Antonio neighborhood was identi- fied for a library site in the 2006 Library Master Plan. She suggested an alternate location adjacent to the park on the corner of Roosevelt Middle School’s property at 18th Avenue and East 19th Street.

Comments from Newsprint
A wealth of exciting ideas for ways to enrich culture and arts programs in the Park were expressed . All groups enthusiastically supported the building of a neighborhood library. As usual, the Roosevelt Y outh groups voiced a multitude of diverse ideas.

Suggestions that received a lot of support from participants are noted in the text or with one or more asterisks, depending on the frequency with which it was mentioned.
• YES to a Library!! In the meantime, how about a pop-up, mobile or mini library including free book give aways? Many mentioned the need for security at a library. Some said that library should not come at expense of open space.
• Lots of interest in Murals, especially from youth and folks who would like Latino Community Murals.
• Let people know that there is WiFi in the park
• Amphitheater for outdoor events or permanent stage with a sound system was mentioned in several groups. Activating a stage space for Roosevelt after-school programs (drama club, band, etc). The space could be used for plays and skits, dance classes, fashion shows, karaoke, and performances by “famous people” like Beyoncé. (Let’s dream big!)
• T errace some of the hills for those with restricted mobility • Festivals Suggestions:
– Dia de los Muertos*** – Food festival
– Cinco de Mayo – Lunar New Y ear*
– Mothers Day – EID (Ramadan)
– Childrens Day – Food festivals
– Earth Day in the garden* – Dance festival
– LGBTQ Festivals – Sunrise Ceremony
– Mid-Autumn moon festival* – International Festivals* – National Boba Festival – California Indian Day
– Halloween/Pumpkin patch with mazes/trick or treat
– Multi-cultural tree lighting and decorations
• Special Events
– Movie nights/outdoor movies* – Art Classes
– KPop festival – Job Fairs – Carnival
– Private Parties – Origami Festivals
– No drinking Saturdays and Sundays – Ferris Wheel
– Comicon with cosplay T raditional Music Festivals
– Outdoor student visual arts exhibit
– A dog obstacle course and dog training
– Roller Coaster
– T raditional Music Festivals
SEPTEMBER: SUMMARY OF STATION DISCUSSIONS (continues)
www.friendsofsapark.org | [email protected] | Oakland, California 2021 page 14 Station #4:

ARTS/

CUL TURE/

LIBRARY
INTEREST IN:

Festivals/Cultural Activities 9
Misc: Art Classes, Making Art in the Park 7
More Murals 5
Survey Form Data
When reviewing response forms from the Arts, Culture and Library Station, we noted how many times respondents mentioned either a positive response to, an inquiry about, or a desire for more information about these specific items. The list includes only those issues receiving five or more mentions. These data function as a snapshot of questions and ideas that came up, rather than the results of a formal survey.

Information was shared with participants:

Diego Gonzalez, local sports player and member of FOSAP , gave an overview of the current sports/playing fields now in the park (ie., the soccer field, basketball courts, and tennis courts), and how they are used by different community members. He also talked about Soccer without Borders which does extensive youth programming for boys and girls. He introduced Desean T aylor who described the V ertical Skillz boxing program that has been operating from one of the tennis court for over a year. It offers fitness programs for people of all ages as well as a free boxing and fitness program for neighborhood youth.

Comments from Newsprint
Participants had many ideas about the types of sports facilities and programming they would like to see in the park. Ideas that surfaced in more than one group or were discussed intensively in other group stations are listed below.
• A key theme emerged from Roosevelt Students voicing
a strong desire for more sports programs and playing
grounds. One comment that summarizes it: “Why not
use outdoor space at the Park to train/play different
sports.” The student groups wanted better communication and connection between their school and their park. Why not use outdoor space at the Park for activities that
have no “home” or venue at Roosevelt? This would forge
stronger bonds.

Y outh listed just about every sport activity that can take place in a park including chess. They requested an official “sports day”, a track circling the tennis courts, a place to skate and rollerblade, and an area for flag football.
• Another theme was more space for elders and for the
very young. There is a strong perception that the park
does not welcome elders. Passive recreational activities like T ai-chi could be staged for seniors on the tennis courts. • Folks mentioned that location of the various sports courts and playing fields are NOT clearly marked. We need Park maps and paths to and from different sports areas. Access for disabled is limited throughout the park.
• Easier to obtain permits and rent space for a wide variety of different event celebrations.
• Signage to state values and rules.
• Interest in water features (splash pads, etc.) echoed the same desire expressed at the August 28 meeting.
• Bleachers at soccer field.
• Concern about the difficulty of having sports netting that can be removed. Suggestions were offered about creating a fob for checking nets out and returning them.
• Places for kids ages 0-5 year old to play.
• More green space for other sports.
• A gym for young people.
• Basketball instruction and adjustable nets.
• Put playgrounds closer together and maintain regularly. • Sport opportunities for both genders.
• Flat area next to soccer field put to better use.
• Fences to prevent balls from going onto nearby streets. • Ideas that were also heard at other stations including more lighting, poor location of bathroom, idea of a cafe.

SEPTEMBER: SUMMARY OF STATION DISCUSSIONS (continues)
www.friendsofsapark.org | [email protected] | Oakland, California 2021 page 15 Station #5:

SPORTS
No Survey Form Data Included:

Interests for sports in the park were widely varied, and no single topic stood out as being mentioned especially frequently on the survey form data. Thus survey form data is not summarized for this station in the same way it was for other stations where clearer trends emerged.

Information was shared with participants:

SEPTEMBER: SUMMARY OF STATION DISCUSSIONS (continues)
www.friendsofsapark.org | [email protected] | Oakland, California 2021 page 15 Station #5:

SPORTS
No Survey Form Data Included:

B
ased on the feedback from the FOSAP Meetings held in August and September, we developed Recommendations for both the Master Plan and the ongoing management of San Antonio Park. FOSAP hosted its third meeting on October 30 with the following goals:
• T o ratify the draft recommendations and gather any additional feedback. • T o provide a forum for residents to hear from City Administrator Ed Reiskin about how the Community Recommendations would be incorporated into the San Antonio Park Master Plan and ongoing management of the park.

Meeting Attendance and Structure
Inclement weather delayed the meeting one week to October 30. Despite the rain, over 50 individuals and their families attended along with San Antonio park community members.

City officials present included, City Administrator Ed Reiskin, District 2 Council President Nikki Fortunato Bas and her office staff, Mi Kyung Lew of Planning and Building, Sean Maher of Communications, Director of Library Services Jamie T urbak, Oakland Fire Department Chief Reginald Freeman, OFD Chief of Staff Michael Hunt, and our PRAC representative Jinhee Ha.

Approximately 40 community members participated in small group discussions and submitted feedback forms.

After a welcome and community-building physical warm up, participants gathered in four small groups based on language (English, Spanish, Chinese) and age (Roosevelt students). There were supervised activities for children. Each group did the following activities:
www.friendsofsapark.org | [email protected] | Oakland, California 2021 page 16 39 SMALL GROUP

PARTICIPANTS

BALLOT VOTING
ADDITIONAL 168

BALLOTS

COLLECTED

THROUGH

SUBSEQUENT

OUTREACH

REVIEW AND

RATIFY PARK

FINDINGS
Meeting in English
Honoring the
Old Oak Grove
OCTOBER & NOVEMBER: REVIEWING THE RECOMMENDATIONS
www.friendsofsapark.org | [email protected] | Oakland, California 2021 page 17 OCTOBER & NOVEMBER: REVIEWING THE RECOMMENDATIONS (continues)

1. Review and discuss the four Community Recommendations developed by FOSAP based on the Community Engagement Meetings in August and September. First 5 Alameda worked with FoSAP to develop a 10 page picture based infographic in 3 languages. This infographic explained and provided context for the 4 Recommendations and detailed the community engagement process that led to them. This handout was accompanied by four large presentation boards outlining each recommendation. Agreements, concerns, and ideas were recorded on a large newsprint pad.

2. Participants voted by ballot, which provided room for comments.

Participants reconvened for a discussion with City Administrator Ed Reiskin and D2 Council President Nikki Fortunato Bas about how the recommendations from the FOSAP-led Community Engagement Process would be incorporated into the San Antonio Master Plan. T ranslation was provided in Chinese and Spanish.

Ongoing Outreach and Feedback.

FOSAP wanted to get broad community feedback on the Draft Community Recommendations before finalizing them and submitting them to the city. Thus FOSAP member organizations and individuals continued to conduct outreach both in person and online until November 23rd. In total, 128 Paper surveys were collected, many via T rybe events, which bring many residents to the park. An interactive online survey utilizing the infographic to share information about the recommendations in 3 languages was created and put on FOSAP’s website. An additional 79 surveys were collected online. Thus, combined with the surveys of meeting participants, 207 non-duplicated surveys were collected in total.

Feedback on the Recommendations was overwhelmingly supportive. Participants were asked to vote using the following Emojis:

Some respondents did not submit any opinion for certain recommendations.

Talleys displayed are taken only from those respondents who submitted an opinion.

Strongly
Agree
AgreeNeutralDisagreeStrongly
Disagree
RECOMMENDATION 1:

Expand Programming in the Park
195
Respondents
Combined positive
support 95%
RECOMMENDATION 2:

Community Center with Library and Rooftop Sports Deck
195
Respondents
Combined positive
support 93%
82%13%
4%
1%
76%17%
4%
3%
RECOMMENDATION 3: Repair Park Infrastructure Recommendation 4: Strengthen Park Stewardship* 194
Respondents
Combined positive
support 92%
190
Respondents
Combined positive
support 95%78%14%
6%
1% 1%
78%17%
5%
1%
OCTOBER & NOVEMBER: REVIEWING THE RECOMMENDATIONS (continues) Some respondents did not submit any opinion for certain recommendations. Tallies displayed are taken only from those respondents who submitted an opinion. www.friendsofsapark.org | [email protected] | Oakland, California 2021 page 18 Following charts based on 207 Respondents
CHART 2: AGE
65 – 74:
8%
6%****
7%*
35 – 44:
30%
45 – 54:
15%
25 – 34:
15%
55 – 64:
11%
4%**
4%***
11 – 17*: 7%
18 – 24**: 4%
25 – 34: 15%
35 – 44: 30%
45 – 54: 15%
55 – 64: 11%
65 – 74: 8%
75 – up: 4%
Did not
provide: 6%
CHART 1: RACIAL/ETHNIC BACKGROUND*
Did not
state: 21%
Black:
8%White:
15%
Latinx:
33%
1%
Asian:
16%
4%
More than
one ethnicity:
4%
No. African/
Middle East:
1%
Native
American:
<1%
Never
5%* 1-5 x/yr:
25%
4%*
No Answer: 1%
Never: 5%
1-5 times a year: 25%
6-10 times a year: 14%
1-3 times a month: 22%
1-3 times a week: 16%
4-7 times a week: 14%
1+times a day*: 4%
No answer: 1%
CHART 5: LANGUAGES IN WHICH SURVEYS WERE TAKEN
Spanish:
16%
Chinese:
8%
English:
76%
128 paper surveys 79 surveys collected online
CHART 4: FREQUENCY OF PARK VISITS*
CHART 3: PROXIMITY TO PARK
143%* Live or attend school within 1 mile of park or within zip code 94606
50%** Outside 94606 zip code and more than 1 mile from park 14%*** Did not provide address information
50%**
14%***
143%*
6-10 x/yr:
14%
1-3 x/mo:
22%1-3 x/wk:
16%
4-7 x/wk:
14%
* Percentages may not add
up perfectly to 100 since
percentage segments were
rounded to the nearest
whole number.
* Percentages may not add up perfectly to 100 since
percentage segments were rounded to the nearest
whole number.
* Percentages may
not add up perfectly to
100 since percentage
segments were rounded
to the nearest whole
number.

During the community engagement meetings, the same themes emerged again and again.

Safety, Cleanliness, Maintenance, Activation, Connection. Community Members want the park to be safe, welcoming for people of all ages, clean, well-maintained, vibrant with activities and events, and full of people using the park for its intended purposes. Community members value the park for its nature, its trees and views and open space, and its convenient location in a neighborhood with little green space. Community members value the activation that groups like T rybe have brought in the last year and a half, and the cultural events that groups like Eastside Arts Alliance have organized over the last 20 years. Community members want the playgrounds and sports facilities and bathrooms to be safe and well-maintained. Community members want the recreation center and built spaces in the park to offer resources and activities for folks of all ages. Roosevelt Middle School students want more connection with the park as a place for sports, after school activities, and performances. Community members want to be more engaged in caring for the park, planting trees, and gardening, and picking up trash. Community members value the opportunity to come together as a group, have conversations, and share ideas for the park.

Based on this feedback, FOSAP developed four draft community recommendations. These recommendations lay the groundwork for the shared vision that emerged during the FOSAP-led community engagement process. These recommendations underwent a “Review Process” by the community, detailed in the previous section. These recommendations received overwhelming community support. They were slightly modified based on feedback received during the Review Process and are presented here in final form.
www.friendsofsapark.org | [email protected] | Oakland, California 2021 page 19 SAFETY

CLEANLINESS

MAINTENANCE

ACTIV ATION

CONNECTION

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPAND PROGRAMMING & SERVICES#1
ALL-PURPOSE COMMUNITY CENTER#2
CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIRS#3
ROBUST PARK STEWARDSHIP#4

Recommendation #1:

EXPAND PROGRAMMING IN THE PARK through non-profit partnerships.

We recommend the City of Oakland enter a formal multi-year agreement with FOSAP member organizations to expand the schedule of community-serving programs, activities, and events operating at San Antonio Park.

For over a decade, San Antonio Park’s Recreation Center has had neither a Director nor dedi- cated OPRYD staffing. T o fill the many gaps in services, several community organizations and neighborhood residents have stepped in with a wide range of programming. T rybe coordinates a massive food distribution operation from the Recreation Center. It also hosts regular Sunday family gatherings, biweekly special events, summer camps, art workshops, and the much-lauded Park Ambassador program. This “escort” program employs and trains local residents to act as “eyes on the park,” and provides support to park users at all times of the day. Residents have voiced strong support for continuing and expanding this program. Soccer without Borders and Street Soccer provide organized games and practices for youth and adults. V ertical Skillz provides a popular free boxing after school program for neighborhood youth as well as programs for adults. Eastside Arts Alliance organizes the well attended, beloved Malcolm X Jazz festival every summer. The park is also the site of the yearly Chicano Moratorium.

The community wants to expand these activities and programs. The Park can readily host more diverse programming, including: family play groups; programs for the elderly; summer and after school programs focusing on arts, environmental education, and academic support; expanded community gardens; music and dance performances; multicultural family festivals, and much, much more. In response to FOSAP’s advocacy, D2 CP Nikki Fortunato Bas secured funding in Oakland’s FY 2021-2023 Budget for a full time Recreation Center Director and part time Recreation Leader. As San Antonio Park receives its first Recreation Center Director in over a decade, it will be critical that these established community partners who have served the public from the park are supported to continue and expand their programming through formal MoU’s with the city. In order for the Recreation Center director to be successful in meeting the needs of the community, they will need to continue to support and expand opportunities for non-profits to offer programming from the park.

In addition to these non-profit led programs, countless informal community-initiated activities such as T ai Chi, regular games of volleyball, soccer, basketball and even cricket and takraw take place on a regular basis. Any capital improvements to the park and expansion of formal programming must also be accompanied by efforts to ensure that long-term neighborhood residents continue to enjoy the same access to park facilities as they have in the past. www.friendsofsapark.org | [email protected] | Oakland, California 2021 page 20 GOAL:
to make the
Park a safe and
welcoming place
with on-going
events, activities,
services and
programs.

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS (continues)

SAN ANTONIO PARK PARTNERS
San Antonio Hills
Neighborhood Association
Lotus Bloom
Recommendation #2:

COMMUNITY CENTER WITH LIBRARY & SPORTS DECK
We recommend to the City of Oakland that a new, multi-purpose, multi-generational Community Center, inclusive of a new public library and a roof-top sports deck, be constructed on the footprint currently containing the tennis courts.

This facility will serve as San Antonio Park’s anchor both to launch and house robust year-round programming. The Center will provide much-needed indoor and outdoor spaces for support services, education, recreation, food distribution, and celebrations for all ages. The community center roof would contain multi-use sports courts for volleyball, tennis, futsal, and skateboarding.

The building would be set into the hillside such that the roof could be accessed from the park, without passing through the community center, during all hours of the day.

The Community Center is envisioned to include: a new public library, classroom & conference spaces, a commercial kitchen/cafe, a gymnasium, and activity venues for seniors. The immediate areas surrounding the facility would be landscaped with terraces, gardens, patios, and an outdoor stage to accommodate a wide range of active and passive outdoor recreational and cultural activities, and expand usable ADA accessible green space in the Park.

The current San Antonio Recreation Center footprint is only 1,200 square feet. When compared to five other community centers in the area, the average square footage totaled to 12,646, with Mosswood Park being 24,280 square feet. The T ennis Court in San Antonio Park area footprint is approximately 28,800 square feet. T rybe has been running their weekly T own Nights, a heavily- attended, city-funded violence prevention program, at the tennis courts. T rybe staff have noted that, even in the absence of a global pandemic, it would not be possible to hold this event indoors because the footprint of the current recreation center cannot accommodate programs of this size.

The current Recreation Center is too small to accommodate robust community programs and services. Unfortunately neither the Rec Center nor the Head Start Building is open to the public.

Federal laws concerning child safety limit the Head Start building for use ONLY for children enrolled in the program, their parents, and Head Start staff. The facility is locked after hours, on weekends, and throughout the summer months. The large patio fenced area that Head Start shares with the Recreation Center is also severely restricted. T rybe must request access to the patio which makes the Rec Center unavailable to the public.

Expanding or significantly altering the existing Recreation Center footprint is problematic since it is nestled in a grove of protected, and dearly loved, mature Oak trees.

Given these constraints, FOSAP recommends building a new Community Center on the footprint of the existing four tennis courts at the corner of 18th Avenue and Foothill. The area provides adequate space for this much needed, long-requested community resource, while maintaining the current outdoor recreational space there as a roof-top sports deck. The 2006 Library Master Plan identified the San Antonio Neighborhood as one of two highest priority areas in the city for building a new library. By installing a library in the Community Center, services in literacy, education, cultural arts, and multi-generational programming could be staged from the building.

This new complex would function as a true center for a wide range of vital services and educational opportunities to people of all ages.
www.friendsofsapark.org | [email protected] | Oakland, California 2021 page 21 GOAL:
a staging
ground
for Park
activation,
renewal &
celebration
FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS (continues)
Recommendation #3:

REPAIR PARK INFRASTRUCTURE
We recommend a range of immediate and medium-term repairs to the Park’s built infrastructure.

San Antonio Park is a safe and more welcoming place for everyone when the Park’s built infrastruc- ture, such as pedestrian pathways, lighting, play structures, picnic tables, sport fields and courts, signage, and public art - is made safe, clean, and usable through regular repair and maintenance.

In response to FOSAP’s advocacy, D2 CP Nikki Fortunato Bas secured funding in Oakland’s FY 2021-2023 Budget for some capital improvements in San Antonio Park. These included upgraded lights and repairs to bleachers at the basketball courts, movable bleachers at the soccer fields, repairs to path entrances and driveways, and repairs to the chain-link fence surrounding the tennis courts. While we see these improvements as an excellent first step, we recommend continued and expanded investment in park infrastructure, with the priorities outlined below.

Immediate Priority: T ot Lot & Children’s Play Area
Throughout the community engagement process, participants requested renovation to the outdated, poorly maintained, and heavily littered children’s play area. A frequently cited concern of parents noted that the picnic tables surrounding and within the children’s play area are often occupied by groups of men drinking and smoking.

We recommend the following Renovations to the T ot Lot and Children’s Play Area. • Combine the T ot Lot and Children’s Play Area into a common and expanded location. • Upgrade all play structures in the new T ot Lot and Children’s Play Area. • Install fencing and gates to enclose the new T ot Lot for added security. • Install signage around the play areas and the adjacent picnic tables, indicating that it is an area designated for children and their caregivers.
• Remove picnic tables located inside the Children’s Play Area, while still ensuring there are tables next to the play areas for caregivers and families.
• Ensure there are adequate shaded picnic tables in other parts of the park so that park users who are not using the T ot Lot or Children’s Play Area have places to sit, and so folks who are drinking and smoking can gather away from group activities.

Within T wo Y ears
• Repair all pedestrian pathways to ensure ADA compliance. Ensure that all park facilities have ADA compliant entries and pathways leading to them.
• Create ADA-compliant picnic areas and more parking spaces for the disabled. • Install portable bleachers and a practice field behind the soccer field. • Renovate the historic gazebo and viewing platform on East 19th Street. • Repair and expand lighting throughout the Park.
• Install multilingual and braille signage throughout the Park to direct, educate, and inform Park users and visitors.
• Install kiosks to provide information on current and upcoming activities and events. • Install public art pieces throughout the Park.
www.friendsofsapark.org | [email protected] | Oakland, California 2021 page 22 GOAL:
addressing
decades of
neglect and
deferred
maintenance due
to budget cuts
with parks in
low-income
neighborhoods
disproportionately
effected.

It is time
to reverse this
inequitable trend.

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS (continues)
Recommendation #4:

STRENGTHEN PARK STEWARDSHIP
We recommend the City of Oakland and FOSAP member organizations enter into a formal multi- year agreement to establish and implement Park Stewardship standards, roles, and accountability.

San Antonio Park is a safe and more welcoming place for everyone when residents are directly involved in maintaining the Park as a safe, clean, and green space.

City services have historically not been able to keep up with the cleaning, maintenance, and stewardship needs of San Antonio Park. While we urge the city to allocate more funding and staffing to these services, we also recommend that in the immediate term, the city enter into cooperative relationships with community groups who are eager to assist and fill in the gaps.

Friends of San Antonio Park is prepared to organize and engage an on-going stream of volunteer and in-kind support to:
• Conduct regular Park clean-ups
• Plant and care for trees
• Install and maintain flower and native plant gardens • Expand the Community Garden
• Install public art displays.
• Identify and report broken and hazardous conditions via 311 • Monitor timely trash collection, irregular debris collection, and bathroom cleaning

CLOSING THOUGHTS
In closing, Friends of San Antonio Park is eager to work with the city to ensure that these recommendations are incorporated into the Master Plan, and that Recommendations 1, 4, and the renovation of the Children’s Play Area are prioritized in the short term management goals for the park. The FOSAP-led community engagement process, with over 340 individuals participating, demonstrated the eagerness of San Antonio Residents to raise their voices, and work together towards a thriving park that can support a thriving neighborhood. FOSAP intends to continue its commitment to these residents by acting as an active partner and advocate in the Master Planning Process to ensure that the voices of the community are heard. www.friendsofsapark.org | [email protected] | Oakland, California 2021 page 23 GOAL:

We recommend
the City of
Oakland and
FOSAP member
organizations
enter into a formal
multi-year
agreement to
establish and
implement Park
Stewardship
standards, roles,
and accountability.

FOSAP is eager ...
that
Recommendations
1, 4, and the
renovation of the
Children’s Play
Area are
prioritized in the
short term
management goals
for the park.

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS (continues)

Relocation of Fire Station 4
Friends of San Antonio Park from the beginning has been committed to representing the voices of the San Antonio neighborhood, particularly long-term residents living and attending school close to the park. We intentionally avoided making our community engagement meetings a referendum on the fire station relocation. We felt it was more important to focus our energy on community visioning and articulating what we DO want for our park. FOSAP has held the concern from the beginning that the Master Planning process has not given sufficient space for community listening and visioning. All Master Plan options that were presented to the community at all stages of the city-led engagement process included a fire station. No other options were presented. We at FOSAP saw the Master Planning process as a critical opportunity for our community to dream big, and put down a blue print for a visionary park that represented the hopes and aspirations of the neighborhoods’ long-term residents. With our limited resources, we focused on engaging our community to think in this way.

In our first community engagement meeting, we presented design Charrettes in small groups.

T o ensure we were presenting all options, two of the four design concepts presented included the relocation of the fire station into the park. One of these designs was created by the City’s planning team and one was created by FOSAP’s own contracted architect. However, when participants were given an opportunity to weigh in on the various design options, they sent a strong signal rejecting the fire station. In sticker dot voting, the fire station received 102 no votes and only 1 yes vote.

Community leaders from FOSAP member organizations feel that over the course of the three month community engagement process, they have gained more clarity on where their constituents stand, and that is in opposition to the relocation of Fire Station 4.

Therefore FOSAP takes the stand that we oppose the relocation of Fire Station 4 into San Antonio Park. We are in deep gratitude to Oakland’s Fire Personnel for their service to our city.

We are especially grateful for their active participation in our community meetings and their open communication. We plan to use our strength as a community organizing voice to advocate for the city to fund the purchase of a new site for Fire Station 4. Fundamentally, the push to place the fire station in the park is based not on the fact that no other sites are available, but on the fact that the city lacks funding to purchase a different site. It is not acceptable that our brave firefighters are housed in such an outdated and unsafe building as the current location of FS4. It is also not acceptable that for too long in this process, the only choice presented to them for relocation has been in public parkland in a neighborhood that does not have enough of it. We must all unite to expand the relocation options and prioritize the funding and purchase of a new site for FS4 outside of San Antonio Park.

There have been a few strong voices in support of the fire station from within our community.

Some of them were particularly vocal in our last community engagement meeting. When consid- ering closely these voices, we note that most supporters of the fire station relocation hope that it will bring an added level of surveillance and safety to the park. While it is the top priority to make the park more safe, it is not clear that the relocation of a fire station into the park will achieve this.

Fire personnel have no mandate to enforce park rules, or to provide surveillance to the park. They are in fact under strict guidelines to remain in close proximity to their fire equipment so that they can respond immediately to emergencies throughout the district. The current location of Fire Station 4 experiences significant crime and vandalism, and the Fire Station’s presence is not able to deter this.
www.friendsofsapark.org | [email protected] | Oakland, California 2021 page 24 FOSAP ... has been
committed to
representing the
voices of the
San Antonio
neighborhood,
particularly
long-term
residents living
and attending
school close
to the Park.

GOAL:

We hope to work
closely with the
Fire Department
and city leaders
to ensure that FS4
finds a new home
as soon as
possible, and that
this new home
is not in San
Antonio Park.

FINAL NOTE ON RELOCATION OF FIRE STATION 4
www.friendsofsapark.org | [email protected] | Oakland, California 2021 page 25 Celebrate a
healthy future.

IMPORTANT LINKS TO FOSAP DOCUMENTS
Meeting 1 Materials:
• Postcard introducing FOSAP and logo.
• Event invitation flyer with survey printed and distributed in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese
• Commitment cards in 4 languages with surveys
• Printed Program in 4 languages
• Facilitator’s guide in English with design options outlined in 4 languages • Four design posters
• Raw data and transcripts
Meeting 2 Materials:
• Flyer printed in 4 Languages
• Facilitator’s Guide
• Participant Programs in 4 languages
• T emplate for station leaders
• Copies of report back poster
• Meeting 1 Report Back
• Raw Data and T ranscripts
Meeting 3 Materials:
• Flyer in English, Spanish, Chinese
• Facilitator’s Agenda
• Infographic in English, Spanish, Chinese
• Survey
• Recommendation posters shown at October 30 meeting
• PDFs of Online survey tool in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese • Raw Data and T ranscripts
General
San Antonio Family Resource Center Parent Action Research T eam Video about San Antonio Park
First 5 Infographic: How Parks and Green Space Support School Readiness Early Education Infographic
Please note that there are some slight
discrepancies in the data analysis presented in our
Meeting 2 and Meeting 3 Report Back Documents
and Infographics when compared to the data
analysis presented in the Final Report. That is
due to duplicates in survey responses and slight
errors in computing and tabulation that were not
caught when the FOSAP team was preparing these
documents during the more hurried pace of the
Community Engagement Meetings. After the final
outreach in October and November, when the
FOSAP team had more time, the data analysis from
each meeting and round of outreach was reviewed,
the duplicates were removed, and all computing or
tabulation errors were corrected. The Final Report
contains the most accurate analysis of the data
collected. The Raw Data and transcripts presented
here contain no duplicates and have been checked
for accuracy.

We are also including in this addenda some links
to the work of the San Antonio Family Resource
Center Parent Action Research team, a member
organization of FOSAP . They focus on making
the San Antonio neighborhood a school-ready
neighborhood for children age 0-5, and San
Antonio Park has emerged as a central focus of
their advocacy. Their work predates the formation
of FOSAP , but their findings affirm and underscore
many of the findings of the FOSAP-led Community
Engagement Process.

ADDENDA
145
San Antonio Park Master Plan
www.friendsofsapark.org | [email protected] | Oakland, California 2021 page 25 Celebrate a
healthy future.

ADDENDA
CPTED Walk Email
On April 2, 2021 Brian Cassidy of Oakland
Police Department wrote an email summa-
rizing the findings of the CPTED Walk. The
following is the content of that email.

Hello,
These are my notes and recom-
mendations regarding crime oc-
curring in and around San Antonio
Park. I would like to thank Wendy
Jung for her information and input,
who’s own report of safety issues
factors largely in my reported notes
here. I am including Officer Perez
who patrols this park, Tiffany Kang
who works for Council Person Bas’
office, and Dana Riley, who is Assis-
tant Director with Oakland Parks.

CPTED notes 2APR21. 2pm. San
Antonio Park. Wendy Jung, park
steward, 510-261-4564, jungw@
pacbell.net. Lives on 1700 block
of 16th Ave, Oakland CA 94606.

Area 3. Beat 18X.

Present at meeting: Wendy Jung
and her husband Peter, Tanya
Roberts, NSC Lisa Dieng. Most of
appointment was Wendy, Peter,
Lisa and myself, walking around
and through park, discussing issues
of concern.

San Antonio Park Field map and
facilities description:
• bordered by 16th Avenue,
18th Avenue, East 19th Street
and Foothill Blvd.
• intersected by 17th Avenue,
Commerce Way, East 17th
Street, and Independence
Way.
• Roosevelt Middle School
exists kitty-corner to
San Antonio Park at the
intersection of East 19th
Street and 18th Avenue.
• There is an additional school,
St. Anthony School, located
on 1500 E 15th Street, 94606,
roughly one block west of San
Antonio Park.
• With two schools adjacent and
near park, students frequent
the park often prior to covid,
which can be expected to
return post vaccine and with
return to more in person
school attendance.
• There is also a childcare
facility attending to children
aged 3 to 5 years old, present
with San Antonio Park, off of
East 19th Street.
• This site contains a Gazebo,
preschool / daycare, tennis
courts, basketball courts
(currently hoops are down due
to Covid), soccer fields, and
outdoor gym.

CORRECTION: Also a Tot Lot, a Chil-
dren’s Play Area, and several picnic
tables.

Tree trimming:
• City was out within two weeks
prior to our March 24th 2021
meeting to trim trees off
on 16th Avenue. Trees cut
were in park and not along
sidewalk.
• Currently tree overgrowth on
16th Avenue is blocking light.
• Tree growth along 16th
Avenue and East 19th Street,
also overhanging onto cars
parked on the street.

COMMENT: Unfortunately, several of
the tree limbs are still blocking the
lights on the telephone poles. This
area along 16th Avenue from Com-
merce Way to East 19th Street “hosts”
rampant prostitution at all hours.

Lighting:
• As indicated in above section,
street lighting is currently
insufficient.
• Trim trees along all street
lines.
• Installing higher wattage
lighting in existing light
structures.
• Currently, per residents,
there is no light on within the
park at night. I’m told that
expectation is for lights to
be on within park, including
basketball and tennis courts
and soccer field, until 11pm.
• Homeless encampment
presence may be cause for
lights not being on within
park. Encampment is built
around light pole and the
encampment was tapping
into that pole for power.

Residents believe [...] lights
were shut off to discourage
encampment presence.
146
San Antonio Park Master Plan
Appendix8
CPTED Walk Email
CORRECTION: We were told by OPR
that the night lights in the Park are
not working because the homeless
encampment damaged the system
when they illegally tapped into the
line. Apparently, OPW needs direct
access to the power pole that is now
surrounded by the camp, and requires
a police escort to “enter” the camp. I
have copied Martin Tovar at Oakland
Public Works on this email and spoken
to him about this situation.
• Residents want encampment
removed and lights turned on
at night.

Homeless Encampment:
• Encampment has sprung
up within past year, after
February of 2020.
• Main occupant is
named Nacho Martinez.

Encampment has many
visitors coming and going.

COMMENT: Mr. Martinez camped in
San Antonio Park for over one year
three years ago. His behavior was so
disruptive that a restraining order was
finally granted, and he was banned
from the Park for two years. When the
order expired, he returned, and again
has set up camp. The Homelessness
Division with the City, OFD, and sev-
eral non-profit groups have offered
services to Mr. Martinez, which he has
refused.
• Encampment is quite
large. There are three tent
/ structures that have been
built. Encampment is taking
up at least 3000 square feet
(my estimation).
• Encampment is located on
Foothill Blvd side of park. It
is also located near children’s
playground structure and new
bathrooms which only just
opened within the past year.

No children were visible at
playground and I’m told that
family usage of playground in
nil right now, with homeless
encampment so close.
• New Bathroom facility facing
Foothill, only opened in 2020,
usage being monopolized by
homeless presence.

Reiterate: Residents want encamp-
ment removed, and park lights turned
on at night.

See attached email below this
email, sent to me by Wendy Jung,
with pictures of park homeless
encampment.

Negative Activity within and
around park:
• Sex in and around parked cars
around park, some of which
is likely to be prostitution.

Mostly occurring on 16th
Avenue, East 19th Street, and
18th Avenue. This includes
visible condoms left on street.
• Reported cases of rape,
robbery and mugging within
park.
• Gunshots, Gambling, Partying,
Drug Dealing, Gang Activity in
park at night.
• Dumping. Church located at
corner of Foothill Blvd and
16th Ave is largely vacant
during the week, attracts
dumping. Reported that
this dumping often just gets
moved across the street to the
park.
• Rampant littering, abandoned
vehicles, vehicle break-ins.
• People living in parked
vehicles. People living in
vehicles do drugs and relieve
themselves within public view.
• Graffiti. Some graffiti was
observed on newly opened
bathrooms facing Foothill.
• Vandalism to park including
irrigation system, playing
fields, picnic and play areas,
buildings.
• It has been reported in
the past that Homeless
Encampment on 12th street
invites negative activity at
this park and at surrounding
homes.
147
San Antonio Park Master Plan
CPTED Walk Email
• On Feb 25, 2020, a person
was reported shot near
apartments by San Antonio
Park. One resident reported
bullet from shooting going
into their home.
• Current encampment within
San Antonio has been or
is diverting electricity from
light pole in the park and
monopolizing use of newly
opened bathroom.
• Reports of urinating and
defecating in park as well as
in front yards of surrounding
homes.

Dangerous Traffic Issues:
• The only traffic light signal
surrounding San Antonio Park
exists at the intersection of
Foothill Blvd and 16th Ave.

Stop signs on East 19th Street
are ignored.
• Car created donut circle tread
marks visible at intersection of
East 19th Street and 18th Ave,
bordering Roosevelt Middle
School.
• Car created donut side show
type driving also occur at
intersection of East 19th
Street and 16th Avenue.
• This reckless side show
type activity, in addition to
speeding and running of stop
signs, occurs during the day
when students are crossing
these streets.

ADDITION: Four San Antonio neigh-
bors, participated in a ZOOM call with
Lia Salaverry from District Office Two
on 9/10/2020. They responded to a
request from Communication Direc-
tor Sean Mayer for citywide requests
regarding CIP projects. It seems that
the Council Office is/was aware of the
dangerous driving/traffic conditions
in our area. Ms. Salaverry was to con-
tact DOT engineers to assess the situ-
ation. We don’t know what happened
after that report was made.

Additional Park Notes
• Main Entrance Entryway
off of East 19th Street near
16th Avenue could use
improvement to be more
“celebrated”, have more
stand out.
• Park rules sign at entrance
has worn lettering. Signage
is observable in and around
park, however I would advise
updating and increasing
signage.
• Address tree and vegetation
overgrowth in center of park
and through entrance of
park. Observe 6ft/2ft rule for
landscaping. Low vegetation
should not be higher than
2ft, tree vegetation should be
higher than 6ft about ground
level, to provide for optimum
visibility.
• See through climb proof
fencing surrounding
preschool/daycare facility has
observable access point that
could be climbed around.
• I saw no bollards blocking
vehicle access to park from
pathways.

ADDITION: The addition of bollards
would help prevent easy vehicle
access to the Park during the hours
when it is officially closed to the pub-
lic. It would help send the message
that the Park is being monitored.

Frustration:

Longtime residents explicitly stated
at our meeting that don’t want to
report each incident to 911 due
to no response, or attend NCPC
meetings, or report requested
infrastructure changes through
OAK 911, or follow up with their
Council person’s office. They have
been living with and reporting
these issues for years and believe
that nothing gets addressed. We
empathize with their negative
experience and regret the
perceived lack of attention thus far.
148
San Antonio Park Master Plan
Appendix8
CPTED Walk Email
• Reporting incidents
through 911, 510-238-3211
(emergency) 510-238-3333
(non-emergency) generate
data, which OPD uses to
set priorities and justify to
City requests for additional
resources. Even if OPD
cannot respond to reported
non-emergency incidents
in an expedited time frame,
each call creates data. It is
imperative that residents
report everything. Each
report justifies request for
allocation of resources to your
area.
• Residents reported to me that
they do not believe the area
is being sufficiently patrolled.

They want increased OPD
presence patrolling San
Antonio Park, especially at
night.
• Residents want the homeless
encampment located off of
Foothill and near children’s
playground removed ASAP ,
and nighttime park lighting
returned.

Action Points:
• Traffic Calming steps for
intersections on East 19th
Street at 16th Avenue, 17th
Avenue and 18th Avenue.

Existing stop signs are grossly
insufficient to addressing
existing reckless driving
dangers. Explore traffic
calming circles, speed bumps,
traffic stop lights, light up
pedestrian crossing, increased
pedestrian crossing signage,
street narrowing.

COMMENT: YES, additional stop signs
and more speed bumps coupled with
pedestrian crossing signage, and
signs alerting traffic to pedestrian
activity in the area because of parks
and schools would be helpful. THANK
YOU for recognizing how dangerous
these intersections are to motorists
and pedestrians.
• Trim trees to improve street
lighting on 16th Ave and East
19th Street.

COMMENT: We will register a
formal request with 311 for them
to return to trim the trees in this
area along 16th Avenue and East
19th Street. We will pass that work
order number to Ms Bas’s office for
follow-up.
• Possibly install more powerful
bulbs into existing street light
structures.

COMMENT: Please consider this
request. Insufficient lighting is one
of the most common complaints I
receive from Park Users.
• Communicate with Beat
Officer Christopher Perez,
regarding setting priorities
for patrol of San Antonio
Park especially at night. I am
including Officer Perez on this
email.

COMMENT: Is there a telephone
number for Officer Perez? Can we
please be sure to include him on
the next site visit.
• Submitting specific requests
though OAK 311 for each
requested change.

COMMENT: NEIGHBORS - IT IS

MANDATORY THAT WE MAKE
THESE REPORTS, and get a work
order number. THEN, the com-
plaint, along with the work order
number, should be emailed to Ms.

Bas’s office for follow-up. I know
that many of our reports to OAK
311 in the past have been ignored
or “Lost” , but the tracking numbers
assigned to the complaints are the
best way we can provide a paper
trail, and request action. We really
need to keep reporting, and send-
ing those reports to the Bas office.
this email.
149
San Antonio Park Master Plan
CPTED Walk Email
• Once incident number is
obtained from OAK 311,
forwarding that incident
number and requested
change to office of District
2 Council Person Nikki
Fortunato Bas’ office.
• Despite understandable level
of frustration, I encourage San
Antonio Park neighbors to
attend their NCPC meeting;
currently this is a virtual zoom
meeting at this time due to
covid. This will allow you to
have regular communication
directly with your OPD beat
officer.

COMMENT: Is anyone in this group
interested in attending NCPC
meetings? If yes, please contact
Lisa Dieng directly at ldieng@oak-
landca.gov.
• I also encourage you to form
Neighborhood Watch groups.

I can assist with this if there is
interest.

COMMENT: Is anyone in this group
interested in starting a Neighbor-
hood Watch group? I would be
happy to provide addresses of all
members of our San Antonio Hills
Neighborhood Association. If yes,
please contact Officer Sullivan,
[email protected]
Neighbors should install
surveillance cameras on their
property facing the street, and they
should register those cameras with
the Oakland Police Department.

https://www.oaklandca.gov/
services/oak311

https://www.oaklandca.gov/
officials/nikki-fortunato-bas#page-
contact

https://www.oaklandca.gov/
services/register-your-security-
camera

COMMENT: More information
about sharing camera footage with
OPD shown above.

COMMENT: We requested that
cameras be installed at key loca-
tions in San Antonio Park, but were
informed that it is illegal for the
City to record public activity in the
Park, even when the Park is official-
ly closed to users.
• I spoke with 311 and
submitted request #1101707
for traffic evaluation of E 19th
Street by Traffic Engineering
under Department of
Transportation. Council
Person Bas’ office should be
able to follow up with the
Department of Transportation
with this specific number and
advocate for you.

Brian Cassidy
Police Services Technician II
Oakland Police Department
Neighborhood Services Division
250 Frank H Ogawa Plaza Ste 6303
Oakland CA 94612
510-238-6200
150
San Antonio Park Master Plan
Appendix8
This page intentionally left blank
151
San Antonio Park Master Plan
OPRYD Plant Palette
BFL Lawn Alternatives & Groundcovers
Botanical Name Common Name Sun/Soil Height Spread Water Requirement Reference Traffic Tolerance Form Maintenance Achillea clavennae silver yarrow Full sun, reasonable 4-12" 1-2' Occasional EBMUD Little to none Spreading Mat Can Mow Periodically drainage Achillea millefolium yarrow Full sun to part shade 12-30" 2-4' Occasional EBMUD Occasional Spreading Mat Can Mow Periodically Achillea millefolium 'Rosea' rose yarrow Full sun to part shade 2' 2' Occasional EBMUD Occasional Spreading Mat Can Mow Periodically * Arctostaphlos uva-ursi bearberry Full sun, good drainage, 1-2" 10-15' None-Occasional EBMUD Little to none Dense Fine Textured Mat coastal Arctotheca calendula arctotheca Full sun 6-12" 18" Little-None SUNSET Occasional Thick Groundcover Invasive In Wet Areas, Dormant in Drought
*Armeria maritima sea pink Sun, good drainage 4-8" 6-12" Occasional-Little EBMUD Little to none Compact Mounds of Grassy Leaves * Artemisia californica 'Canyon Gray' prostrate aagebrush Full sun 1' 4' Occasional EBMUD None Ground Hugging Mat * Artemisia pycnocephala 'David's Choice' sandhill sage Full sun 1' 3' Occasional 'l EBMUD None Low-Growing Groundcover Campanula poscharskyana Serbian bellflower Part shade 8"-1' 1' Moderate/Moderate SUNSET/WUCOLS Rl Little to none Spreading Mounding Leafy Clump *Carex pansa meadow sedge Full sun to part shade, most 1' 1' Occasional- Moderate EBMUD Moderate Groundcover/ Lawn Substitute Can Mow 2-3 times per year soils *Carex praegracilis dune sedge Full sun to part shade, most 1' 1' Occasional- Moderate EBMUD Moderate Groundcover/ Lawn Substitute Can Mow 2-3 times per year soils *Carex texensis catlin sedge Part to full shade, most soils 4-6" 6-8" Occasional -Moderate EBMUD Moderate Matlike Sedge Can Mow Periodically *Carex divulsa (tumulicola) Berkeley sedge Part sun to Part shade 1-2' 1-2' Occasional -Moderate EBMUD Little to none Clumping Rough Turf *Ceanothus griseus var horizontalis 'Carmel carmel creeper Full sun, part shade, good 18-30" 10-15' Little- None EBMUD None Evergreen Groundcover Creeper' ceanothus drainage *Ceanothus hearstiroum hearst ceanothus Full sun, part shade 6" 6-8' Little-None EBMUD Little to none Mat Forming Groundcover *Chamaemelum nobile chamomile Full sun, part shade, 3-12" 1' Moderate/Low EBMUD/WUCOLS Rl Occasional Soft Textured Spreading Mat Can Mow Periodically Coprosma x kirkii creeping coprosma Full sun 1-3' 4-6' Moderate/Low EBMUD/WUCOLS Rl Little to none Groundcover Dymondia margaretae silver carpet Full sun to part shade, good 1-3" 2' Occasiona I- EBMUD/WUCOLS Rl Occasional Carpet of Small Green and White drainage Moderate/Low Leaves
*Epilobium septentrionale California fuchsia Full sun, part shade 8-12" 2-3' None-Occasional EBMUD Little to none Mat Forming Groundcover Festuca glauca blue fescue Sun, tolerate some shade, 1' 10" Occasional- EBMUD/WUCOLS Rl Occasional Dense Tufts Moderate/Low * Festuca idahoensis ldahoe fescue Sun to light shade, most 1-2' 1-2' Occasional - EBMUD/WUCOLS Rl Occasional Bunch Grass soils Moderate/Very Low

* Festuca rubra red fescue Sun to light shade, most 1-2' 1-2' Moderate/Low EBMUD/WUCOLS Rl Occasional Fine-Bladed Bunch Grass Can Mow Periodically soils Fuchsia procumbens prostrate fuschia Part shade 6" 3-4' Regular/Moderate SUNSET/WUCOLS Rl Little to none Prostrate Spreading Growth * Fragaria chiloensis beach strawberry Prefers sun, good drainage 4-8" 12"-18" Regular/Moderate SUNSET /WUCOLS Rl Occasional Lush Compact Mat * Fragaria vesca woodland Shade, clay soil 4-8" 8-12" Regular/Moderate SUNSET/WUCOLS Rl Little to none Groundcover strawberry * Koe la ria macrantha junegrass Sun 1.5' 6" Drought Tolerant- Las Pilitas Occasional Perrenial Grass Flooding *Lotus scoparius deerweed Sun 1.5-3' 3' Drought Tolerant Las Pilitas Occasional Low Spreading Malvastrum lateritium trailing mallow Full sun 8" 5' Little- None EBMUD Little to none Evergreen Groundcover 1' ,
* Melica torreyana Torrey's melic Part shade flowers 1' None-Occasional EBMUD Moderate Compact Bunch Grass 2'
Myoporum parvifolium myoporum Full sun 3-6" 10' Little EBMUD Little to none Mat Forming Groundcover * Nassella lepida foothill needlegrass Sun 1' 1' Occasional EBMUD Occasional Forms a Rough Turf BFL Lawn Alternatives & Groundcovers (continued)
Botanical Name Common Name Sun/Soil Height Spread Water Requirement Reference Traffic Tolerance Form Maintenance * Nassella pulchra purple needlegrass Sun 1-2' 1-2' Occasional EBMUD Occasional Forms a Rough Turf Nepeta racemosa cat mint Sun, good drainage 6-12" 2-3' Occasional- EBMUD/WUCOLS Rl None Lavender Flowers Moderate/Low Phyla nodiflora lippia Full sun 2" 2' Little-Regular /Low SUNSET/WUCOLS Rl Occasional Ground Hugging Groundcover *Rhamnus c. 'Seaview Improved' coffee berry Sun/ part shade, good 1-2' 6-8' Occasional EBMUD None Groundcover drainage Rubus pentalobus rubus Part shade 6"-1' 6' Occasional EBMUD None Groundcover *Salvia melifera 'Terra Seca' prostrate sage Full sun 2' 6' Occasional EBMUD Little to none Extra Tough Groundcover Pinch or Shear Upward Growing Branches
*Salvia sonomensis creeping sage Full sun 8-12" 3-4' Occasional EBMUD Little to none Groundcover *Salvia spathacea pitcher sage Full sun 1-2' 34' Drought Tolerant- SUNSET Little to none Groundcover Regular *Satureja douglasii Verba Buena Part shade 6" 3' Regular SUNSET Little to none Good oak woodland understory Thymus pseudolanuginosus wooly thyme Full sun/ part shade 2-3" 3' Occasional- EBMUD/WUCOLS Rl Occasional Low Compact Groundcover Moderate/Moderate Thymus serpyllum (var. 'Elfin') creeping thyme Full sun/ part shade 3" 3' Occasional- EBMUD/WUCOLS Rl Occasional Low Compact Groundcover Moderate/Moderate Trifolium repens white clover Full sun/ part shade 4" Regular/Moderate SUNSET/WUCOLS Rl Little to none Low Groundcover *Whipplea modesta western modesty Part shade 1"-4" 2'-3' Regular Las Pilitas Little to none Good oak woodland understory * California Native Plant
)

158
San Antonio Park Master Plan
Appendix8
This page intentionally left blank
159
San Antonio Park Master Plan
Irrigation As-Builts
160
San Antonio Park Master Plan
Appendix8
Irrigation As-Builts
161
San Antonio Park Master Plan
Irrigation As Builts

162
San Antonio Park Master Plan
Credits
Image Credits
“...encourage people to use it through the way the
environment is built.” “What can be put into the park
to increase the sense that there are ‘eyes on the park’ because it does feel like a neglected space” “creating
a well-lit park and having people congregate at night
I think will alleviate the security problems”, “I want
us to be really self-aware and willing to grapple with
the meaning of the word ‘safe’ because ‘safe’ can
mean different things to different people. It can also
mean gentrification which can be a triggering term
for the communities that have lived there a long time
and have undergone a lot of the traumas that exist in
the community but can be viewed as people who are
unsafe. I want us to step back and think about what
the term ‘making it safer’ means. Safer for whom? Can
the term ‘safe’ also apply to folks who are often black/ brown and low income and who are unsafe to begin
with and made to be seen as unsafe? I want us to be
willing to grapple with the term ‘safe’ and what that
means in terms of improvements.”
p22 Ohlone T erritory Map https://cejce.berkeley.edu/
ohloneland,
p22 Basket image Muwekma.or g: http://www.
muwekma.org/images/Classic_Ohlone_Coiled_
Basket_with_Intricate_Designs_of_Olivella_Shell_
Disc_Beads_Ref_Shanks_2006.jpg
p23 Historic Photo:

Title: East Oakland, 1868 [picture] : southwest
from 16th St., 17th St., 18th Ave., Oakland, Calif
Date: 1868
Collection: Selections from the Collections of the
Oakland History Room and the Maps Division of
the Oakland Public Library
Owning Institution: Oakland Public Library,
Oakland History Room and Maps Division
Source: Calisphere
Date of access: June 14 2021 21:47
Permalink: https://calisphere.org/item/
ark:/13030/kt667nd205/
p23 Map of Br ooklyn and Oakland:

Title: Map of Oakland and Brooklyn / E.C.

Sessions, agent for the purchase & sale of real
estate
Date: 1868
Collection: California Cultures: selected
documents from the Bancroft LibraryOwning
Institution: UC Berkeley, Bancroft LibrarySource:

Calisphere
Date of access: June 14 2021 22:09
Permalink: https://calisphere.org/item/
ark:/13030/hb167nb17h/
p24 La Raza Unida Moratorium Poster: https://
localwiki.org/oakland/Oakland_Chicano_
Moratorium/_files/la%20raza.jpg/_info/
p24 Oakland Chicano Moratorium Mar ch Photo:
https://localwiki.org/oakland/Oakland_Chicano_
Moratorium/_files/Oakland%20Moratorium%20
Xicana.jpg/_info/
p24 Chicano Moratorium in Oakland, July 26 Photo:
https://localwiki.org/oakland/Oakland_Chicano_
Moratorium/_files/Oakland%20Chicano%20
moratorium.jpg/_info/
p24 Xicana Moratorium Day Poster: https://localwiki.
org/oakland/Oakland_Chicano_Moratorium/_
files/xicana.jpg/_info/
p25 Eastside Arts Alliance 19th Annual
Malcolm X Jazz Arts Festival Poster: http://
investigateconversateillustrate.blogspot.
com/2019/04/
p25 Photos fr om Malcolm X Festival: https://
thepioneeronline.com/33739/features/oakland-
jazz-festival-honors-malcolm-x/#modal-photo
Photos by Mat Weber
p25 Sarunas Mar ciulionis Basketball Court Photo:
https://www.nba.com/warriors/gallery/sarunas-
marciulionis-basketball-court-unveiling-ceremony
Photo by Douglas Peck/Warriors.com
163
San Antonio Park Master Plan
Credits

PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

City of Oakland departments:
• Parks, Recreation & Youth Development
• Fire Department
• Human Services / Head Start
• Planning and Building
• Economic & Workforce Development
• Police
• Public Works Facilities Services
• Public Works Parks & Tree Services
• Race and Equity
CLIENT | Oakland Public Works Department
Mi Kyung Lew,
Capital Improvement Project Coordinator
ARCHITECT | LCA
Carl Campos,
CEO
Greg Barton,
Architect
Denise Youmans,
Director of Marketing
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT | Keller Mitchell & Co.

Amy Cupples, ASLA, LEED AP , BFQR
Managing Principal
Sallie Holt,
Associate
Carrie Kao, ASLA, LEED AP
Associate
Chris Gruenholz,
Graphics Assistant
Desmond Cao,
Landscape Designer
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT | Luster National Inc.

Geoffrey S. Johnson,
Community Construction Relations Manager
COST ESTIMATOR | MicroEstimating Inc.

Created by
Keller Mitchell & Co.

Rules & Legislation CommitteeOctober 26, 2023

Rules & Legislation Committee
October 26, 2023