Resilient East Bay 2050

RESILIENT EAST BAY 2050

IMPROVE • PREPARE University of Pennsylvania The 21st Century Resilient Waterfront Studio Hillary Austin Angela Eicholtz Christopher DiStasi Shayda Haghgoo Xue Jin Grace MacDonald James Onofrio Jared Patton Xi Wang Fall 2015

Oakland’s current median rent listing of

institutions that include UC Berkeley and

of which waterfront development can take

$2,076.

Biosciences Institute, located in Berkeley,

advantage, it is also important to consider

The increase in population and housing

and the Joint BioEnergy Institute located

that the county’s biggest employment

demand in the Bay Area place pressure to

in Emeryville.

sectors are related to service industries,

increase rents. In April 2014, median rents

Another economic driver that sets this

which include retail, accommodation and

in both Oakland and Alameda were 24

area apart from the other Bay Area

food services.5

percent higher than the monthly average

counties is the freight industry. The Port

The spatial distribution of jobs is also

over the previous four years. Sales prices

of Oakland (Figure 2.7) is one of three

worth noting, especially in a region where

have appreciated even faster over the last

“megaports” in California. With only 20

rent pressure forces many employees to

4 years at 44% in Alameda and 98.8% in

berths, it handles much lower container

live far from their workplaces. BART rail

Oakland, bringing both cities well above

volumes than Los Angeles and Long

lines are a popular and accessible way

pre-recession levels. To add the stress of

Beach, which have a combined total of 350

to commute for hundreds of thousands

the residential market, Oakland permitted

berths, yet it contributes greater exports

of residents, but there are still millions

fewer low, moderate, and above moderate

(Port of Oakland 2015).

The Oakland

more who are forced to commute by car

housing units than the regional average.

International Airport (Figure 2.8) is the

The lack of available housing stock creates

second busiest airport in the Bay, but it

a scarcity effect and raises housing prices

handles a significant amount of freight

further.

cargo. With respect to economic drivers

3

4

or carpool.

Employment and Economic Drivers The number of jobs in the Bay is projected to grow as well. Figure 2.5 shows that the number of jobs and employed residents has increased from 2010 and should continue to do so over the next thirty years. It also shows that there are and will be a greater number of jobs than employed residents. Despite the surplus of jobs the region has an unemployment rate of 6.2%, near the current national rate. It is unclear whether the cause of unemployment is cyclical, frictional, or structural.

One of the biggest economic drivers of the Bay Area, home to Silicon Valley is innovation, particularly relating to the

Figure 2.5: Job and Employment Growth, 2010-2040

professional, scientific, and technical services

and

information

industries.

Figure 2.6 shows the highest employment sectors for Alameda County. With a low representation of the professional, scientific, and technical services category, development along the waterfront can capture the innovative spirit of the Bay Area and carve a niche for itself in the emerging tech industries related to biotech, life sciences, and clean technology by taking advantage of the proximal dense clusters of nationally and internationally recognized research Figure 2.6: Employment Sector Concentration Comparison 12

2.2 OAKLAND Rooted in industry, Oakland is quickly changing to accomodate growing employment sectors like specialized tech, mobile and web app development, and health care.

In 2013 the American Community Survey

years, Oakland will take the largest share

targeted by Oakland’s 1998 General Plan to

reported that the population of Oakland,

of population growth in Alameda County,

“grow and change”– is an important asset

California, had reached 401,000 people,

putting it at nearly 517,000 residents by

for the city to address these challenges.

just shy of the city’s peak population

2030.6 This growth will present the city

in 1945 – 405,000 – from which it fell

with significant land use challenges of the

precipitously in the post-war years.

sort the city has not seen for more than

Projections anticipate that in the coming

half a century. The Oakland waterfront –

14

2.3 ALAMEDA The geographic center of the Bay Area, Alameda maintains a quaint, small town character due to its “island” isolation from the East Bay. Alameda has a unique history and context

globalized economy.

municipal matters than a common law

within the Bay Area region. While San

At the same time as the City of Alameda

city. Development in Alameda Point is

Francisco, Oakland, Santa Clara and other

preserved a suburban, family-centric

subject to the regulations of the charter

cities around the harbor have developed

character, the western third of the island

which gives the Planning Board the power

into diverse economic hubs with large

was home to Naval Air Station Alameda

to investigate and recommend plans for

workforces and mixed housing typologies,

Point for five decades until the base

future development and improvement

Alameda

successfully

realignment program in the 1990s. For

of the city and also stipulates that the

fought to keep their island city isolated

two decades, the city has grappled with

maximum density for any residential

from the rapid change and development

the site, struggling to balance locals’ anti-

development within the city “shall be

in the rest of the region. Small bungalows

development tendencies, the prime value

one housing unit per 2,000 square feet of

and Victorian houses, quaint Main Street

and location of the land, and the high cost

land” except for the housing authority’s

and lush streets and small parks give the

of remediating and redesigning a military

replacement of low cost housing units.15

city a character more in line with the

facility for civilian population and use.

Currently, Alameda is less racially diverse

small towns of Northern California than

Alameda is a charter city, which means

than the rest of the Bay Area, and about

the hustle and bustle of the Bay Area’s

that the city has more control over its

sixty-five percent of residents speak only

20

residents

have

Figure 2.16 -2.18: ALAMEDA EMPLOYERS

Demographics Alameda’s population is considerably less Black and Hispanic, better educated, and higher-earning than its neighbor. Only a few thousand African Americans live on this island of 75,000, while nearly a third of the population is Asian. Only 12 percent claim Latino ethnicity. Alameda’s population is less spatially segregated than Oakland’s, with White and Asian populations evenly mixed across the city and some slight concentrating of Black and Latino populations in the western end of Alameda Island.

30 percent of the population graduated

Figure 2.17: Alameda Point’s warehouses attract green energy employment sector.

college, with a third of those holding an advanced degree. Still, 9 percent of Alamedans did not graduate high school, about half of Oakland’s rate. In general, the population is older and made up more of stable “traditional” married-couple families, who make up 47 percent of households, with much lower prevalence of

single-parent

and

non-relative

households than in Oakland.23

Employment + Trends Alameda’s

economic

character

is

completely different from its neighbor,

Figure 2.18: Downtown Alameda provides local goods and services to its residents.

Oakland. The city’s economic engine is primarily its residents, who work highpaying jobs in Oakland, San Francisco and elsewhere, while paying property and income taxes in Alameda.

Alameda’s largest employment sector is in professional services, employing over 4,000 people in 2013. In the next 20 years, Alameda County Economic Development department estimates this sector will grow by an additional 20,000 jobs countywide.

While it is likely Alameda will absorb some of this growth, it will be important Figure 2.19: Alameda’s Neighborhoods with Its Unique Historic 2-Story Victorian Bungalows 22

ALAMEDA POINT URBAN DESIGN ANALYSIS Ownership, Land Use and Zoning The federal government retains the western portion of Alameda Point up until Monarch Street, and maintains it as a nature reserve area. The north shoreline, the marina and coast on the south side and adjacent water, and a block-wide belt connecting the two waterfronts belong to the public trust, and are zoned as Open Space, Adaptive Reuse, Town Center, and Enterprise from north to south.

Figure 2.23: Existing View of Alameda Point and Its Waterfront | Xue Jin

Among other developable areas, most land is proposed to be mixed use, including the district for adaptive reuse from previous military and industrial legacies, the development of a town center that connects residential use to the waterfront, and an “enterprise zone.”

The only purely residential area is in the northeast corner of Alameda Point, which is connected to the east and together forms the Main Street Neighborhood of the city’s proposal.

Figure Ground and Open Space Network

Figure 2.24: Northwest Territories on Alameda Point with Port of Oakland in Background | Alameda Point Info

Suggested by the figure ground diagram, Alameda Point has an even lower building density than the rest of the city, following the

city

charter

density

restriction

mentioned earlier. At Alameda Point, the units are mainly 1-2 story detached homes with small building footprints of around 300 square feet. In contrast, in the mixed-use area the building footprints (and parcel size) tend to be relatively large (with a max of around 3500 square feet).

Also, very few buildings exist in federal and state owned lands, and along the

Figure 2.25: Bay Trail at Alameda Point | Alameda Point Info

waterfront.

The low density and sparse street

Alameda City Public Works Department

and active and pleasant streetscape in

network leaves a lot of area unbuilt. A

from Main Street. The rest of the open

Alameda Point, and waterfront could be a

massive amount of the land adjacent to

spaces are mainly either plazas or public

great opportunity for creating the green,

buildings is surface parking space, and

spaces for community activities (antique

lively atmosphere.

there are a few well-managed public open

faire, skate park, etc.) Despite the private

In addition, currently Bay Area trails exist

spaces available. Four of the five major

open spaces in the residential district,

along the east boundary of Alameda Point

ones are sports fields, and the other one

there is currently a lack of parks of various

on Main Street and south waterfront, and

is an “entry plaza” leading towards the

sizes (particularly small ones at nodes)

trail lines are proposed for almost the

26

2.5 ENVIRONMENT Overview

recognized

have recognized the importance of

Environmental systems and change form

that during the coming years cities

confronting these issues head on, and

the underlying context of development

such as

Oakland and Alameda will be

have committed themselves to significant

in the Bay Area, and is far too neglected

confronted with serious and far-reaching

reductions in green house gas (GHG)

in

environmental

emissions.

the

popular

For

conversation

that

decades

we

and

have

climate-related

Specifically,

Oakland

will

focuses primarily on rents, jobs and

challenges. Many of these challenges,

reduce its government-generated GHG

transportation. From the construction of

such as water quality and habitat loss,

emissions by 36% of 2005 levels by 2020,

massive aqueducts to fuel the region with

may be mitigated through urban design

while Alameda will reduce their emissions

water drawn from the east to ambitious

and smarter development standards,

by 25%.

plans to create wetlands along the Bay’s

while others, such as sea level rise and

By

southern shore, development in this

increasing droughts, are to greater or

proactive,

area has often meant overcoming and

lesser extents unavoidable, and will

Oakland and Alameda plan to not only

controlling the constraining aspects of

instead

adaptation-based

reduce the human impacts of climate

the natural environment.

approach. Both Oakland and Alameda

change, but also create a more healthier,

require

an

approaching

these

more resilient region.

30

issues

community-based

in

a

way,

Source: Lacunha Photo

3.1 VISION Development on the Alameda-Oakland waterfronts will focus on multifunctional hubs that showcase regionally-applicable strategies to accelerate improvement in residents’ well-being and prepare for social, economic, and environmental change.

38

ENVIRONMENT

Restored wetlands on the Oakland waterfront. Source: AlamedaPointEnvironmentalReport.wordpress.com

Framework A truly resilient plan must be based on

SEA LEVEL RISE

a sound understanding of the natural systems at work in the area. In the East Bay, this means carefully analyzing sea

FLOODING + LANDSLIDE

level rise, local flooding and landslide risk, liquefaction zones, and air and water contamination.

The cities of Oakland and Alameda are projecting

their

waterfronts

to

see

approximately four and a half feet of sea level rise by the year 2100, threatening critical

infrastructure

property.

27

and

damaging

The impacts of this rise in sea

LIQUEFACTION RISK POLLUTION ASTHMA RATE GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION

41

CREATE A GREEN AND ACCESSIBLE WATERFRONT THAT IMPROVES RESIDENTS’ HEALTH AND PROTECTS AGAINST ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS.

alamedapointva.blogspot.com

GOAL 1 - Restore balance between urban and natural environments.

GOAL 2 - Reestablish the waterfront as a public use area.

GOAL 3 - Design open spaces the showcase the beauty of the Bay and provide functional safeguards against climate change.

Strategies

rise and habitat loss, a 75-foot shoreline overlay will be established throughout

Shoreline Overlay By the year 2100 the Bay is expected to see as much as four and a half feet of sea level rise, resulting in significant damages to public infrastructure and private property throughout the region. This rise in sea level will affect not only areas directly adjacent to the Bay, but also lands further inland as floodplains expand and storm surges become more severe.

Prior to 1850 much of the East Bay was occupied by salt marches and freshwater wetlands that both protected the region from flooding while providing important habitat

for

the

97

endangered

or

threatened species that live in the area.30 In the 150 years since the 1849 Gold Rush first attracted large-scale settlement, 90% of these wetlands have been lost, resulting in a fractured landscape that provides neither adequate habitat nor protection from coastal flooding.31 To address these duel issues of sea level

44

Oakland-Alameda

waterfront.

New

buildings will not be permitted within this overlay, and Bay-Friendly Landscape practices will be required. Additionally, parcels larger than one acre in size will be required to incorporate public access into their land management plans.

Historically,

the

Alameda-Oakland

waterfront has been dominated by industrial uses, and while this is slowly changing, the Port of Oakland and

Figure 3.6: 305-acre wetland at Oakland International Airport continues to collect water

surrounding industrial buildings still play a vital role in sustaining the region’s economy.

To

insure

the

continued

prosperity of these institutions, they will be permitted an exemption from the

overlay’s

setback

requirement,

butmust instead demonstrate the ability to cope with sea level rise through an a comprehensive adaptation plan that incorporates a variety of tools to address future challenges while protecting one of the region’s largest employers.

Figure 3.7: Precedent: Santa Barbara, CA | Source: James Wapotich

ACCELERATE REGIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING GROWTH IN A PATTERN THAT IMPROVES HEALTH, SAFETY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.

West Oakland Works

GOAL 1 - Increase the speed of housing production at all levels GOAL 2 - Diversify the housing stock to meet the needs of a shifting demographic GOAL 3 - Distribute affordable and market rate housing GOAL 4 - Protect homes and residents from environmental risks and hazards GOAL 5 - Equip residents and elected leaders to mitigate the effects of change Strategies

Euclidian distance but not within the ½

other factors such as schools, park access,

mile network distance because of a large

or crime. Including these measures will

highway, they could partner with the city

help insure that affordable housing is

and incentives to measure transit access

to finance a pedestrian bridge.

distributed more equitably throughout

in network distance rather than Euclidian

Update regional housing goals and

the region.

distance.

funding

Fortunately, many cities in the Bay Area

Currently, the Association of Bay area

are already implementing policies such as

Governments

transit oriented zoning overlays and Low

regional

housing

Income Housing Tax Credits to encourage

evaluate

municipalities’

transit access. While these programs are

affordable housing supply based on

great initiatives, they define transit access

population, capacity and job growth.

by a Euclidian distance not a network

These goals do not, however, account for

Change the language in city documents

distance. The problem with this is while they may be geographically close to a transit stop, residents cannot always access them; many times walls or large highways are in the way.

By changing the language, this will ensure policies intended to encourage transit access are effective in increasing transit accessibility and will encourage public private partnerships to fund infrastructure improvements to expand access. For example if a developer was within a ½ 66

(ABAG)

sets

goals

affordability. ability

No city has reached its housing goals

for They for

set by ABAG. Faced with balancing their budgets against Proposition 13, many cities opt to encourage job growth, which carries less municipal cost. By attaching transportation

funding

to

housing

production, there will be more of an incentive to reach housing goals.

Create a regional committee to facilitate the CEQA process for TOD Another reason housing production has remained slow are the barriers related to the California CEQA process. By creating a regional committee to pre approve projects located near transit stops the approval process can be sped up.

Develop a funding mechanism to support accessory dwelling units (ADUs) Accessory dwelling units have many benefits. They can help increase the supply of affordable housing and they consume less water and energy than traditional single family homes. The cost associated with building a unit has a higher local multiplier, circulating more of the money into the local economy. Finally, they can also provide a stream of income to home owners who construct them. This could help thousands of existing residents avoid the threat of foreclosure.

Today, many cities are begging to see

Figure 3.35: Approval Committee

the value of ADUs. They are beginning to allow them in the zoning code and in some cases, even encourage their construction. While attitudes are positive,

Figure 3.36:

68

the path to constructing these types of units is often mired with difficulty. The average accessory dwelling unit can cost anywhere from 10,000 to 70,000 dollars to construct. Most homeowners would need a loan to construct one but banks have been reluctant to loan money towards new building practices such as these. A regional housing fund can be used to guarantee loans made by banks. Modeled off of small business loan programs, this would encourage banks to loan out money at little risk while not costing the city anything other than the cost of a reserve.

Allow more diversity in housing types The existing zoning codes in most cities currently use language to define housing standards based on dwelling units. This type of delineation does not allow for more flexible housing types such as cohousing strategies, which might have fluid Figure 3.37: Example of Co-Housing

or adaptable units with shared central facilities such as kitchens and gathering spaces.

Figure 3.38: Example of Adaptive Reuse

69

3.3 SITE PLAN

COLISEUM A HEALTHY COMMUNITY DESIGN

Figure 3.62: Site Plan for Coliseum

86

Green Bridge

office space with labs. This will utilize the momentum of the existing proposal for

Coliseum Park

an R&D district south of the site and can increase employment for local residents who are trained as lab technicians at Howard Terminal. There will also be a the newly built sports stadium, where primary health care services will become an important driver. The goal is to diversify

nd tla We

high density mixed use development near

the job market and make the site more economically resilient. Together with the wetland, Coliseum Park, and other public open spaces, the plan approaches individual health improvement in a holistic way.

Economic Development The coliseum site will be the location of an enterprise zone. This will encourage local hiring of Oakland residents. Based on the mix of jobs at the site, it will support the job training center at Howard Terminal.

Figure 3.69: Environmental System GREEN BRIDGE, VANCOUVER

PRECEDENT: QUNLI WETLAND PARK, CHINA

The site will connect the residents of East Oakland to middle-wage jobs. The local businesses, especially those in R&D, biotech, and the offices located in the core of the site will partner with local schools to provide mentoring and apprenticeships through a public-private partnership.

The southern portion of the site will feed off of the science and technology cluster that is starting to exist, but is also proposed in Oakland’s Coliseum plan. R&D has a low vacancy (7%) in the East Bay which means it is in high demand.74 This should be included in the first phase of job creation at the site. This use will provide a buffer between the existing industrial space and the proposed mixed-use core of the site.

San Jose has a very successful biotech development, the Biocube, with flex office space and labs for life science and clean 90

Figure 3.70: Precedents for Environmental System

92

COLISEUM

93

alamedapointenvironmentalreport.wordpress.com

Views of San Francisco

skytamer.com

Naval Air Base

96

alamedapointantiquesfaire.com

USS Hornet Museum

Large Scale Events

AP NORTH

Figure 3.84: Aerial of a typical Alameda neighborhood at 9 dwelling units per acre

Figure 3.85: Aerial of Alameda Point North 105

4.1 IMPLEMENTATION A DYNAMIC AND GROWING REGION Phase Two

Phase Three

Phase two includes years 6-15, and will

The third and final phase of Resilient East

intended

see a shift away from policy interventions,

Bay 2050 will occur from year 16 until the

to set the stage for future development,

focusing instead on more concrete

plan’s conclusion in year 35. During this

and slowly progressing to more concrete,

projects. Specific interventions during

phase, planners will focus primarily on

capital-intensive interventions.

this period include the purchase of new,

evaluating progress towards the plan’s

larger ferries, expansions of the San

key goals, and adjusting interventions

Phase One

Francisco Bay Trail, rerouting bus lines

accordingly.

Phase one of Resilient East Bay 2050

to Howard Terminal, establishing bus

include an expansion of the Alameda Self-

includes the first five years of the plan’s

rapid transit (BRT) on Alameda Island, and

Driving Car Pilot Program and potentially

life, and will focus primarily on creating

creating a new water taxi servicing the

also upgrading the Alameda BRT line to

the policies and partnerships necessary

Oakland-Alameda channel. During this

light rail.

to set the plan in motion. This phase

phase, the first signs of redevelopment at

As planners begin to take a more advisory

will also include minor infrastructure

Alameda Point, Howard Terminal, and the

role in the waterfront’s development,

projects, such as trail improvements, soil

Coliseum will become apparent.

private developers will assume more

This plan will follow a three-phase implementation strategy beginning with policy-related

interventions

These

adjustments

may

remediation, and park expansions, which

responsibility for realizing the plan’s

will provide private developers with more

vision. Through the work of these

certainty about future development sites.

developers, a full build-out of the

The very first interventions realized

Coliseum, Howard Terminal, and Alameda

during this phase will be zoning reforms

Point will be realized prior to completion

to enable mixed-use, transit-oriented

of the plan in 2050.

development

at

the

Coliseum

and

Alameda Point. Howard Terminal will also be rezoned for mixed-use, but must first undergo an intensive soil remediation process, financed by the Port of Oakland.

Once

this

increased

rezoning densities

has will

occurred, be

further

encouraged by improving ferry service through a new ferry dock at Alameda Point and an increased frequency in ferry service. New partnerships with autonomous vehicle developers and local organizations such as Urban Releaf will be created during this period, which will not only further the framework specific goals, but also buttress the plan by establishing grassroots support.

The end of phase one (years 4-5) will see the beginning of more capital-intensive projects such as the Oakland streetcar.

114

Figure 4.1: Alameda BRT

4.2 METRICS A DYNAMIC AND GROWING REGION While much of the success of Resilient East Bay 2050 will be experienced as qualitative improvements in quality of life for local residents, there are several key metrics that will be met before the

Environment

Transportation

ll 25 miles of natural shoreline are

ll Four new transportation hubs are

preserved

established

ll The East Bay is protected from 4.5 feet of sea level rise uu Public access is provided for all

metrics are organized according to the

waterfront lots greater than one

document’s four frameworks, they are all

acre

plan’s overall success

surrounding

use uu TOD design improves pedestrian safety

uu Bay-Friendly Principles

Landscaping insure

waterfront

habitat for 90 endangered species and 250 species of migratory birds ll 2,000 trees are planted each year

ll Four

new

modes

of

public

transportation are established uu Diverse transportation system is less vulnerable to environmental and economic shocks

uu 75% of new trees planted are native or drought tolerant

ll 16 miles of new public transportation routes are added

uu No one species makes up more than 15% of the urban forest

uu Social and economic isolation is reduced across the East Bay Region

ll Air pollution and ambient noise levels reduced in high-risk neighborhoods ll •305 acres of airport tidal wetlands are restored

ll 23,000 – 60,000 new transit riders each day uu Major reduction in total green house gas emissions

uu Oakland International airport is

ll Extension and improvement of Bay

protected for 4.5 feet of sea level

Trail improves pedestrian access to

rise and local flooding from heavy

the waterfront and its parks

rain events uu Total bird strike events are reduced ll District heating and cooling systems implemented

at

Alameda

Point,

Howard Terminal, and the Coliseum uu Sets

precedent

for

future

redevelopment projects in the Bay and across the country ll 25 miles of public recreation trails established uu Expanded Bay Trail buffers shoreline habitat from development uu Interpretive signs and accessible viewpoints

improve

local

knowledge of the East Bay’s unique climate, culture, and economy uu Public access to the waterfront is restored 116

density

hubs reduces private automobile

plan’s completion in 2050. Although these

interrelated and play a crucial role in the

uu Increased

ENDNOTES 5. California Department of Finance, “Demographic Research - California Department of Finance.” Sacramento, CA, 2015. <http:// www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/dru/ index.php>.

6. American Fact Finder, U.S. Census Bureau, “2000 to 2010 Economic and Social Characteristics of US and Bay Area.” 2011.

7. Ibid.

8. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, “Vital Signs 2015 – Seaport Activity.” San Francisco, CA, 2015. <http://www.vitalsigns. mtc.ca.gov/seaport-activity> 9. American Fact Finder, U.S. Census Bureau, “2000 to 2010 Economic and Social Characteristics of US and Bay Area.” 2011.

10. Association of Bay Area Governments, “Projections 2009.” <http://www.abag.ca.gov>.

11. “The Planning History of Oakland California.” <http://oaklandplanninghistory.weebly. com>.

12. City of Oakland, “City of Oakland Historic Preservation: An Element of the Oakland General Plan,” p. 6. Oakland, CA, 1998.

13. “The Planning History of Oakland California.”

14. City of Oakland, “City of Oakland Historic Preservation,” p. 9.

15. “The Planning History of Oakland California.”

16. Ibid.

17. City of Oakland Community and Economic Development Agency, “Envision Oakland: City of Oakland General Plan, Land Use and Transportation Element,” p. 2-5. Oakland, CA, 1998.

18. American Fact Finder, U.S. Census Bureau, “2013 American Communities Survey: Economic and Social Characteristics of the City of Oakland.” 2014.

19. City of Alameda, “Charter of the City of Alameda, California.” p. 39. Alameda, CA, 2002. <http://alamedaca.gov/sites/default/files/ document-files/files-inserted/2012_alameda_city_charter_0.pdf> 20. American Fact Finder, U.S. Census Bureau, “2013 American Communities Survey: Economic and Social Characteristics of the City of Alameda.” 2014.

118

21. California Tax Data, “California Property Tax Information: Proposition 13.” 2015. <http:// www.californiataxdata.com/pdf/Prop13.pdf> 22. U.S. News & World Report, “Alameda City Unified,” 2015. <http://www.usnews. com/education/best-high-schools/california/districts/alameda-city-unf/alameda-high-school-1718> 23. The Alameda Museum, “Alameda History,” 2015. <http://www.alamedamuseum.org/ news-and-resources/history/> 24. City of Oakland. 2012). Energy and Climate Action Plan.

25. Mckenna, Phil. (October 13, 2015). California Faces a Future of Droughts Alternating with Floods. Inside Climate News. Web. http:// insideclimatenews.org/news/22102015/ california-faces-future-drought-alternating-floods-el-nino 26. Port of Oakland. (2015). Meritime Operations at a Glance. Web. http://www.portofoakland. com/maritime/operations.aspx 27. San Francisco Bay Wildlife. (2015). Web. http://www.sfbaywildlife.info/species/endangered.htm 28. Callaway, John, V. Thomas Parker, Michael C. Vassey, Lisa M. Schile, and Ellen R. Herbert.

(December 2011). Tidal Wetland Restoration in the San Francisco Bay: Historic and Current Issues. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science. Vol 9 (3) 29. Bay-Friendly Coalition. (2015). 7 Principles of Bay-Friendly Landscaping and Gardening.

Web. http://www.bayfriendlycoalition.org/ principles.shtml 30. Ledbetter, John and John Gray. (October 24, 2002). Assessing Bird Strike Hazards in Coastal Wetlands through Filed Experiments.

Proceedings of the 4 Bird Strike Committee – USA-Canada Meeting, Sacramento, CA. 31. City of Alameda. (2008). Alameda Master Street Tree Plan.

32. Urban Releaf. (2015). History and Mission.

Web. http://www.urbanreleaf.org/about/history-mission 33. San Francisco Bay Trail. (2015). Overview.

Web. http://www.baytrail.org/aboutus.html 34. Population Data. ACS 2013 5-Year Estimates

35. Employment Data. ACS 2013 5-Year Estimates 36. “Countywide Travel Demand Model.” Congestion Management Program. Alameda County Transportation Commission, 2012. Web. 16 Oct. 2015. <http://www.alamedactc.org/ app_pages/view/8079>.

37. Capacity information on BART 38. BART Sustainable Communities Operations Analysis. (2013, June 1). Retrieved December 16, 2015, from http://www.bart.gov/sites/ default/files/docs/BART SCOA Final Report June 2013.pdf 39. Rannells, N., & Stahnke, K. (2014, June 14). Summary of Emergency Prepardness Activities. Retrieved December 16, 2015, from https://sanfranciscobayferry.com/sites/ default/files/weta/publications/Summary2013EmergencyPreparednessResponseActivities.pdf 40. Ferry Policy and Planning in New York City. (n.d.). Retrieved December 16, 2015, from http://www.nycedc.com/sites/default/files/ filemanager/Resources/Studies/NYCEDC_Ferry_White_Paper.pdf 41. Passenger Only Ferry Cost Analysis. (2006, January 5). Retrieved December 16, 2015, from http://leg.wa.gov/JTC/Documents/POFCostAnalysis.pdf 42. Ferry Policy and Planning in New York City. (n.d.). Retrieved December 16, 2015, from http://www.nycedc.com/sites/default/files/ filemanager/Resources/Studies/NYCEDC_Ferry_White_Paper.pdf 43. “Caltrans GIS Data.” BART Routes and Stations. Caltrans, 12 Oct. 2013. Web. Sept.

2015. <http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/gis/ datalibrary/Metadata/BART_13.html> 44. “Location of Oakland, California.” Google Maps. N.p., n.d. Web. Aug. 2015. <https:// www.google.com/maps/place/Oakland,+CA/@37.7921498,-122.36888,11z/ data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x80857d8b28aaed03:0x71b415d535759367>.

45. “Central Bay Operations and Maintenance Facility | San Francisco Bay Ferry.” Central Bay Operations and Maintenance Facility | San Francisco Bay Ferry. Water Emergency Transportation Authority, 2015. Web. Sept.

2015. <https://sanfranciscobayferry.com/ node/327>.

46. Alameda Point Transportation Strategy. Rep. Fehr & Peers San Francisco Office, Nov. 2005.

Web. Sept. 2015. <http://www.alameda-point.com/resources/pdf/tswebdec05. pdf>.

47. Kim, Curtiss. “BART Planners Look For Solutions To Station Overcrowding With Study.”

CBS San Francisco. CBS SF Bay Area, n.d.

Web. Sept.-Oct. 2015. <http://sanfrancisco. cbslocal.com/2014/10/16/bart-plannerslooking-for-solutions-for-station-overcrowding-with-study/>.

48. Alameda Point Transportation Strategy. Rep. Fehr & Peers San Francisco Office, Nov. 2005.

Web. Sept. 2015. <http://www.alameda-point.com/resources/pdf/tswebdec05. pdf>.

49.

50.

51. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration And U.S. Department Of Transportation.

“Fact Sheet: Improving Safety and Mobility Through Connected Vehicle Technology.” U.S. Department of Transportation (n.d.): n. pag.

Intelligent Transportation Systems. 2011.

Web. Oct. 2015. <http://www.its.dot.gov/ safety_pilot/pdf/safetypilot_nhtsa_factsheet. pdf>.

52. United States, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Housing Trends; 5-year ACS 2013.

53. United States, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Housing Trends; 5-year ACS 2013.

54. United States, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 5-year ACS 2013.

55. United States, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 5-year ACS 2013.

56. UCLA Policy and Health Research, Physical Activity, Park Access and Park Use among California Adolescents March 2013, http:// healthpolicy.ucla.edu/publications/Documents/PDF/parkaccesspb-mar2013.pdf 57. United States, Census Bureau, Poverty Status in the Last 12 Months (5-year American Community Survey: 2013).

58. United States, Census Bureau, Employment

Status (5-year American Community Survey: 2013).

59. United States, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services: NAICS 54.

75. Cushman & Wakefield. Oakland Office Snapshot 2015 Q3. 2015.

76. Measuring the Impact of Parks on Property Values , Sarah Nicholls, Ph.D.

60. Cushman & Wakefield, Oakland Office Snapshot 2015 Q3 (2015).

61. Cushman & Wakefield, Oakland Industrial Snapshot 2015 Q3 (2015).

62. Cushman & Wakefield, Oakland Office Snapshot 2015 Q3 (2015).

63. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., Market Study: Economic Development Strategy for Alameda Point (April 2012).

64. United States, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Health Care and Social Assistance: NAICS 62.

65. California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, Healthcare Atlas: Primary Care Shortage Area (2015).

66. Alameda Point Info, VA Clinic (2014).

67. United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Biological Laboratory Technologists and Technicians (2015).

68. Based on MultiSpace concept by Reid Architects; from Beadle, K., Gibb, A., Austin, S., Fuster, A. & Madden, P.( 2008) “Adaptable Futures: Sustainable aspects of Adaptable Buildings”, ARCOM. 69. California Environmental Protection Agency, Howard Terminal/Port of Oakland - State Announces Public Comment on Site Cleanup (Department of Toxic Substances Control, Jan 2002) 70. Adriel Taquechel and Noah Arroyo, Counting Costs for S.F. Workforce Development Programs (San Francisco Public Press, Dec 20 2013).

71. Cushman & Wakefield. Oakland Industrial Snapshot 2015 Q3. 2015.

72. Biocube San Jose, http://sanjosebiocube. com/.

73. 75 California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. Healthcare Atlas: Primary Care Shortage Area. 2015.

74. Cushman & Wakefield. Oakland Office Snapshot 2015 Q3. 2015.

119