Chapter 4, Comparison of Options, Continued

Table of Contents

• 4.4 Environmental Constraints
• 4.5 Equity Considerations

4.4 Environmental Constraints

Like many California cities, Oakland is exposed to a range of environmental hazards, including wildfires, sea level rise, earthquakes, and more. Key hazard areas for wildfire, sea level rise and flooding, and seismic hazards are illustrated in Figure 4-2 and described briefly below. Maps for air quality and noise can be found in the Oakland GPU Map Atlas, available at this link: https://www.oaklandca.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/planning-amp-building/documents/sp/gp/map-atlas_100824.pdf. Comparison tables also summarize the number of homes and jobs located within each of these constrained areas.

Figure 4-2: Environmental Constraints(PDF, 4MB)

Sea Level Rise and Flooding

Flood hazards are mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as part of the National Flood Insurance Program. The 100-year Flood Zone has a 1 percent annual chance flood risk, and 500-year Flood Zone has a 0.2 percent annual chance flood risk. The primary areas of flooding in Oakland are along the shoreline of the San Francisco Bay, Oakland Estuary, and San Leandro Bay. There is also flooding associated with Lake Merritt and Glen Echo Creek, as well as Arroyo Viejo, Lion, Sausal, and Peralta creeks. The areas near these bodies of water are at the most risk of being impacted during flood events. Most of the City’s developed shoreline is not within the current 100-year Flood Zone, except the north part of the Oakland International Airport. No growth areas are located in areas within the current 100-year Flood Zone.

As a community that shares its boundaries with the San Francisco Bay, Oakland is vulnerable to the effects of rising sea levels. The latest guidance from the Ocean Protection Council (2024)—a statewide projection updated every five years using the best available science—states that the most likely sea level rise projection at 2100 is about 3.1 feet (37.2 inches). To assess the impact of this sea level rise on the Options, Oakland’s potential 100-year coastal flood zone with 36 inches of sea level rise was estimated using flood maps from BCDC’s 2017 Adapting to Rising Tides project. The results of intersecting the jobs and housing distributions with the potential 100-year flood hazard zone with 36 inches of sea level rise are shown in Table 4-6. Note: BCDC’s maps account for local tide gauge and storm surge modeling, and are therefore more precise for assessing local risk than the Ocean Protection Council’s statewide projections. Maps and data that incorporate updated projections from the Ocean Protection Council are in the process of being produced by BCDC for local use, but were not ready at the time this report was drafted. As this data becomes available, the City will incorporate it into the GPU.

Table 4-6: New Jobs and Housing Units in the Potential 100-Year Flood Hazard Zone with 36 Inches of Sea Level Rise

Source: Data provided by Dyett & Bhatia in 2025. Table compiles by Environmental Science Associates in 2025.

The greatest difference in the number of new jobs located in the potential flood hazard zone with sea level rise is between Options A and B, with Option B locating 3,400 more jobs in the potential flood hazard zone, representing 15 percent more than Option A. For housing, Option A would locate 700 more units in the potential flood hazard zone, or five percent more, than Option B. Option C falls between the two in terms of both jobs and housing located in the potential flood hazard zone. Overall, Option A would locate the most housing in the potential flood hazard zone with projected sea level rise, while Option B would locate the most jobs in areas that could potentially flood due to sea level rise.

The flood hazard zone used in this analysis is the intermediate scenario of potential future flood hazard for the year 2100. Based on the most up-to-date science from the California Sea Level Rise Guidance (2024), future sea level rise projections for the year 2100 include three scenarios: 3.1 ft (2100 Intermediate), 4.9 ft (Intermediate-High), and 6.6 ft (High). These other scenarios will be modeled as part of Preferred Plan analysis. Adaptation planning to increase the City’s resilience to these potential levels of sea level rise, as well as recommendations and guidance, will be developed through the City’s Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan (RSAP), which is required by State law to be completed by no later than January 1, 2034. The City is currently planning adaptation measures along its shoreline which would likely reduce the inland extent of coastal flood hazards. In addition, new development is required to place buildings’ finished floors above the 100-year base flood elevation, so this would further limit flooding potential within the buildings themselves, even if the shoreline protection measures have not been built or if they fail. Other policy solutions related to building design and shoreline adaptation can greatly reduce risk and will be explored later in the planning process.

Geologic Hazards

Oakland is located between two known active fault zones. Due to Oakland’s proximity to the Hayward and San Andreas fault zones, certain parts of the City are at risk of earthquake-induced hazards, including ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides. Buildings designed for human occupancy cannot be constructed across the surface trace of the faults.

Table 4-7 summarizes the number of new housing units within each Option that would be exposed to different geologic hazards. Option A results in fewer jobs and slightly more housing being exposed to the fault zones in some of the new centers. Differences in landslide risk across Options are minimal, though Option A results in slightly more housing and jobs exposed. Option C would result in the most development in a liquefaction zone because of its focus of new growth as part of the new “Midtown” area. However, federal, state, and local regulations require that any new development built in a hazard zone must study, design, and construct new buildings so that these risks are reduced.

Table 4-8: Exposure to PM2.5 Concentrations by Option

Wildfire

Much of the fire hazard that Oakland faces is due to the proximity of dense, residential communities and urban areas to areas with high fire risk due to steep slopes, vegetation that can act as fuel for fires, seasonal winds which can spread fire, and increased heat due to climate change. Portions of the Oakland Hills fall within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), as designated by the City. This designation is based on the fuel load, weather, and terrain factors that influence fire likelihood and fire behavior. Larger fires in this ecosystem should be anticipated every 10-20 years. To mitigate wildfire risk, the Options do not include any new growth outside of pipeline projects in the City of Oakland’s locally designated VHFHSZ.

Air Quality

Toxic air contaminants are air pollutants that may lead to serious illness or increased mortality, even when present in rela­tively low concentrations. The main contaminants of concern are diesel particulate matter from diesel combustion and fine particulate matter (PM_2.5), consisting of a complex mixture of solids and aerosols from combustion sources of all fuel types as well as particulates from road dust. PM_2.5 is considered by far to be the most harmful air pollutant in terms of the associated impact on public health and can result in a wide range of health effects.

Figure 6-3A of the Map Atlas shows total annual average PM_2.5 concentrations throughout the City for the year 2018 from all emissions sources within the air basin based on regional pollutant transport modeling conducted by the Bay Area Air District (BAAD). PM_2.5 concentrations in Oakland range from 6.2 μ/m³ in the Oakland Hills east of Highway 13 to 13.6 μ/m³ near Interstate 880 at 29th Avenue. PM_2.5 levels are usually higher near the sources that produce them, since these fine particles spread out and become less concentrated the farther they travel.

Table 4-8 summarizes the number of new housing units that would be exposed to different levels of annual average PM_2.5 concentrations for each Option. The same number of units under all three Options would be exposed to the lowest PM_2.5 concentration range from 6 to 8 mg/m³. Option C, which adds the greatest number of jobs and housing in areas near I-880, would expose a slightly higher number and percentage (83.4 percent) of units to the highest PM_2.5 concentrations (10 to 14 mg/m³) than Option B (80.7 percent) and Option A (80.2 percent).

Table 4-8: Exposure to PM2.5 Concentrations by Option

There are numerous federal, state, and regional regulations that have been implemented over the past 50 years to improve air quality in California and the Bay Area. The City has also undertaken several planning efforts to reduce air pollution, including community-led plans in West and East Oakland. The Environmental Justice Element contains extensive policy solutions and implementing actions to improve air quality, especially in East Oakland and West Oakland neighborhoods that are most impacted by pollution today. The Options explore strategies to improve air quality by making changes to Oakland’s industrial land use patterns and expanding options for clean transportation throughout the City.

Noise

Sound shapes the way we experience the places we live, work, play, and spend time. A pleasant sound environment can reduce stress, improve health, and enhance quality of life in the community. Noises are defined as undesirable sounds that vary widely in their scope, source, duration, and volume. The biggest source of noise in Oakland is vehicles on freeways, highways, and arterial roadways. Noise contours for the freeways and major state routes within the City were presented in Map Atlas Figure 6-6A.[1] Rail transit is also a major mobile noise source throughout Oakland, with multiple above-ground BART lines and the Amtrak/freight rail corridor that runs through the southern extent of the City. Noise contours for railways within the City were presented in Figure 6-6B. Lastly, the Oakland International Airport is also a major source of noise in its vicinity. Noise contours developed for the airport’s Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan were presented in Figure 6-6C.

The Noise Element of the current General Plan includes a chart, called the Land Use Compatibility matrix, that shows which noise levels are acceptable for different types of land uses, including noise-sensitive ones like homes and schools. The chart helps determine if a location is suitable for certain uses based on measured noise levels or noise contour maps. For example, residential uses are considered normally acceptable in ambient noise environments of up to 60 dBA (A-weighted decibels, a measure of sound loudness perceived by the human ear), conditionally acceptable in noise environments between 60 and 70 dBA, normally unacceptable in noise environments between 70 and 75 dBA and clearly unacceptable in noise environments above 75 dBA.

Consistent with the City’s Land Use Compatibility matrix, the Map Atlas presented 60, 65, 70, and 75 dBA noise contours associated with highway and rail noise and 60, 65 and 70 dBA noise contours for airport noise.[2] As shown in Figures 6-6A, 6-6B, and 6-6C, existing noise levels often exceed 65 dBA CNEL/DNL within the City. This is considered a threshold for a generally acceptable level of noise when outdoors.

Table 4-9 presents the number of new housing units that would be located within each of the noise contours under buildout of the three Options.

Table 4-9: Comparison of Options – Noise Exposure

As shown in Table 4-9, Option C would expose more new housing units, and therefore more residential receptors, to greater freeway noise levels. The percentage of units exposed to freeway noise levels exceeding 65 dBA CNEL/DNL, the acceptable outdoor noise level, would be highest for Option C. Not only would Option C introduce the highest number of receptors to the City overall, the percentage of receptors within each noise contour for freeway noise would be highest under Option C. For rail noise, Options A and C would expose more residential receptors to the highest rail noise levels (70 dBA). There are no housing units estimated to develop under the three Options within any of the noise contours mapped for the Oakland International Airport.

In an urban environment, noise is a part of everyday life, but thoughtful planning, design, and mitigation measures can minimize unwanted noise. The Options for How We Stabilize and Grow are a stage in the planning process where the community can consider noise at a high level (i.e., which types of land uses and sensitive receptors are next to one another). Specific policies related to building and roadway design or specific policy updates that can reduce noise impacts will be explored later.

Heat

Climate change is expected to cause more frequent and more severe extreme heat events. Certain parts of the City will experience heat more intensely than others. Parts of Fruitvale/South Kennedy, the Coliseum Industrial Complex, Frick/Bancroft Business area, Castlemont, Oak Knolls-Golf Links/Chabot Park, Webster, and the Oakland International Airport area are hotter than their surroundings. This is because key elements of the built environment in these areas—including paved streets, parking lots, and buildings—absorb and amplify the heat of the sun. Even after the sun goes down, these surfaces hold heat, causing high daytime temperatures to linger into the night. Additionally, human activities like driving cars and operating factories produce “waste heat” that can aggravate the problem.

Adapting Oakland’s built environment to respond to this hazard will be a key driver for maintaining the comfort and health of Oaklanders. Urban heat can be moderated by the cooling effects of trees and irrigation in urban landscapes, which have been estimated to reduce daytime summer temperatures across urbanized portions of the Bay Area by an average of 1.8°F. The Options for How We Stabilize and Grow propose new parks and open space, which can help cool neighborhoods. Policy solutions related to neighborhood design can also reduce heat intensity and will be explored later. See Appendix A for more information on Oakland’s efforts to increase tree canopy in underserved areas.

4.5 Equity Considerations

Options and EJ Communities

Option A: City of Neighborhoods

In Option A, development is decentralized across the City and focused on expanding existing commercial areas (including food options such as grocery and cafes) and green spaces to create walkable, mixed-use hubs that are designed to bring housing, services, shopping, transit access, and community life together. Eighteen neighborhood centers are earmarked for development; nine are new commercial neighborhood centers and nine are near existing commercial centers. Option A also proposes three new R&D districts: in upper West Oakland near the Emeryville border, north of Jack London (above Howard Terminal), and at the Port’s Airport Business Park. The census tracts that are within a half mile walk of Option A’s neighborhood centers are primarily in the Oakland flatlands, areas south of Highway 13 and I-580).

Equitable implementation of Option A could allow the opportunities it creates to outweigh the adverse impacts, creating “socially inclusive communities” across the Oakland flatlands with affordable housing, improved access to services, shops and recreation, healthy and active lifestyles, attractive public spaces and improved economic vitality^[6] in EJ Communities. Twelve of the 18 proposed neighborhood centers fall within or near (within a half-mile walk radius) the 37 EJ Communities named below. The 37 EJ Communities within or nearby Option A’s proposed neighborhood centers include all 12 of the most vulnerable EJ Communities (within the top 10th percentile of the composite EJ score)are in bold.

Figure 4-4: Option A in Relation to EJ Communities(PDF, 731KB)

Option B: Connected Corridors and Gateways

Option B’s primary focus is on increasing density and transit access along major corridors. It expands on existing Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and Alameda County (AC) Transit bus pathways running east/west and creates new corridors running north/south. New R & D areas in the West Oakland and Hegenberger neighborhood are proposed to attract modern, less polluting, industrial tenants.

Equitable implementation of Option B could see increased transit access in EJ Communities and increased connectivity between city neighborhoods.  The 21 EJ Communities located within or near (In or adjacent to new north/south corridors or expanded east/west corridors) Option B’s proposed higher-density development in new and existing Oakland corridors include nine of the most vulnerable EJ Communities (within the top 10th percentile of the composite EJ score) are in bold.

Figure 4-5: Option B in Relation to EJ Communities(PDF, 719KB)

Option C: Midtown Waterfront District

Option C creates a new center of gravity, “Midtown,” in Central East Oakland around Fruitvale, extending from Foothill Blvd to the Central Estuary shoreline from 14th to High Streets, or possibly extending all the way to connect with Downtown along the shoreline.      The waterfront area would become a new neighborhood about the size of Downtown where people can live, work, and spend time outdoors. A large R&D hub would border Midtown. Option C’s growth and change area is centered along the Oakland shoreline, historically used for industrial purposes with minimal reinvestment since then. Redevelopment of the predominantly industrial waterfront and around International Boulevard would support new residential, commercial, and community uses, including public access to the waterfront. Option C would densify the shoreline area with cleaner uses and leave heavier industrial sites where they are more appropriate.  Policy guidance would seek to preserve existing small businesses and artist live/work spaces in this region.

Equitable implementation of Option C could see significant changes centered in East Oakland that increase local economic prosperity while maintaining options for residents of the EJ Communities it lies within.      Of the 48 EJ Communities, Option C’s centralized growth falls within or near (Using a half-mile radius around existing neighborhood centers, proposed transit station, additional R&D center in Midtown area⁾ 12 EJ communities, including eight of the most vulnerable EJ Communities (within the top 10th percentile of the composite EJ score are in bold.

Figure 4-6: Option C in Relation to EJ Communities(PDF, 656KB)

Shared Equity Considerations

The three Options for How We Stabilize and Grow give rise to a set of shared equity considerations, which aim to assess both the intended and unintended consequences of policy decisions. The unintended consequences of policy can be positive, negative, or simply different from the original goals and can arise at any stage of the policy process from design to implementation. Equitable policies are built on a thorough assessment of potential outcomes, including likely implementation challenges, in order to improve policy effectiveness.

Potential Equity Opportunities

All three growth Options propose development and infrastructure investments in a significant number of EJ Communities, potentially leading to meaningful opportunities in the following equity topic areas. The headlines are listed below; more discussion on each opportunity is included in the full Equity Considerations located in Appendix C.

Potential Barriers to Equity

There are several aspects of the Options for How We Stabilize and Grow that have the potential to increase existing equity gaps. In addition, barriers to equity can hinder all of the opportunities listed above from benefiting EJ Communities. It is important to note that the harms discussed are not the intended results of the proposed Options but nonetheless are reasonably likely to occur based on prior cases and existing barriers to equity. Furthermore, the potential barriers to equity do not mean that certain policies are inherently “bad,” but rather that thoughtful data-based and results-based accountability will be needed. Itwill be crucial for the City to evaluate the equity impacts of new developments and infrastructure investments on an ongoing basis and adjust policies and strategies accordingly. The headlines are listed below; more discussion on each barrier to equity is included in the full Equity Considerations located in Appendix C.

Due to their differing approaches to growth, each Option also gives rise to a unique set of considerations, for each of the equity consideration categories described above: Community Resilience, Displacement Avoidance, Transportation, Environment, Open Space and Recreation, and Climate Resilience. Key highlights are summarized in Table 4-15. For each category, the table also includes recommendations for all Options to consider as policies are developed later on in the process. A full description of the unique equity considerations for each Option is included in Appendix C.

 Table 4-15: Comparison of Equity Considerations Across Growth Options

Previous Chapter

Back to Top

Return to Options Overview Page

Footnotes