Physical Description: The Bay Area Metropolitan Region is often defined by the three main cities that ring San Francisco Bay (San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose), but with a land area of approximately 7,400 square miles, the region is much more diverse. Coastal mountains in Marin and San Mateo Counties define a green edge along the Pacific Ocean. The East Bay Hills create a natural divide between inner Bay Area cities and the newer suburban communities arrayed around the base of Mt. Diablo. A series of parallel valleys in Sonoma, Napa, and Solano Counties provide micro-climates perfect for vineyards, farms, and ranches. To the south, the flatlands at the base of the Bay provide the setting for Silicon Valley, the region's hot economic center. And, the Sacramento River is an eco-system in itself which feeds the Bay from the Sierra Mountains.
Historical Development Patterns: The Bay Area's geography has shaped our development, our economy, and our way of life. The emergence of San Francisco as the Gold Rush port city laid the groundwork for its becoming the center of the region. Oakland was selected as the terminus for the transcontinental railroad which spurred that city's growth and status as the region's second major city. San Jose began as a Spanish pueblo and ultimately has grown to become the region's largest city. Meanwhile, a number of settlements, such as Petaluma, Livermore, and Pittsburgh, emerged as small ports, supply towns, and links between agricultural areas and big cities. Connected by the bay and rivers, these settlements established a region of interdependent yet separate towns, spread out over a large land area.
Since World War II, the Bay Area's population has burgeoned, from about 2 million after World War II to nearly 6.5 million in 1995, making this the fifth most populous metropolitan region in the country. Looking at the overall regional population distribution, the traditional population centers of San Francisco and Oakland comprise a steadily decreasing share. Together these two cities made up about half the regional total prior to 1950, declining to 30% in 1960, and to 18% in 1990. In contrast, population in San Jose has increased rapidly, from roughly 95,000 in 1950 to over 780,000 in 1990. Future population growth is expected to continue to decentralize, as the outer areas of the region continue to develop. By 2015, San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose combined will account for less than 13% of new growth. The outer reaches of Contra Costa, Santa Clara, and Alameda counties will accept over 45% of new growth. However, the highest rates of growth will occur in the outer parts of the region in Solano (40%), Contra Costa (32%), and Sonoma (31%).
The natural boundaries of the Bay Area have, until recently, kept development relatively compact. But since World War II and the switch in transportation from train and streetcar to private automobile, we have engaged in rapid suburbanization. As a result, we have encroached deeper into the far reaches of the region, consuming wildlife habitat, natural landscape, and farmland. At the same time, many city core areas have suffered, leading to concentrations of poverty and neglect and the waste of massive investment in our cities.
Metropolitan Government Structures: The administrative boundaries of the region are defined by nine counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties). They encompass 100 cities ranging in size from 1 square mile (Belvedere and Emeryville) to 170 square miles (San Jose); and in population from just over 1,000 (Colma) to over 780,000 (San Jose).
Five agencies address regional planning issues: the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) which provides demographic forecasts and studies regional planning issues for its member cities and counties; the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) which prepares and adopts the Regional Transportation Plan and allocates federal and state transportation funding; the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) which monitors and regulates air quality for the region; the Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board (BARWQCB) which addresses storm water management issues throughout the region; and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) which regulates development of lands along the Bay.
Schools, transit, water, sewer, waste, ports, coastal lands, parks, and open space are governed by countless city, sub-regional, and state agencies. The fragmented nature of government structures and decision-making in the Bay Area led in 1989 to the organization of the Bay Vision 2020 Commission. This consortium of government, community, and business leaders recommended that a new regional agency be established with the responsibility for land use, transportation, and air quality planning and funding for the Bay Area. However, the proposal was defeated in the State legislature, primarily due to concerns that local control would be compromised.
Economy: The Bay Area economy is currently strong, diverse, and built on a solid foundation of excellent research institutions and higher educational resources. Trade to Pacific Rim countries is among the highest in the U.S. And, the region has more fast-growing private companies than any comparative region and attracts 35% of the venture capital invested in the U.S., although it represents only 2% of the population.
The Bay Area has emerged from the longest and most painful recession of the last 25 years as a leading-edge, knowledge-based economy. Renowned as the birthplace and worldwide center of high technology, and acclaimed as the incubator of biotechnology -the Bay Area has more pioneering computer, electronics, and biotech firms than any other region. And, more recently, the region has been recognized as one of the nation's leading centers for multimedia and telecommunications. Other key local industries include: business services, retail trade, movie and television production, banking and finance, environmental technology, and tourism.
During the Bay Area recession of 1990 to 1995, nearly 80,000 jobs disappeared, in part as defense contracts withered and military bases began to close. But by early 1996, the Bay Area had more than recovered those jobs and unemployment stood at slightly below the national average of 5.6% and well below the unemployment rates of Los Angeles and New York. Exports have contributed significantly to net job generation. In the Bay Area, a high percentage of these exports are high-technology products, with Asia a significant destination. Exports have increased by 53 percent in the Bay Area since 1992, compared to 38 percent for the nation as a whole.
Ecology: As the largest body of water on the west coast where land and water meet, the San Francisco Bay-Delta and estuary is fed by 34 distinct watersheds that wind through the region's communities. The sheer size of the bay makes its troubles difficult to perceive. Of the major threats to its health, non-point source pollution from storm water run-off is the worst. In some years upstream diversions of water from its natural paths keep as much as half the fresh water draining from the Sierra range from reaching the bay. Alterations to national watercourses and wetlands have significantly reduced natural habitat. And, by removing the waterfront from public access through privatization and freeway construction, the region's residents are somewhat cut off from this marvelous natural resource. The new San Francisco Embarcadero is a wonderful counterpoint to this, but took the 1989 earthquake to accomplish.
Climate is one of the most attractive qualities of the Bay Area. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has been a national leader in developing emission control strategies that counter air pollution from industrial sources and vehicles. A local group, the Bay Area Clean Air Partnership, has also been formed to work with industry and employers. Due to steadily declining air pollution levels from 1990 to 1994, the Bay Area became the largest metropolitan area in the nation to attain federal air quality standards. However, as population and economic growth continue, it will be a challenge to sustain regional air quality. Even as new federal air quality standards are proposed, the Bay Area's attainment status is being reviewed by the EPA because current federal standards were exceeded in 1995-96.
Societal Change: Before the end of the decade, the majority of California's population will consist of people of color -Asian Americans, Latinos, Arab Americans, Native Americans, African Americans, and others. The next half century will be a transition from a white majority to a far more diverse majority. The face of this new majority is being pre-viewed in the Bay Area. Over the last 20 years, over 1 million people have moved to the region -and they are profoundly altering its racial composition.
Asian Americans and Latinos account for the most significant changes in the Bay Area between 1980 and 1990, with their populations growing by just over 100% and 42% respectively. In some communities, their numbers prove even more dramatic. Oakland's Asian American population has increased close to 200%, while the Latino community grew by 153%. In Contra Costa County, the ranks of Asian Americans swelled by 156% and Latinos increased their numbers 62%. Though the Bay Area is a gateway city for immigration, the majority of growth in non-white communities was the result of natural births and deaths, not immigration. For example, since 1990, natural increase accounted for 85% of the annual Latino population increase.
By most accounts, the region's quality of life is in some jeopardy. To maintain the qualities that make the Bay Area special, it will be necessary for our region to address a whole range of issues: the sustenance of our economy; the housing of our increasingly diverse population; the employment of all in our community; the education of our youth; the movement of people and goods; the wiser use of our land; the improvement of our physical environment; and the development of a civility -a sense of responsibility and of sharing -among Bay Area residents.
Key defining trends that affect sustainability of our region are summarized below.
Strong Economy/Increasing Economic Divide: As mentioned above, our economy is currently strong and expanding. However, even with a growing economy and increasing job generation, a major concern remains about how to bring into the workforce segments of the population that have been historically under-represented or are not able to secure employment today. This concern looms even larger with the prospect of welfare reform and an additional 51,000 jobs that are being lost as part of the military base closures. Efforts are underway to implement a strategy to make the transition to civilian activities, but concern remains about developing jobs that match the education and skills of those displaced workers. Forty percent of these jobs were held by people of color. Already disadvantaged communities in central cities, such as Oakland, Alameda, San Francisco, and Vallejo, are being further affected by the substantial loss of entry-level, low-skill jobs.
As employment and residential patterns have changed, a growing mismatch between the location of employment centers and residential patterns for the workforce is emerging. For example, skilled tradespeople living near former military facilities are not finding new, readily accessible opportunities that use their talents. Wage earners in Silicon Valley say they would pay more for smaller residences that were more accessible to their jobs, but few communities in this part of the region are providing this type of housing. While some office jobs have located the suburbs to take advantage of larger and cheaper sites and a well-educated low-cost workforce, they have not been replaced in the more-accessible urban core. To compound these problems, few alternative transportation options are available from urban core areas to these burgeoning job centers. This effectively excludes many people in disadvantaged communities from the workforce due to the lack of dependable public transportation.
Lack of Affordable Housing: The cost of housing in the Bay Area reflects, in part, the quality of life and the wealth of the region. Nevertheless, median home prices are very high compared to all metropolitan areas and, according to many major employers, represent an impediment to the attractiveness of the region. Though home prices remained flat over the past few years, they are again on the rise and increasingly out of reach for average wage earners. For example, in 1995, 64% of all households in the U.S. could afford to buy a home, compared to only 41% of households in the San Jose metropolitan area and only 21% in San Francisco. In 1995, average rents in the region were 50% higher than the national average; historically low vacancy rates in the past year are causing prices to skyrocket. One additional result of high housing costs is that discretionary income is low compared to other regions.
A particular concern is the lack of willingness of many communities to accept new affordable housing. This is compounded by the increasing demand for entry-level ownership housing and extended-family housing by the growing component of Asian American and Latino families. With a few exceptions, location efficient neighborhoods are overlooked as prime locations for new housing. Despite Bay Area-based studies that show that residents within walking distance of transit are at least 5 times more likely to ride transit than those who are further away, few cities have supported infill development around transit networks. As a result, affordable family housing is being pushed to the very outer reaches of the Bay Area and even into adjoining San Joaquin Valley. These sprawling development patterns are exacerbating the region's transportation and air quality problems.
Rising Traffic Congestion/Diminishing Transit Service: For 10 of the past 15 years the Bay Area Poll has found traffic congestion as one of the top three issues of concern by the region's residents -ranked top priority from 1983-91 and returning to that spot in 1996. To voice their concerns, hundreds of people attended three recent town meetings jointly sponsored by the Chronicle, KRON, and KQED focused on transportation issues. Letters to local papers citing frustration about growing gridlock are common. the public is increasingly suggesting expanding the range of available transportation options and considering land use patterns that make walking and bicycling easier.
Public concern about transportation issues is justified. Between 1965 and 1990 the number of vehicle miles driven within the region increased 156%, much faster than the population's 44% increase during that period. The number of congested directional miles throughout the region now totals more than 268, an increase of 29% since 1994; daily vehicle hours lost due to delay total more than 68,000. At the same time, some transit agencies, like AC Transit, are cutting service due to fiscal constraints. The lack of transportation options is one reason cited by major employers who have moved away from the region.
Crisis in Public Education: The state of public education in California, from the kindergarten to twelfth grade is poor and deteriorating in all areas, including writing, reading, and mathematics. Fourth grade reading proficiency in California ranks lower that of any of the comparative states. And, while the Bay Area is performing slightly above the California average, educational performance still poses a serious problem for the region. There is some indication that underinvestment accounts for part of the problem. Educational spending in the Bay Area is below the national average and well below that of several comparative regions. For example, New York was spending $8,608 per pupil in the 1992-93 school year, compared to $5,281 spent per pupil in the Bay Area. In addition, student-teacher ratios are higher than the national average and other comparable regions. Though recent state efforts to reduce class sizes in grades 1 through 3 have been implemented, the results on student achievement have yet to be measured.
The quality of public education also varies within the region between affluent districts and more disadvantaged communities. While the State allocates a uniform amount of funds per pupil to each local district, more affluent communities are able to enrich school budgets through extracurricular fundraising by parents and local businesses. In addition, districts with more recent immigrants are strapped with the additional cost of providing special reading and language programs. This disparity provides a strong incentive for families to move away the core communities in the region, where incomes are generally lower, thus fueling growth in outlying areas.
The Natural Environment - Our Greatest and Most Threatened Asset: Access to nature and the quality of our environment is a key factor in the region's livability and economic vitality. Thanks to the successful conservation work by a number of local institutions, a great deal of our nature remains. A total of 3.8 million acres of protected open lands surround the 750,000 acres of urban development. Environmental laws have helped to end filling of the Bay and wetlands with development. Legislation has also made the bay cleaner and protected endangered species. The San Francisco Estuary Project's 1993 Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the Bay-Delta ecosystem provides hope that often-warring parties can come to the table and forge an agenda serving many interests.
Only continuing action can protect greenspaces from sprawling development and reduce the pollution of the bay and estuary. Greenbelt Alliance calculates that close to 600,000 acres within the region will be developed over the next 30 years under current plans. At present, 30,000 acres of farmland are lost to development every two years. In response, some communities are enacting physical limits to growth, such as Healdsburg, Santa Rosa, and Rhonert Park in Sonoma County, the City of San Jose, and Contra Costa County. In other parts of the region, efforts are underway to support sustainable local agriculture so that farming can remain a viable use of the land. Urban Ecology has identified six areas threatened by either development or pollution: the San Jose/Morgan Hill/Gilroy Corridor; Antioch/Brentwood Corridor; Healdsburg/Santa Rosa/Rhonert Park Corridor; Suisun Bay and Marsh; the South Bay; and the North Bay Wetlands.
Other issues that affect the long-term environmental health of the region as it continues to growth include: waste reduction and recycling, energy conservation, water conservation and recycling, maintaining air quality, and seismic preparedness.
Class, Race, and Equity Issues: Though the Bay Area is one of the most racially and economically diverse regions in the country, class and race disparities are increasing. According to ABAG, the proportion of minority and low-income families is much higher in inner-ring and older suburban Bay Area communities, than in the outer suburbs (with the exception of San Jose). This is not just due to immigration, but also a result of a complex pattern of white and affluent families moving to outer suburbs in response to declining public school quality, the high cost of housing in core areas, and the decentralization of some jobs to suburban locations. Another distinction between urban and suburban areas is the level of disparity within communities that may lead to tensions. In major cities like San Francisco and Oakland, affluent and poor neighborhoods are adjacent to one another; while suburban and rural communities tend to be more homogeneous.
Challenges and Opportunities: These are substantial challenges. But the Bay Area has historically been a model of innovative problem-solving, when it comes to preserving our quality of life. New regional coalitions are beginning to form to address critical problems. They're forming around sub-regional issues, such as in the Tri-Valley where multiple jurisdictions are working together to address rapid suburban growth, open space preservation, continued farmland viability, water and sewer issues, and transportation; or in Marin and Sonoma Counties to prepare a sub-regional transportation plan that looks at a range of options, including new land use patterns. Coalitions are also forming around topical matters, such as the Santa Clara Valley Housing Action Coalition which aims to increase the supply of affordable, infill housing in Silicon Valley; the Surface Transportation Policy Project which is forming a coalition to discuss regional land use and transportation patterns; and Sustainable San Francisco, Urban Ecology, and other local groups are working to define sustainability priorities for our region and raise the public's awareness of the issues. It seems that a new ethic of working together is emerging in response to the challenges the region is facing. In fact, this coalition-building approach may be a more effective model because it brings together both public and private interests, each with a unique and important role is solving our problems.
However, creating a sustainable region will not come about simply by aggregating individual or sub-regional efforts. We need to develop a better appreciation for our common concerns. Our challenges are to:
Goals and Strategies: As mentioned above, many efforts are underway
that set goals and adopt strategies that follow the spirit of the President's
Council on Sustainable Development's goals for sustainable regions. The task is
now to bring these disparate efforts together and formulate a common set of
principles to guide activities in the region. This will be the job of the Bay
Area Alliance for Sustainable Development, if formulated.
One set of sustainable development principles that has been adopted by a local group is that of Urban Ecology, Inc. as stated in their Blueprint for a Sustainable Bay Area, a project funded by The James Irvine Foundation. This, in conjunction with the goals established by the President's Council on Sustainable Development, may serve as a starting point for our future discussions. An extract of the President's Council's goals are appended to this document; Urban Ecology's Blueprint is included in the briefing packet.
The Metropolitan Initiative offers the possibility that the federal government could become a partner in promoting sustainable regional growth. This will entail focused leadership, responsive action, and active involvement in local efforts. A framework for the federal role is provided below.
The Federal Role: The federal role should be supportive, flexible, and collaborative; not top-down, regulatory focused. It should build on efforts already underway by regional and local groups and act as a leader where local efforts are not sufficient. Most importantly, federal agencies should work together, across department lines, much as many of us are working to build non-traditional working alliances at a local and regional level.
Federal agencies can assist the region in the following ways:
The following paragraphs highlight activities already underway in the region and suggest ways federal agencies can assist regional collaboration in the Bay Area Metropolitan Region.
Job and Market Development: BAYTRADE, a program managed by the Bay Area Economic Forum, is an excellent model for federal-state-local and public-private partnering. With a $2.6 million dollar investment from the Department of Commerce and technical assistance from California's Trade and Commerce Agency, BAYTRADE was created to expand export opportunities for local companies. Federal, state, and local agency staff work together at six service centers around the region to provide export training, marketing support, financing assistance, and networking services. This award-winning program has been instrumental in making the region the second-largest exporter in the U.S.
The Bay Area is also top innovator in developing new markets for environmentally-appropriate technologies and products. The Materials for the Future Foundation, based in Oakland, acts as an intermediary linking waste generators with manufacturers that use recycled materials. Since scrap materials and construction wastes are some of our largest exports, this group is working to keep these dollars at home and recycled into the local economy. In addition, the cities of San Francisco, Oakland, and Richmond have identified development zones for business clusters that adopt waste reduction, re-use, and recycling practices. Both of these communities have also adopted policies that promote local hiring.
But additional efforts are needed to respond to future welfare reform job demands and base closure job losses. The Bay Area Economic Forum, a partnership co-sponsored by the Bay Area Council and ABAG, has prepared a Bay Area Economic Strategic Action Plan. It sets forth a framework for maintaining economic competitiveness and addressing major challenges to the Bay Area economy: primary and secondary education performance, overall workforce preparation, lack of housing that is affordable to the workforce, increased poverty among the poor, and the need to maximize the opportunities for all communities and segments of the population to participate in the 21st century economy. The plan relies on public/private partnerships and suggests that region-wide economic development initiatives should be linked to and leveraged with the resources of the state (particularly the Trade and Commerce Agency) and the federal government (such as the U.S. Department of Commerce).
Community and Economic Development/Revitalization: A recent study of regions throughout the country by ABAG, Interdependence: The Changing Dynamic between Cities and Suburbs in the San Francisco Bay Area, finds that the most healthy regions are ones where the smaller the income gap between city and suburb, the greater the economic progress for the whole metropolitan community. A number of efforts are underway in this region to address community and economic revitalization in currently disadvantaged neighborhoods and build a regional understanding of our interdependence:
Federal collaboration is needed to develop and implement new strategies that will achieve more socioeconomically mixed development patterns at the regional scale. Direct federal assistance should help shape a package of financial and regulatory incentives that encourage local governments to think regionally, while acting locally. Potential projects that may be considered by the Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development include:
Regional Transportation Planning and Investment: MTC is set to prepare the 1998 Regional Transportation Plan. With over $381 million dollars of unfunded highway maintenance, a $433 million rehabilitation shortfall for highways and bridges, a $1.5 to $1.7 billion Bay Bridge replacement proposal, and more than $650 million in unfunded transit maintenance and rehabilitation needs, this RTP looms as one of the most challenging efforts to date for the agency. The need for creative solutions is particularly critical, given the public's increasing concerns about traffic congestion.
Fortunately, MTC has recently adopted a Land Use Policy that sets the foundation for an RTP that rewards communities that try new patterns of growth to reduce reliance on the automobile. But MTC needs support for this effort. Local communities need to be a part of the planning process so that their hopes and dreams are integrated into the plan, not usurped. Community activists need to provide constructive advise that provides direction, not just criticism. Business leaders and developers need to provide information about their requirements and be open to new ways of building. And, the federal and state agencies need to provide a leadership role, actively advocating sustainable development patterns. Specific suggestions include:
Education and Workforce Development Investments: The Bay Area School Reform Collaborative (BASRC), a coalition of Bay Area education officials, business leaders, foundations, and local elected officials, was formed in 1995. Its mission is to transform a critical mass of public schools in the region into vital places of teaching and learning for every student and adult. It will do this in two ways: by bringing together the many promising, but fragmented, reform efforts currently underway so that schools and school reformers can learn from each other. Second, the Collaborative will concentrate its funds in schools which make an explicit commitment to take on a leadership role in the region; curriculum support will focus on improving the whole school, not just a specific program. Federal support should seek to provide technical assistance to this effort, target funding resources to schools that participate, and engage in its implementation. In addition, there are several U.S. Department of Education initiatives, including school and work programs, and State Department of Education efforts that are being implemented in the Bay Area. The challenge is to elevate education and workforce preparation as a regional priority in a knowledge-based economy and to further link education reform to economic development.
As cited above, the spatial mismatch between the location of jobs and housing affordable to the workforce is a critical issue in the Bay Area. It has the potential to be further exacerbated by the impending impacts of welfare reform. However, the economic strength of the region and the growing consensus that all communities need to benefit from this prosperity in order for the region to remain competitive, present a powerful opportunity. Innovative businesses, seeking a workforce relieved from debilitating long commutes, can play an important part in building healthy local economies. So too can cites, by making room for housing that is affordable, encourages long-term investment and stability, and is located close to transit and services.
Financial Capital Access: Improving access to capital to undertake higher risk projects in disadvantaged communities is critical to a successful regional revitalization strategy. Targeted assistance to the region is needed to address capital needs for community development, microenterprises, revolving loan pools, and brownfield investment. Current efforts underway in the Bay Area specifically directed to urban revitalization include:
Tax and Regulatory Policy Streamlining: With California's Proposition 13 limiting property tax increases, Constitutional requirements mandating a 2/3 majority vote to pass tax measures, new legislation limiting the ability of local governments to take on bonding obligations, and the general assertion in the business community that the cost of doing business in the Bay Area is high, the climate for tax and regulatory reform is ripe. The California State Association of Counties has proposed a Public-Private Partnership Tax Credit Program that would reward individuals and corporation for investments in public-private projects. Eligible programs would be set by local jurisdictions and relate to key regional, state, and national goals. The program would need to be enacted at either the federal or state level.
Several organizations, including ABAG, Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network, the Bay Area Economic Forum, and the Bay Area Council have also suggested amendments to the California Constitution that they think would enhance the economic competitiveness of the state. Under their proposals, four key goals would be incorporated into the constitution: improving accountability and responsiveness of state and local governments; eliminating barriers to efficiency; increasing flexibility; and enhancing fiscal integrity. Measurable goals and objectives would also be fostered by these kinds of changes in government focus.
Other reform programs that are being discussed within the region include: Sub-Regional Tax-Base Sharing (a topic for study in Sonoma County) and Sub-Regional Open Space Impact Fees (a topic of discussion in the Tri-Valley).
Environmental Preservation and Restoration: The Bay Area has always been a national leader in innovative environmental initiatives. As mentioned earlier, a litany of efforts are already underway by various public agencies to maintain and protect the region's resources. Additional efforts are needed, however, including:
The Bay Area will continue to grow and challenge those who shape its destiny. Several questions remain: How will the region retain the quality of life we cherish? Will the economic vitality that brought us here be energized? Will we all be able to enjoy the self-respect of a job and the security of a home? Will nature be an integral part of our lives and our economy? The answers depend on two important elements: working together as a region and adopting sustainable practices.
The Metropolitan Initiative is a major opportunity to enhance our likelihood
of success. By ourselves, coalitions within the region can come together to
develop locally-appropriate solutions to the problems identified here. But our
ability to implement those solutions can be greatly improved by building
partnerships with federal agencies. Through the Metropolitan Initiative, it is
hoped that the commitment can be found to turn the possibilities described above
into actions that help build a prosperous, sustainable region.
Applied Research Center. Deliberate Disadvantage: Race Relations in the San Francisco Bay Area. April 1996.
Association of Bay Area Governments. Interdependence: The Changing Dynamic between Cities and Suburbs in the San Francisco Bay Area. November 1996.
Bay Area Clean Air Partnership. 1996 Progress Report. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bay Area Council, Santa Clara Valley Manufacturing Group, February 1997.
Bay Area Council, Inc. Bay Area Poll. December 1996.
Bay Area Council, Inc. Fifty Years of Business Leadership: Building for the Future 1945-1995. undated.
Bay Area Council, Inc. Regional Business Leadership for Progressive Public Policy. undated.
Bay Area Council, Inc. Transportation in the Bay Area: A Call to Action. undated.
Bay Area Economic Forum. Bay Area Economic Strategic Action Plan. Working Draft, undated.
Bay Area Economic Forum. California Constitution Revision and Economic Competitiveness for the Bay Area. December 1995.
Bay Area Economic Forum. The Bay Area: Leading the Transition to a Knowledge-Based Economy. August 1996.
Bay Area Partnership. Building Healthy and Self-Sufficient Communities for Economic Prosperity. February 1997.
Bay Area School Reform Collaborative. Background, Mission and Vision, Information on Membership, Information on Leadership Funding. For the 1996/97 Academic School Year.
BAYTRADE. The Greater Bay Area of Northern California: A World Marketplace. Bay Area Economic Forum, November 1996.
California State Association of Counties. Public-Private Partnership Tax Credit Program: A Partnership with the People. undated.
Dinsmore, Clement. The Metropolitan Initiative: The Federal Role in Metropolitan Cooperation. Center for Neighborhood Technology, March 1997.
Hiss, Tony. Outlining the New Metropolitan Initiative. Center for Neighborhood Technology, undated.
Latino Issues Forum. Latinos and a Sustainable California: Building a Foundation for the Future. January 1997.
Oakland General Plan Update. Envision Oakland. City of Oakland, Spring 1996.
Parzen, Julia. The Metropolitan Initiative: Innovations in Metropolitan Cooperation. Center for Neighborhood Technology, March 1997.
Regional Innovative Homelessness Initiative. Reducing Homelessness Around the Bay Area: Collaborative Plan and Appendix. undated.
Regional Innovative Homelessness Initiative. Reducing Homelessness Around the Bay Area: Section of Projects for the Bay Area Regional Homeless Continuum of Care. undated.
San Francisco Estuary Project. Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the Bay-Delta Implementation Progress 1993-1996. October 1996.
Urban Ecology, Inc. Blueprint for a Sustainable Bay Area. November 1996.
With special thanks to:
Scott Bernstein, Executive Director, Center for Neighborhood Technology
Bill
Eyring, Senior Engineer, Center for Neighborhood Technology
Thomas Hinman,
Vice President, Bay Area Council
Sunne Wright McPeak, President and CEO, Bay Area Council