As a result of the technology movement that began with the dawn of agriculture 10,000 years ago, allowing us to abandon our nomadic ways for "civilization," humankind has come to view progress as the latest technological advance. This trend has severed us more and more completely from nature. We live in heated and cooled houses, and buy our food from stores. But as acid rain, smog, the extinction of numerous plant and animal species, and the increase in certain human diseases such as cancer attest, we do not exist in a vacuum. Our choices have a drastic effect on our environs, and even if some of us do not care about the health of other species, our actions are quickly making the planet unlivable even for ourselves as well.

These problems seem vast because they require that our entire society reevaluate ingrained ideas and change behaviors. But that also makes them an intriguing challenge, because everyone-no matter what their chosen path-can contribute to the solution. Nevertheless, people in government, urban planning, law, education, and the media are in especially powerful positions to implement change. The Bay Area is at the forefront of this movement, partly because we live in such a beautiful area and people are particularly conscious of wanting to preserve it, and partly because Bay Area residents have historically been politically progressive. In the Guide to California Planning, William Fulton writes, "The Bay Area is a hot-bed of environmental activism and slow-growth sentiment that is measurably more liberal than any other part of the state" (1999, 37). As a result, there are currently three proposals for a sustainable Bay Area that fall within the urban planning arena. They are: "The Sustainability Plan for the City of San Francisco," edited by the Department of the Environment (1997); "Compact for a Sustainable Bay Area: Economy, Environment, Equity," edited by the Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development (1999); and "Blueprint for a Sustainable Bay Area," by Urban Ecology, a nonprofit group (1996). All three groups drew inspiration from a wide spectrum of political, business, ecological, and public leaders, and from other areas and cities around the world.

Of the many policy issues addressed in these three proposals, which are in various stages of completion, few have been implemented. Because all three documents are helping different people to work toward similar goals, I'll focus on a few topics common to all three proposals that I found to be particularly compelling in assessing what we need to do to preserve and maintain a healthy urban environment.

A Comparative Overview

"Blueprint," by Urban Ecology, reads as if written for the lay reader and is quite thorough; covering sustainable living in the home, in neighborhoods, in old and emerging urban centers, and throughout the region. Into these main categories fall many subcategories, including making housing more affordable; sustainable design; sustaining landscapes; green spaces, bay, and estuary; transportation and land use; jobs and industry; use of materials, water, and energy; and financing.

"Compact," edited by the Alliance, concentrates on what it labels the three E's: the economy, the environment, and social equity. It is less thorough than "Blueprint," but it covers much of the same information. The main difference is in its emphasis on the economy, which isn't surprising, considering the members of its Steering Committee. They are: the Association of Bay Area Governments, a group of local governments who are hyper aware of the reality of fighting for funding; the Bay Area Council, an advocate of business interests; PG&E; the Urban Habitat Program, which is concerned with affordable housing; and the Sierra Club, an environmental nonprofit organization. In contrast, the nonprofit group Urban Ecology has the luxury of being more idealistic.

While also quite thorough, San Francisco's "Plan" differs because it focuses on physical systems of the planet-such as air quality, climate change, ozone depletion, biodiversity, and the effect humans have on them. It also takes measured looks at energy; food and agriculture; hazardous materials; human health; parks, open spaces, and streetscapes; solid waste; environmental justice; and water and wastewater. It considers economic development to a lesser extent than the Alliance's "Compact." All three proposals noted the importance of data to guide decisions, but San Francisco's "Plan" had the most hard numbers.

Urban Areas

What is the physical makeup of a sustainable Bay Area? Multiuse, compact neighborhoods with housing, shopping, and employment all accessible by walking, biking, or public transit is vital. This concept runs counter to much modern zoning, which segregates usage into separate zones for industry, single-family homes, business, and more. But population is key to related issues like transportation. "Blueprint" says, " . . . it is generally agreed that aminimum of 10 to 15 [housing] units per acre is needed to support public transit" (Urban Ecology 1996, 33).

A way to increase population density (and reduce sprawl) is to encourage infill development. Infill is using already developed areas, either by building on vacant or redlined lots, or by putting old buildings to new uses. Building from existing structures preserves the significant resources already invested in an area. Another way to increase population density is to change zoning laws to allow rental units on single-family lots. This idea has worked well in some California cities, such as Palo Alto and Pacifica, and could also work in Santa Clara County: an area filled with single-family lots, and plagued by ever-rising housing costs and a frantic demand for housing created by the many people moving there to work in the technology industry.

Infill housing should fit into the neighborhood, so as to upset the not-in-my-backyard crowd (NIMBY) as little as possible. While successful multi-unit projects have actually had a positive impact on property values in some places, long-time residents frequently oppose them. Live-work arrangements and collaborative living offer lower-cost alternatives to single-family dwellings. They can be ideal for the thirty percent of all U.S. households that consist of a single parent with children, and the twenty-five percent of the population that lives alone (Urban Ecology 1996, 24).

Buying or renting a home that is close to work, shopping, and transit (as opposed to living on the fringes of the greenbelt) is another way to promote sustainability. People building new homes can build moderately sized units and take advantage of the climate, whether it offers cooling wind ventilation or passive solar heating. People doing remodels shouldn't forget to fix leaky windows and replace inefficient appliances. Using renewable resources to build with is equally important. Some of these include fly ash concrete, salvaged lumber, chip board, straw bale encased in cement, stucco, rice straw, gypsum, metals, and cotton and cellulose for insulation (Urban Ecology 1996, 27). The Handbook of Alternative Materials in Residential Constructions, by Richard T. Bynum and Daniel L. Rubino, is a comprehensive look at residential sustainability measures, which compares eco-friendly alternatives with traditional materials in regard to cost, time of installation, durability, ecological impact, and other considerations (1998). The book also features an index of suppliers.

Transportation

A compact urban environment makes it possible for people to cut down on or even avoid single-person car trips, which reduces air and water pollution, noise, and traffic congestion and frees up people's time and money for other things. "Car trips produce much more pollution than stationary sources [of pollution] such as power plants, oil refineries, and manufacturing facilities" (Urban Ecology 1996, 86). And, less fuel-efficient vehicles, like minivans and sports-utility vehicles, are increasing the problem.

Making transportation alternatives like BART, Caltrans, and Muni more efficient also reduces commute times and the costs of shipping and goods. With fewer people driving, the streets become safer for pedestrians and bicyclists, two groups of people who derive health benefits from their chosen methods of transportation. Other ways to promote this alternative are to close streets, or parts of streets, to private car traffic (a plan being considered for Market Street and for Kennedy Drive); to make storefronts reflect a human scale; and to add street furniture like lights, bicycle racks, and benches to city sidewalks. San Francisco's long term transportation goal is for 100 percent of trips to and within the city to be made without single-occupancy vehicles. Its "Plan" suggests allowing commuters to choose cash instead of free parking, increasing funding for public transit, lobbying for an income tax deduction for transit passes, requiring businesses that provide free parking to offer an equal benefit to customers who travel by other means, and making Muni free (1997, 102-104).

While encouraging alternative forms of transportation, it is also necessary to discourage car usage. According to "Blueprint," the Bay Bridge carries 250,000 people per day in cars and buses. In 1946 it carried twice that many on trains and in cars. During a 1946 rush hour, trains arrived in the city from the East Bay every ninety seconds. Today, the Bay Area Economic Forum estimates that local companies lose $2 billion annually while employees sit in traffic. A Caltrans official admits, "We can't build our way out of congestion" (Urban Ecology 1996, 82). So why is our culture so car-centric? As "Blueprint" points out, "Cars have historically received disproportionate subsidies like those to gasoline and road construction costs. Increased transit subsidies or decreased auto-related subsidies could level the playing field" (Urban Ecology 1996, 87). The Alliance's "Compact" vows to "support the implementation of congestion pricing and other pricing reforms that do not unduly burden vulnerable populations and use the revenue generated to improve transit alternatives and affordability" (Bay Area Alliance 1999, 14). The "Plan" suggests several disincentives to driving that more accurately reflect car ownership's costs, including higher bridge tolls, gas taxes, parking fees, and the elimination of free parking for employees. Some trips can even be avoided. For example, telecommuting and teleconferencing are viable alternatives to local and distance travel.