Jim Wunderman on Regional Stewardship & Statewide Coalition Building

A recent S.F. headline read: Jim Wunderman’s fingerprints are all over San Francisco….and just last year, the Bay Area Council celebrated your 20 years of leadership in politics and in revitalizing the region’s economy.

Reflect on your long tenure and evolving priorities.

Well, I guess my fingerprints are all over because I’ve been around a long time—I’ve had the time to be everywhere, so that’s probably why. But it’s really been a good ride. This has become the job of my life. I’ve held several interesting roles before, but I never imagined I’d spend over a generation leading one organization.

Looking back, I do feel like I’ve made a difference—though of course, there’s always more you wish you could have done. On the whole, though, I believe the Bay Area Council has reinforced the region’s sense of itself as a region. When I started, the Bay Area didn’t function that way; today, it behaves more regionally, and I think we’ve played a big part in that. If you look at the Bay Area now, it’s a very different place than when I began. 

We were calling for densification, especially around major transit hubs, but at the time, there was little to show for it. Today, you can see the product of that work across the region. It required legislation, cajoling, research, and a lot of hand-holding with cities and counties—but we’ve made progress. The question now is no longer ‘if,’ but ‘how fast.’

Organizationally, I’m proud that, as the Bay Area Council turns 80, it has grown into one of the most influential civic organizations in the state. We sponsor bills, legislators seek us out as partners, and we show up in a big way—both in Sacramento and here at home. Within the region, we’re involved in many of the public policy issues that shape daily life.

So yes, it’s been a good journey. Of course, I still wish it could be better—I’ve always been someone who focuses on the problems—but overall, I’m proud of what we’ve built and the difference we’ve made.

Elaborate on BAC’s in shaping the Bay Area’s infrastructure investment, especially transit. With BART and Muni currently facing financial distress, and the promise of the Connected Bay Area Act now awaiting the governor’s signature, what will be the BAC’s role in regional mobility moving forward?

All along, we’ve played a big role. Historically speaking, we created BART and the San Francisco Bay Ferry system, which I now Chair. We’ve grown it into one of the top ferry systems in the country. We’re also in the process of creating America’s first zero-emission ferry fleet—very purposefully. If you look at the reliability and passenger satisfaction ratings, SF Bay Ferry ranks at the very top nationally. That’s something I’m very proud of. I was appointed by Governor Newsom to chair it, and before that by Governor Brown—but it wasn’t just me. We made it an organizational priority at the Council.

We also led the effort to electrify Caltrain, the commuter line between San Jose and San Francisco. That line actually dates back to the Lincoln administration, as it was originally a freight line that became a commuter service, but there was a lot left to be desired. At the time, nobody but us thought electrification was such a great idea, but we commissioned an economic impact study, highlighted how it could eventually connect to high-speed rail, and kept pushing. 

Before long, it became the Bay Area’s top transit priority. We were able to convince Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the regional agencies, and Caltrain itself to get behind it. It was, of course, very expensive, but we got it done. In addition, BART management has been working alongside our efforts on making the system safer, with visible law enforcement presence, cleaner, and also installed new fare gates that have truly improved the rider experience.

Now, if you come to the Bay Area, you can ride a brand-new electric Caltrain. It goes faster, it’s got excellent Wi-Fi, and ridership is climbing because the service is that much better.

Jim, address the financial challenges facing transportation in every major metropolitan area—but particularly in the Bay Area.

We knew Caltrain electrification was going to be an expensive project. But as it advanced, challenges kept coming up—the timeline stretched, and when Trump became president, we had to fight to keep federal funding on track. We managed to, but costs kept escalating.

The same dynamic is true for BART to San Jose, which we’ve been very involved in. That project will ultimately get done, and when it does, people will be able to ride heavy rail virtually all the way around the Bay—that’s been our vision for decades. But the cost overruns are real, and we have to get better at managing capital projects. The public loses confidence when they don’t feel they’re getting their money’s worth.

Still, we’ve achieved a lot. We’ve improved key highway interchanges and built a managed-lane system around the Bay, funded by tolls. We raised bridge tolls to pay for major capital projects, including ferries. That early funding, going back to 2006 with Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, allowed us to scale up the ferry system. Then, Regional Measure 3 provided another big infusion.

As a result, we now have one of the nation’s top ferry networks, new BART cars, and fare gates that reduce fare evasion—making the system safer and bringing riders back. Muni is operating reliably. But the financial problem is looming. Farebox revenue once covered two-thirds of costs for BART, Caltrain, and the ferries. The pandemic wiped that out. Federal and state emergency funds filled the gap, but that money’s gone, and there’s little appetite in Sacramento to continue subsidies. Without new funding solutions, these systems will decay—and we cannot afford that.

On that note, let’s pivot to climate. The BAC has notably prioritized resiliency and the urgent need to respond to sea level rise and the impacts of climate change. Indeed, you personally initiated the California Resiliency Challenge and continue to advocate for a state fund for climate adaptation and urban heat island mitigation. Why?

In 2017, devastating wildfires tore through parts of the Bay Area. Then came a major flood on the Guadalupe River—exactly the kind of event we had predicted in our Surviving the Storm study, which warned about the risks of a Pineapple Express, a steady stream of storms from Hawaii. Add record droughts, hotter temperatures, and more destructive fires, and the pattern was undeniable: the climate is changing.

Communities saw the threats but lacked resources. They had ideas, but not the technical or financial capacity to take them to the state or Congress for funding. That’s why we launched the California Resiliency Challenge with support from members like PG&E, JPMorgan Chase, Valley Water, and Edison. It created a competitive grant process for projects addressing heat, drought, fire, and flood—not just in the Bay Area, but statewide.

Over several years, we awarded about $6 million across 38 communities. Those planning grants unlocked much larger investments—local governments turned innovative ideas into funded projects. It also helped push the state to begin taking resilience funding seriously. It was one of the most exciting things we’ve done: creative, impactful, and collaborative.

The lesson, though, is sobering. Resiliency is massively underfunded. In the Bay Area alone, protecting the shoreline is estimated to cost $110 billion. The government can’t shoulder that alone. It’s going to require private capital, public-private partnerships, and fundamentally rethinking how we use and finance the waterfront.

Turning to SB 79, which BAC endorsed, how does this State legislation—overriding local planning and zoning to permit housing near transit—fit into the Council’s agenda? 

We’re proud to co-sponsor SB 79 with Senator Scott Wiener. It builds on other housing bills we’ve supported, like Assemblymember Buffy Wicks’ legislation that ultimately became AB 130 and 131 in the state budget, streamlining CEQA and easing construction under certain circumstances. SB 79 isn’t universally popular—local governments resist anything that challenges land use authority. 

Cities run services like police, fire, parks, and libraries that look similar across jurisdictions. What makes cities distinct is land use. But the reality is, under certain circumstances, local government has to step back. If you’ve got a major transit station, there should be dense housing nearby. You can’t block it just because neighbors object; neighbors almost always object.

California is millions of units behind in housing demand. Building near transit reduces car dependency, eases congestion, and makes use of infrastructure we’ve already invested in. That’s why we pushed so hard for this bill. It barely passed by one vote in the Senate and two or three in the Assembly, which shows how tough it was. But we made it through, and that reflects its importance.

Homelessness continues to challenge a majority of Bay Area cities. What is the Council advocating as a remedy, and how does legislation like SB 79 actually positively help?

We’ve had some bills that I think have been helpful, but our major push has been toward interim housing. We’ve got half the unsheltered population of the United States here in California—about 185,000 people every night—and the Bay Area is a big piece of that. It’s not just in one part of the Bay Area; it’s spread around. It’s in cities, but it’s also in suburban areas.

What we’ve been saying is: we need to move away from housing-first being the sole strategy, and add interim housing. Because the cost of building a unit of permanent housing for homeless people can approach a million dollars a door, and we just don’t have it. But interim housing—somewhere people can go, with a roof over their head, a door, some basic services, and community—costs maybe $50,000, $60,000, $70,000. That’s a huge difference, and we think that’s a major step between living on the street and getting into permanent housing. We’re not against permanent housing, but interim has to be part of the solution.

The other thing is, we did pass a bill this year—AB 255 from Matt Haney—on recovery housing. Up until now, the law said you can’t restrict housing for people who are not addicted. So what happens is: we pay for someone to go through a recovery program, they come out, and then we put them into housing with people who use drugs. What do you think happens? This bill says 10% of state housing funds can be reserved for people who are sober and want to maintain recovery. That’s another important step.

This issue really hits home with people. It’s tough. But we have to figure it out.

Next month, we’re going to San Antonio to look at Haven for Hope. It’s one of the most nationally recognized models for how a community can really help people exit homelessness—whether it’s eviction, a medical crisis, family issues, or addiction. They provide services, training, and support so people can get back on their feet. A couple of mayors and legislators are coming with us, and maybe this could be something different for California, because what we’re doing now just isn’t working.

Newspaper headlines this past year have painted a stark picture of SF’s homelessness challenges, with the New York Post focusing on San Francisco’s decline in city rankings, and the Wall Street Journal asking whether the city can escape its “Doom Loop.” In contrast, there’s recently been more positive coverage of Mayor Lurie’s leadership and his Heart of the City initiative.  

Do you believe that San Francisco is truly making progress in addressing the challenges of recovery, homelessness, and public safety?

Well, you know, I just have to say—I’ve been asked about the “doom loop” by every media outlet you can imagine over the past couple of years. I kept saying: Come talk to me in two years, and you’ll see we’re going to emerge from this. It hasn’t even been two years yet, and already we are emerging. It’s boldly evident.

If you come to San Francisco now—and I urge people to do so—you’ll see it’s not dangerous, and you won’t be surrounded by negative behavior. The city feels much more like the San Francisco we all remember, and in some ways even better. Now, there’s still work to do…it’s not perfect, but it is starkly different from what it was a year or a year and a half ago. It’s amazing.

I attribute a lot of this to Mayor Lurie. 

He came in, said he was going to take action, and then he showed up visibly doing it. You don’t see the kinds of scenes on the streets we were seeing all the time. Now it’s rare. You can walk along the Embarcadero or Market Street and maybe not see a tent at all. The constant car break-ins—I haven’t seen that in a long time. 

San Francisco hit bottom, and the public finally said, “We can’t let our city be like this.” The voters set aside ideology and demanded change. And the results are showing. 

I’d add that Mayor Matt Mahan in San Jose is also doing a terrific job, taking tough stances on these same issues. He’s been a partner, as has Mayor Lurie, on some of the bills we’ve pushed. We’re seeing strong, common-sense leadership in the Bay Area. 

This isn’t about partisanship or ideology. It’s about mayors being responsible for what the public needs and demands. There’s really no alternative.

Progressives often argue that systems change is essential to fixing our metropolitan challenges. Yet your examples in San Francisco and San Jose highlight the impact of strong mayoral leadership. In your view, is real progress more a matter of structural change or electing leaders with the capability to drive change?

I think it’s a combination. 

Leaders matter enormously. But you also have to ask: are the systems functional? Is the police department operating at maximum capability given its resources? Are other departments working cross-functionally? Is there accountability, good management, and a culture that encourages it? Is there esprit de corps among workers? That’s the kind of systems change we need.

At the same time, leadership sets the tone. Take San Francisco: historically, there’s been a big divide between the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors—it’s both a city and a county, and the two sides often clash. 

Mayor Lurie has broken through that. He literally walks down the hall to supervisors’ offices and talks with them—whether they agree with him or not ideologically is secondary. He asks: What are you trying to do in your district, and how can we help each other? 

As a result, the Board has been voting for the things he’s put forward, and it’s made a real difference. Structurally, San Francisco almost encourages conflict between the Mayor and the Board. The public and media may like the drama, but it hasn’t worked well for the city. Lurie saw that, and he’s changing it. 

Will it stick long term? That depends on future elections and leadership. 

But for now, it’s different and noticeably better. I’ll add that Mayor Lurie spoke to our Bay Area Council members last week. He talked about working with a supervisor who doesn’t always agree with him, emphasizing, “I like her, and I want to help.” 

That’s not about ideology; it’s about functionality. And that’s what makes him effective. He’s also relentlessly focused on problems. Even when people praise him for progress, he’s walking alleys looking for what still isn’t fixed. 

That mindset, facing the dark side instead of basking in praise, really makes a difference.

Shifting to the decade-long challenge of water supply: California’s State Water Project supplies are projected to fall, and importantly, the Delta project remains unresolved and controversial. Speaking on behalf of the Council, is there a consensus on a fix?

We just got some good news a few days ago on the Proposition 4 disbursements. 

Funding out of Prop 4, a $10 billion state bond measure for a range of projects, will be very helpful—north, south, and east. Passage was a really good step, and I think everyone worked together on it. On the broader issue, we’re very aligned with the rest of the state. We’re strong supporters of the Delta Conveyance Project. We’re actively backing it, and we’re aligned with Los Angeles and the Central Valley on the need to shore up California’s water system.

Climate change is shrinking our water supply. Snowpack is thinning every year, and while Californians today use less water overall than we did 30 years ago, even with 10 million more people, that won’t hold forever. Droughts arrive faster now. It takes less to tip us into crisis.

We need to treat this as an emergency. We need to recycle more water, expand desalination, invest in recovery programs, and design homes that use and reuse less water. We need to recharge aquifers whenever we can, and yes, moving forward with Delta Conveyance is a big opportunity. Enough thought has gone into it. It’s time to do it.

A few more questions before concluding. At the recent China–California Business Forum, you emphasized that US relations with China are vital. What then are the BAC’s priorities for deepening these economic and cultural ties, given tariff uncertainty and existing geo-political tensions?

BAC has had a program with China since 2006–2007, with staff on the ground there. We regularly welcome Chinese delegations. Just this year, aboard our vessel Klamath in San Francisco, we hosted the Mayor of Shanghai, governors of several provinces, and national leaders.

China is the world’s second-largest economy. San Francisco is home to the oldest Chinatown in America, and 25–30% of the city’s population is Chinese. Culturally, we’re deeply connected. We also had a Chinese mayor, so we approached this differently than some…Yes, there are issues between the U.S. and China, but our view is that problems are better solved through diplomacy, trade, collaboration, and cooperation. That was the direction we were heading, and it was exciting. 

I’ve been to China about 20 times myself, and I think President Trump is coming around on this, looking for ways we can work together instead of pushing apart. That’s encouraging. There’s a long way to go, but we need to recognize: China isn’t the cause of every problem. They outcompeted us in many ways. They did what we should have done: investing in education, creating engineers and technicians, and building innovation capacity.

Look at high-speed rail: we don’t have a single operating mile in America. 

In a short period of time, they built 20,000 miles that work like clockwork. We have a lot to learn from China, and they have things to learn from us. I really wish we could move past this period of friction and return to cooperation. It’s better for both countries, and the stakes are huge. Because we’re not just the two largest economies, we’re also two of the world’s largest military powers.

Turning to a more local matter, reflect on the recent passing of John Burton… on his political impact and legacy on the Bay Area, as well as California.

I knew John for a long time. He came from a difficult background, struggled with drugs, and for a while, you wondered if he’d have a political future. But he made a comeback and rose to become one of the most powerful people in California, President of the Senate, and Chair of the Democratic Party. 

As party chair, he grew Democratic control to the point of a supermajority, which changed the politics of this state dramatically. He was also deeply generous and cared about people who had the hardest time helping themselves. His foundation supported foster kids. That reflected his core values: that government should help those most in need.

John was brash…sometimes harsh in conversation, but he was effective. He knew how to negotiate with people he didn’t agree with. He got things done. His impact on California politics and policy was enormous.

To conclude, you were recently appointed as Chair of the New California Coalition, whose mandate is to align regions and sectors to address California’s most pressing livability, affordability, and sustainability challenges. What are some prospects and priorities you identify regarding your new appointment?

Well, I wasn’t really appointed…I created the New California Coalition. I founded it, and then I appointed myself chair rather than CEO. I convinced Tracy Hernandez from LA BizFed to take on the CEO role, and we meet monthly with about 100 leaders from across the state. We just had one of those meetings this morning.

We focus on four statewide priorities: housing, homelessness, water and energy, and jobs and the economy. Those are the issues we’re trying to align the state around. And this isn’t just a business group—it includes people from different walks of life. The idea is to build a new California coalition that can influence change at scale. 

California is a very big state, and local groups don’t have much impact on Sacramento. Most don’t have the time, resources, or bandwidth to engage directly. Even businesses with representation in Sacramento often aren’t truly present in the process. But if you want change, you have to show up. 

The goal is to position the coalition so that politicians take notice and care what it thinks. I have high hopes for it, but it’s a lot of work. It doesn’t do itself. California is a very big state. But there’s actually more alignment here than people give credit for. It’s easy to focus on divisive issues, but when you step back, there’s broad agreement on many of the fundamentals.

We’ve had strong participation from both north and south—from LA to the Bay Area to Fresno and San Diego. It’s really encouraging, and I’m very optimistic about where this can go.

-

Editor's Note: In 2016, Daniel Lurie—now San Francisco’s 46th Mayor—warned that philanthropy alone could never solve homelessness. Writing as the founder of Tipping Point Community, Lurie argued that only public-private collaboration could bring the scale and infrastructure needed to make progress. His call for systemic partnership complements Jim Wunderman’s reflections here: both leaders stress that housing and homelessness require government, business, civic institutions, and philanthropy working in concert to deliver lasting solutions. Read here.