November 2008 - Sustainability

[Sustain] Obama's Absurd Statement To Governors' Climate Conference
by Eric Brooks 19 Nov '08

19 Nov '08

Just watch this bullshit (link below) and you'll see why we cannot depend on the federal government to do anything real to combat the global climate crisis. It is vital that we continue our work to independently get San Francisco to 100% renewable energy as rapidly as possible so that the world will have a model of climate leadership that counters Washington D.C.'s complete idiocy. Please keep up to date on efforts to move the Community Choice energy project forward, and be ready to help. (See http://our-city.org/campaigns/communitychoice.html and http://communitychoiceenergy.org/ for details.) Here is the video of Obama's statement to the global Governor's Climate Conference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvG2XptIEJk -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara

2 3

[Sustain] Clean Energy Caucus Instead Of Sustain/Transpo Meeting This Month
by Eric Brooks 19 Nov '08

19 Nov '08

Hi all, See below. Instead of having a Sustainability & Transportation Working Group meeting this month, why don't we just attend this caucus next Thursday night. Agreed? Eric B Local Clean Energy Alliance wrote: > Local Clean Energy Alliance Logo > <http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001P41knIKxEHClftjLz_0c8tcEjPRPQqAspBsH88dHrIAKE5Mu…> > > Locavolts Unite! > 2008 Bay Area Clean Energy Caucus > > > *Who Should Attend? > * > > <http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001P41knIKxEHDbznuIuwdtQ0KhC4J6vXkrf4fF12WcQvDK3aba…> > > Government: City Managers, Commissioners, Supervisors, Department > Heads, Environmental Staff and Agency Directors > > Business: CEOs, Business Owners, Labor Representatives, Chamber of > Commerce, Builders, Engineers, Energy Analysts and other professionals > > Civic: Executive Directors, Program Directors, advocates and leaders > of community based organizations for economic development, and social, > environmental justice > > Individuals: Anyone concerned and passionate about local, clean energy > > *Event Sponsors* Sun Light and Power Logo > <http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001P41knIKxEHAJ4jgzh5-InGTVXqqMi6_2Q3gUs-0st6BIVgHy…> > Bay Localize > <http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001P41knIKxEHD8DpVrdTFeJRy0LRpeV3DyyZld4ZVU9pxx7ImW…> > Local Clean Energy Alliance > <http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001P41knIKxEHCEYMwiWUm1SeeaHg7JMarLu2UmFnBoG5vhFTCE…> > Green Festival > <http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001P41knIKxEHB9C4g2GBYwkzrcqcQlOisGgY20DMLAUXYAN8Ig…> > San Francisco Sierra Club > <http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001P41knIKxEHCL6qALPucfU2MAg9ZZ_IywJ_1ZthrYO12jDANT…> > > > *Quick Links...* > Sun Light and Power > <http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001P41knIKxEHBgNg64tAyps7oSl_FfsdY6kFvZQGd1SnWebB_8…> > Local Clean Energy Alliance > <http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001P41knIKxEHDbznuIuwdtQ0KhC4J6vXkrf4fF12WcQvDK3aba…> > Green Festival > <http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001P41knIKxEHCEYMwiWUm1SUPP0y5EvIyZzOXu0T_ab0KbedlC…> > Bay Localize > <http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001P41knIKxEHD8DpVrdTFeJRy0LRpeV3DyyZld4ZVU9pxx7ImW…> > Solar Richmond > <http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001P41knIKxEHB9C4g2GBYwk-VLaEnSu5hUcu8oqNp6CBiGoJuz…> > > > > Greetings: > > We are excited to announce the first Bay Area Clean Energy Caucus! As > part of the Green Festival Solution Salon series, this Thursday > evening, 11-13 from 6-9pm, Bay Area local energy enthusiasts (also > known as Locavolts) will convene to discuss what's working in local > campaigns for clean energy including Community Choice, Energy > Efficiency, Solar Financing, and Green Jobs. > > This Caucus will be followed with a tour of Solar Richmond's facility > and live solar electric installation. > > We welcome you to peruse the schedule and look forward to having you > join the Caucus. > > Event Info: > November 13th, 6-9p > Freedom Hall at Glide Memorial Church > 330 Ellis Street (at Taylor) > San Francisco > (Four blocks from Powell St BART) > > $5-10 sliding scale. No one turned away for lack of funds. Every > person who attends The Bay Area Clean Energy Caucus will receive a > FREE admission ticket to the Green Festival! > > Sponsors: > Sun Light and Power > > Gfest > <http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001P41knIKxEHDbznuIuwdtQ0KhC4J6vXkrf4fF12WcQvDK3aba…>This > participatory event will roll out in two sections: The first half of > the evening will cover brief updates on clean energy initiatives in > the Bay Area. > > Speakers include: > > > * Ross Mirkirimi of the San Francisco Supervisors (invited) > > * Paul Fenn of Local Power on Community Choice > > * Ian Kim of the Ella Baker Center on Green-Collar Jobs > > * John Rizzo of the Sierra Club on clean energy in San Francisco > > * Kirsten Schwind of Bay Localize on local clean energy in the > East Bay > > * John Corcoran of Marin Clean Energy on clean-energy progress in > Marin > > Among many others... > > The second half of the evening involves facilitated topical and > regional breakout conversations. > > Breakout Topics 7:30-8:00pm > > * PG&E's history in fossil fuels and energy efficiency, > misinformation, and the media > > * Collaborating with unions and Redevelopment on workforce > development > > * Making sustainable energy affordable and accessible > > * Fighting Power Plants and LNG > > Breakout Topics 8:00-8:30pm > > * Improving Energy Efficiency and Home Performance > > * Building Power and Raising Money for Clean Energy > > * CCA implementation steps and strategies > > * AB32 Compliance for cities > > Food/refreshments will be provided. $5-10 sliding scale. No one > turned away for lack of funds. > > > > and on Friday morning, see Green Job Program Graduates in action at the: > > Live Green Collar Solar Install > Friday November 14th, 10am-12pm > 360 S 27th St, Richmond, CA > > Join Solar Richmond > <http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001P41knIKxEHB9C4g2GBYwk-VLaEnSu5hUcu8oqNp6CBiGoJuz…> > for a Live Solar Install in conjunction with... Ella Baker Center > <http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001P41knIKxEHCL6qALPucfU0VpLsKBrLFedC9S2lBscAX88VAH…> > and the Local Clean Energy Alliance > <http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001P41knIKxEHDbznuIuwdtQ0KhC4J6vXkrf4fF12WcQvDK3aba…> > > > 10am - Welcome and short video, briefings on Solar Richmond, Richmond > Build, and Ella Baker Center's Green Jobs work locally and statewide > 11am - Travel to install site > 11:10am - Meet program grads and see them in action on the roof. > Mingle, take photos! > 12pm - Tour ends > > Meet SolarRichmondBUILD graduates, hear from Michele McGeoy of Solar > Richmond, Emily Kirsch and Aaron Lehmer of Ella Baker Center, and > David Room from Local Clean Energy Alliance. > > Please join us for this unique opportunity to see one of the nation's > leading organizations actively doing Green-Collar job training and get > a brief update from the Ella Baker Center on the latest developments > on Green Jobs funding and training in California and nationally as well. > > Please RSVP to: info(a)SolarRichmond.org or call 510.621.1719. Let us > know if you will need a ride from BART. Don't forget to bring your camera! > > ~ Solar Richmond, Ella Baker Center, & Local Clean Energy Alliance > > Green Festival > Vouchers > > Admission to this Green Week Clean Energy Caucus event includes a > voucher redeemable for a free one day festival pass to the Green > Festival. > > > Forward email > <http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?m=1102308221896&ea=brookse32%40ai…> > Safe Unsubscribe > <http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?v=001dCD0S6IuBsZsZ1nHyZRddZhNJr7yt…> > > This email was sent to brookse32(a)aim.com by ingrid(a)baylocalize.org > <mailto:ingrid@baylocalize.org>. > Update Profile/Email Address > <http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?v=001dCD0S6IuBsZsZ1nHyZRddZhNJr7yt…> > | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe > <http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?v=001dCD0S6IuBsZsZ1nHyZRddZhNJr7yt…>^(TM) > | Privacy Policy > <http://ui.constantcontact.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp>. > > Email Marketing <http://www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp?cc=events04> by > <http://www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp?cc=events04> > > Local Clean Energy Alliance | 436 14th street, Suite 1127 | Oakland | > CA | 94612 > -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara

2 2

[Sustain] Switch Meetings To Third Thursdays?
by Eric Brooks 19 Nov '08

19 Nov '08

Hi all, Now that the GM is meeting on the 4th Wednesday of each month, I think it would be really useful to us to switch our monthly meeting to each 3rd Thursday so that we can vote on action items and present them right away to the GM. For this month that would mean meeting on Thursday the 20th. Is everyone cool with this idea? cheers Eric -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara

3 4

[Sustain] City Trying To Sneak In Fossil Fuel Plant Under SOMA Transbay Terminal
by Eric Brooks 18 Nov '08

18 Nov '08

Here we go again... I found out about this when the reporter called me for comments about it. Note that an empty promise of hydrogen is given, but that the plant will be built to run on fossil fuel... http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/High-tech_underground_power_plant_might_be_… High-tech, underground power plant might be built in SoMa *By John Upton <mailto:jupton@sfexaminer.com>* Examiner Staff Writer 11/17/08 Commuters catch their buses at the Transbay Terminal. City officials are developing plans for an underground power plant to service proposed high-rise buildings on the site of the current terminal. Cindy Chew/The Examiner *SAN FRANCISCO* -- As controversy rages about if a power plant should be built or rebuilt in southeast San Francisco, city officials have quietly been developing plans for a separate underground plant to service planned high-rise buildings in SoMa. Massive amounts of power will be needed for the planned 1,000-foot Transbay office tower and rebuilt Transbay Transit Center at Mission and First streets, and for the thousands of new homes and millions of square feet of office space expected to be built in the coming decades in the South of Market neighborhood. The privately owned and operated plant would be designed so it could eventually run on hydrogen fuel cells instead of fossil fuels, Environment Department building official Mark Palmer said. Hydrogen fuel cells are an emerging type of technology that can be recharged using renewable or non-renewable power. Waste heat from the plant would be trapped and used to warm water for a combined heating district, dramatically improving the plant's efficiency and eliminating the need for individual heating and cooling systems, which are often built on rooftops, according to Palmer. "Instead of having a boiler and an air-conditioning plant in every building in a certain district, you could build a central facility that would provide heating and cooling for all the buildings," Palmer said. Combined heating districts, which are common throughout the world, can double a power plant's efficiency by reducing the amount of heat that is wasted, according to Palmer. The districts also maximize useable space in new buildings. About 170 buildings in San Francisco are already heated and cooled using a similar network of steam created by non-electricity producing boilers at Jessie Street between 5th and 6th streets and near the corner of Post and Hyde streets, according to NRG Energy, which owns the system. The steam can be seen wafting up from city streets. Eric Brooks, chairman of the San Francisco Green Party's Sustainability Working Group, pointed to climate change and said The City should spend generously on a plant that runs on hydrogen cells that are recharged using renewable energy. "Building any fossil fuel power plant --- even if it's really efficient --- is a bad idea," Brooks said. A feasibility study, expected to be published within eight weeks, will determine how much power and heat will be needed by new SoMa buildings and whether it could be provided by a subterranean natural gas-burning power plant, according to San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Project Manager Mike Grisso. jupton(a)sfexaminer.com <mailto:jupton@sfexaminer.com> By the numbers 40 acres Former freeway land to be redeveloped around Transbay Transit Center 3,450 New homes planned in redevelopment area 6 million square feet New office space expected near Transbay Transit Center 1,000 feet Proposed height of Transbay Tower 800 feet Maximum proposed height for some buildings near the Transbay Tower 850 feet Height of the Transamerica building --- currently The City's tallest 2014 Expected opening of new Transbay Transit Center /Sources: San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, San Francisco Planning Department/ -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara

2 1

Re: [Sustain] [SFGP-A] Prop H: Regardless Of The Final Vote We Have Already Won!
by Rita Goldberger 17 Nov '08

17 Nov '08

Ending corporate personhood is one of Ralph Nader's chief proposals. I don't think it can be done on a local or even state level. I think it requires a constitutional amendment on the national level. On a local level, however, we could pass a non-binding resolution calling on Congress and the Senate to pass such an amendment. Rita Goldberger --- On Thu, 11/6/08, Susan King <funking(a)mindspring.com> wrote: From: Susan King <funking(a)mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [SFGP-A] Prop H: Regardless Of The Final Vote We Have Already Won! To: "Joe Lynn" <joelynn114(a)hotmail.com> Cc: "GPSF Sustainability Working Group" <sustainability(a)sfgreens.org>, "Green Active list" <active(a)sfgreens.org> Date: Thursday, November 6, 2008, 9:03 AM I'm interested in taking part of this discussion. Let me know if something is set up for further discussion/action. peace susan On Nov 5, 2008, at 1:34 PM, Joe Lynn wrote: Corporate personhood is enshrined in the Southern Pacific case before the Supreme Court circa 1870-1880. I’ve always seen the case as the flip side of the Dred Scott decision. In the Southern Pacific case the rights of a person were given to propert. In the Dred Scott case the rights of a person were denied to a person because he was property. That said, the Southern Pacific case blocks reform along these lines, at least with a Roberts/Alito Suspreme Court. I am convinced that public financing is the only remedy that makes sense. It may be possible to set up a public finance program to wage ballot-measure campaigns. Public finance is an extension of Benjamin Franklin’s principles of a public library. In both cases, the public treasury may be used for ideas not embraced by the majority under the principle that dissemination of ideas to a free-thinking people is critical to democracy. There are a lot of kinks to work out for such a program, but a reactionary Court has ruled that regulation of money entails regulation of speech. This raises a profound obstacle to reform efforts. In addition, administration of regulatory schemes presumes administrators committed to the political philosophy that gives rise to the regulation. As we have seen in San Francisco, that presents an even more fundamental practical problem for reformers. Along these lines, Oliver Luby, the Campaign Fines Officer at the SF Ethics Commission, has an op-ed piece in Tuesday’s Chronicle relating Ethics decision to give major donors ($10,000 or more) a free ride on disclosures. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/04/ED2813T8OR.DTL&… On 11/5/08 12:41 PM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32(a)aim.com> wrote: It would be a gutsy and very difficult move, but I'm thinking we might launch a campaign as CELDF has in smaller towns to pass a Charter amendment striking down corporate 'personhood' in San Francisco County. On a more practical and doable level, we need to sit down with some good attorney's and pass a Board ordinance with the strongest limits possible on independent and corporate election expenditure behavior that we can come up with. It will take some deep boiler room consensus meetings to make it happen. Joe Lynn wrote: I'd be very interested to hear your ideas on how to control PG&E type spending on a ballot measure initiative. Particularly when the Supreme Court is controlled by Roberts/Alito style thinking. On 11/5/08 11:42 AM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32(a)aim.com> <mailto:brookse32@aim.com> wrote: Remember all, that though the vote itself was lost, we have already won. We have forced PG&E to spend more money than has -ever- been spent on a San Francisco campaign. And, after both Lennar corporation's $7 million ballot deception to force toxic gentrification on the Southeast side in the last election, and now PG&E's even more outrageous moves to buy this election at an even higher (ludicrous) price, it is a -very- good bet that we will easily pass a strong corporate and independent expenditure campaign finance reform measure in the next year. And we have now built a strong and angry coalition of progressives and Supervisors who are -pissed- at PG&E. PG&E's days are numbered. So we have already won ;) But most importantly, the Community Choice renewable energy project (the first 51% referred to in Prop H) is already moving forward regardless of Prop H and PG&E is going to attack it as well. Our campaign has helped strongly reveal all of the tactics that PG&E will use to attack Community Choice, and we will now be ready for them. And those attacks will carry much less weight, both because Community Choice is much less vulnerable to them in the way it is worded, because State law actually forbids PG&E from attacking Community Choice, and because the angry core of organizers that PG&E has just attacked on Prop H, are now primed and ready to kick PG&E's ass on a much more level playing field with Community Choice. We will need all of you to help us win the Community Choice fight; which will -absolutely- bring us that 100% clean energy by 2040 regardless of last night's outcome. Prop H simply would have made it easier too get there To see why Community Choice is so important and why it will need your help, go to: http://our-city.org/campaigns/communitychoice.html and http://communitychoiceenergy.org/ Note that Community Choice has already passed as law, and it is now going out for bids to contractors. The key fight will be to get customers to stick with Community Choice and not opt out for PG&E over the next year. This is a fight that we definitely can win, if we stay on it with a sharp focus. If we win this fight San Francisco -will- go 100% renewable and soon. Note also that there are two more appointments to be made to the SF Public Utilities Commission (which is overseeing Community Choice) and the Supes now have the power to leverage those appointments and make sure that they will support Community Choice; and also support closing down the city's remaining polluting power plants. So we have actually won our first battle by getting fully up in PG&E's face! and forcing its bullshit out in to the light of day. Now let's win the war for Community Choice which will kick PG&E the hell out of the City, and lead the world to save the planet. peace Eric Brooks _______________________________________________ San Francisco Green Party Active Members List To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here: https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active _______________________________________________ San Francisco Green Party Active Members List To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here: https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active

5 6

[Sustain] FW: Copy of Text Sent to Transition Website change.gov
by Martin Zehr 13 Nov '08

13 Nov '08

Transition Website: http://www.change.gov/page/s/yourvision Resource management of water needs to be developed at a bio-regional level where stakeholders can provide a balanced input. I recommend a review of the work of the Middle Rio Grande Water Assembly in the Albuquerque, New Mexico region. I worked as a representative of Urban Users in the process for 9 years. As a result of the efforts of an engaged community the Water Assembly, empowered and funded by the State Legislature, developed a 50 year water plan for the region. It provides a specific model for a bottom-up process that engages the entire spectrum of water-users. http://www.waterassembly.org Supplies and deliveries of new supplies of water remain an issue that can best be managed at the watershed level by those who would be impacted by such decisions. Proposals dealing with issues ranging from water quality to conjunctive management of surface and ground waters, and from establishing funding sources for water programs to increasing water supply and decreasing water demand have all been incorporated into the recommendations of the regional plan. Conservation of urban individual and large-scale users’ withdrawals, improving irrigation efficiency of agricultural users, and development of growth management in urban areas to integrate land use and transportation planning with water management are addressed by the plan and provide it with a holistic approach. http://www.waterassembly.org/archives/MRG-Plan/D-Rio%20Grande%20Plan/CH10-R… Stakeholder groups that provided input and review for the plan’s recommendations were defined as: Specialists; Managers; Agricultural, Cultural and Historical Users; Environmental Advocates; and Urban Users and Economic Development Advocates. These constituency groups provided self-defined structures that were represented in the Action Committee, the governing body of the Assembly. All constituency groups were given five representatives on the Action Committee. This provided for advocates of the various stakeholder interests to provide input into the writing of the plan, to review the recommendations being proposed and to provide representation of the various stakeholders in the decision-making process of the Water Assembly. There is a bill in Congress, S. 2842, Aging Water Infrastructure and Maintenance Act that begins the process of updating and upgrading public water infrastructure. There is some activity on the level of Western Governors that can increase the focus and establish priorities for Congress and the President. http://www.westgov.org/wga/initiatives/climate/index.htm Water in the West impacts on rural and urban economies alike and can result in regional conflict when not anticipated through sound planning and policy development. Water 2025 http://www.usbr.gov/water2025/ is one Federal level program initiated in an effort to address the myriad of matters that confront the Western United States. There remains a much larger task ahead in the areas of urban and rural conservation, water monitoring and measurement, agriculture, water quality, water storage to reduce evaporative losses desalination and transfer of water and public education. There have been regional droughts and water supply problems in various areas of the U.S., stretching from Georgia to Maine to California. What has been lacking in the past is the leadership and revenues of the Federal Government. A change in this can facilitate regional water planning in ways that reflect their priorities and address their concerns and needs. Martin Zehr

1 0

[Sustain] Urge President-elect Obama to lead the way on global warming
by Eric Brooks 13 Nov '08

13 Nov '08

Greenpeace <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=ghfYnWYKnEu8Easf7nwB…> November 12, 2008 Greenpeace video screenshot <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=360Q1ENTFbwGKTrKxyVB…>For eight long years, President Bush ignored global warming and turned his back on the rest of the world. After nearly a decade of inaction, there is precious little time left to stop the worst impacts of global warming. What President-elect Obama chooses to do now will impact me, you, and the entire planet for generations to come. That's why I asked Obama about his plans when I had the chance to speak to him on the campaign trail. Specifically, I asked him if he would attend the international global warming treaty negotiations happening this December in Poznan', Poland. By attending in person and laying out his vision for the world's approach to solving global warming, he can jumpstart his administration's efforts to tackle this critical issue. Check out the video of me and President-elect Obama >> <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=yeu0eO3MHlLynsXwtPgI…> The president-elect told me that he probably wouldn't go to Poland himself, but that he would be sending a representative. I'm happy that he's made this commitment, but the best way for him to demonstrate America's renewed dedication to stopping global warming is to go himself. Take Action NOW >> Urge President-elect Obama to personally attend the international climate treaty negotiations in Poznan'. <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=zxKdEPN9KajDPNcR1ByM…> Now is the time for America to show the rest of the world that we are back on track and that we're serious about tackling global warming. America should be a leader in implementing solutions like strict efficiency standards, aggressive investment in renewable energy, and a cap on global warming pollution. The climate talks in Poznan' are the perfect opportunity for us to rejoin the rest of the world in addressing the most urgent environmental crisis of our time. When we pass this planet off to our children, we have to be able to look them in the eye and say that we solved the most dire environmental crisis we have ever faced - otherwise, we'll be handing off a much different planet than we live on now. The path to a clean, sustainable future starts in Poznan' - let's make sure President-elect Obama is there to lead the way. For the future, Melissa Leonard Greenpeace volunteer <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=inDmTN2E7wVnJ6Ns3tKD…> 702 H Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20001 (800) 326-0959 It's time for leadership the whole world can believe in -- ask your friends and family to sign the petition, too! <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=%2BIW2gIsFA3qZLoPmh2…> -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara

1 0

Re: [Sustain] [SFGP-A] Prop H: Regardless Of The Final Vote We HaveAlready Won!
by Cal Broomhead 11 Nov '08

11 Nov '08

It appears you have already discussed whether PG&E was in violation of campaign laws or not, and that the answer was 'not'. I agree that we need a stronger campaign financing law to stop this crap. Then, before the election, an injunction against them to prevent them from doing anything during the election...and then pay the fine afterwards...which they see as just part of the cost of doing business or the campaign. Cal Broomhead broomhead(a)igc.org > [Original Message] > From: Joe Lynn <joelynn114(a)hotmail.com> > To: David Fairley <pamndave(a)speakeasy.net>; Eric Brooks <brookse32(a)aim.com> > Cc: GPSF Sustainability Working Group <sustainability(a)sfgreens.org>; Green Active list <active(a)sfgreens.org> > Date: 11/7/2008 11:24:12 AM > Subject: Re: [Sustain] [SFGP-A] Prop H: Regardless Of The Final Vote We HaveAlready Won! > > I should have said that it has come to stand for the principle of corporate personhood. On 11/7/08 7:31 AM, "David Fairley" <pamndave(a)speakeasy.net> wrote: > In the Southern Pacific case, the Supreme Court did not set a precedent > that ruled corporations are persons. There's a short Wikipedia article on > this: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad > > Here's what it says: > > 'Although the question of whether corporations were persons within the > meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment had been argued in the lower courts > and briefed for the Supreme Court, the Court did not base its decision on > this issue. However, before oral argument took place, Chief Justice > Morrison R. Waite announced: "The court does not wish to hear argument on > the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the > Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its > jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these > corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." This quotation was > printed by the court reporter in the syllabus and case history above the > opinion, but was not in the opinion itself. As such, it did not have any > legal precedential value. Nonetheless, the persuasive value of Waite's > essentially ultra vires statement did influence later courts, becoming > part of American corporate law without ever actually being enacted by > statute or formal judicial decision.' > > > On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:11:00 -0800, Joe Lynn <joelynn114(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > >> I��ve mentioned the resonance between the Dred Scott decision and the >> Southern Pacific case, which granted to corporations the personal rights >> guaranteed by the Constitution. In his debates with Sen. Douglass, >> Lincoln >> addressed the role of the public in confronting the Dred Scott >> decision. He >> believed the Constitution invested the other branches of government a >> role >> in challenging antidemocratic Supreme Court decisionson questions >> involving >> personhood. Perhaps a challenge to Southern Pacific would draw on his >> savvy lawyering. There��s plenty of recent precedent with right wing >> movements attempting to overrule a Supreme Court decision. >> >> >> On 11/6/08 8:31 PM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32(a)aim.com> wrote: >> >>> It's already happened in individual communities. That's the whole >>> point. To >>> challenge corporate personhood on the local level because states and >>> the Feds >>> won't do it.. >>> >>> Rita Goldberger wrote: >>>> >>>> Ending corporate personhood is one of Ralph Nader's >>>> chief proposals. I don't think it can be done on a local >>>> or even state level.? I think it requires a constitutional >>>> amendment on the national level.? On a local level, >>>> however, we could pass a non-binding resolution >>>> calling on Congress and the Senate to pass such an >>>> amendment. >>>> ? >>>> Rita Goldberger >>>> >>>> --- On Thu, 11/6/08, Susan King <funking(a)mindspring.com> >>>> <mailto:funking@mindspring.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> From: Susan King <funking(a)mindspring.com> >>>>> <mailto:funking@mindspring.com> >>>>> Subject: Re: [SFGP-A] Prop H: Regardless Of The Final Vote We Have >>>>> Already >>>>> Won! >>>>> To: "Joe Lynn" <joelynn114(a)hotmail.com> >>>>> <mailto:joelynn114@hotmail.com> >>>>> Cc: "GPSF Sustainability Working Group" <sustainability(a)sfgreens.org> >>>>> <mailto:sustainability@sfgreens.org> , "Green Active list" >>>>> <active(a)sfgreens.org> <mailto:active@sfgreens.org> >>>>> Date: Thursday, November 6, 2008, 9:03 AM >>>>> >>>>> I'm interested in taking part of this discussion. Let me know if >>>>> something >>>>> is set up for further discussion/action. >>>>> >>>>> peace >>>>> susan >>>>> On Nov 5, 2008, at 1:34 PM, Joe Lynn wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Corporate personhood is enshrined in the Southern Pacific case >>>>>> before the >>>>>> Supreme Court circa 1870-1880. ?I��ve always seen the case as the >>>>>> flip side >>>>>> of the Dred Scott decision. ?In the Southern Pacific case the rights >>>>>> of a >>>>>> person were given to propert. ?In the Dred Scott case the rights of a >>>>>> person were denied to a person because he was property. ?That said, >>>>>> the >>>>>> Southern Pacific case blocks reform along these lines, at least with >>>>>> a >>>>>> Roberts/Alito Suspreme Court. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am convinced that public financing is the only remedy that makes >>>>>> sense. >>>>>> ?It may be possible to set up a public finance program to wage >>>>>> ballot-measure campaigns. ?Public finance is an extension of Benjamin >>>>>> Franklin��s principles of a public library. ?In both cases, the public >>>>>> treasury may be used for ideas not embraced by the majority under the >>>>>> principle that dissemination of ideas to a free-thinking people is >>>>>> critical >>>>>> to democracy. ?There are a lot of kinks to work out for such a >>>>>> program, but >>>>>> a reactionary Court has ruled that regulation of money entails >>>>>> regulation >>>>>> of speech. ?This raises a profound obstacle to reform efforts. ?In >>>>>> addition, administration of regulatory schemes presumes >>>>>> administrators >>>>>> committed to the political philosophy that gives rise to the >>>>>> regulation. >>>>>> ?As we have seen in San Francisco, that presents an even more >>>>>> fundamental >>>>>> practical problem for reformers. ?Along these lines, Oliver Luby, the >>>>>> Campaign Fines Officer at the SF Ethics Commission, has an op-ed >>>>>> piece in >>>>>> Tuesday��s Chronicle relating Ethics decision to give major donors >>>>>> ($10,000 >>>>>> or more) a free ride on disclosures. >>>>>> ?http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/04/ED2813T8OR.D >>>>>> TL >>>>>> &hw=luby&sn=001&sc=1000 >>>>>> <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/04/ED2813T8OR.D >>>>>> TL >>>>>> &hw=luby&sn=001&sc=1000> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 11/5/08 12:41 PM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32(a)aim.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> It would be a gutsy and very difficult move, but I'm thinking we >>>>>>> might >>>>>>> launch a campaign as CELDF has in smaller towns to pass a Charter >>>>>>> amendment striking down corporate 'personhood' in San Francisco >>>>>>> County. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On a more practical and doable level, we need to sit down with some >>>>>>> good >>>>>>> attorney's and pass a Board ordinance with the strongest limits >>>>>>> possible >>>>>>> on independent and corporate election expenditure behavior that we >>>>>>> can >>>>>>> come up with. It will take some deep boiler room consensus meetings >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> make it happen. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Joe Lynn wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'd be very interested to hear your ideas on how to control PG&E >>>>>>>> type >>>>>>>> spending on a ballot measure initiative. ?Particularly when the >>>>>>>> Supreme >>>>>>>> Court is controlled by Roberts/Alito style thinking. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 11/5/08 11:42 AM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32(a)aim.com> >>>>>>>> <mailto:brookse32@aim.com> ?wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ?? >>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Remember all, that though the vote itself was lost, we have >>>>>>>>> already won. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We have forced PG&E to spend more money than has -ever- been >>>>>>>>> spent on a >>>>>>>>> San Francisco campaign. And, after both Lennar corporation's $7 >>>>>>>>> million >>>>>>>>> ballot deception to force toxic gentrification on the Southeast >>>>>>>>> side in >>>>>>>>> the last election, and now PG&E's even more outrageous moves to >>>>>>>>> buy this >>>>>>>>> election at an even higher (ludicrous) price, it is a -very- good >>>>>>>>> bet >>>>>>>>> that we will easily pass a strong corporate and independent >>>>>>>>> expenditure >>>>>>>>> campaign finance reform measure in the next year. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And we have now built a strong and angry coalition of >>>>>>>>> progressives and >>>>>>>>> Supervisors who are -pissed- at PG&E. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> PG&E's days are numbered. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So we have already won ;) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But most importantly, the Community Choice renewable energy >>>>>>>>> project (the >>>>>>>>> first 51% referred to in Prop H) is already moving forward >>>>>>>>> regardless of >>>>>>>>> Prop H and PG&E is going to attack it as well. Our campaign has >>>>>>>>> helped >>>>>>>>> strongly reveal all of the tactics that PG&E will use to attack >>>>>>>>> Community Choice, and we will now be ready for them. And those >>>>>>>>> attacks >>>>>>>>> will carry much less weight, both because Community Choice is >>>>>>>>> much less >>>>>>>>> vulnerable to them in the way it is worded, because State law >>>>>>>>> actually >>>>>>>>> forbids PG&E from attacking Community Choice, and because the >>>>>>>>> angry core >>>>>>>>> of organizers that PG&E has just attacked on Prop H, are now >>>>>>>>> primed and >>>>>>>>> ready to kick PG&E's ass on a much more level playing field with >>>>>>>>> Community Choice. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We will need all of you to help us win the Community Choice >>>>>>>>> fight; which >>>>>>>>> will -absolutely- bring us that 100% clean energy by 2040 >>>>>>>>> regardless of >>>>>>>>> last night's outcome. Prop H simply would have made it easier too >>>>>>>>> get >>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> To see why Community Choice is so important and why it will need >>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>> help, go to: >>>>>>>>> http://our-city.org/campaigns/communitychoice.html >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> http://communitychoiceenergy.org/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Note that Community Choice has already passed as law, and it is >>>>>>>>> now >>>>>>>>> going out for bids to contractors. The key fight will be to get >>>>>>>>> customers to stick with Community Choice and not opt out for PG&E >>>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>>> the next year. This is a fight that we definitely can win, if we >>>>>>>>> stay on >>>>>>>>> it with a sharp focus. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If we win this fight San Francisco -will- go 100% renewable and >>>>>>>>> soon. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Note also that there are two more appointments to be made to the >>>>>>>>> SF >>>>>>>>> Public Utilities Commission (which is overseeing Community >>>>>>>>> Choice) and >>>>>>>>> the Supes now have the power to leverage those appointments and >>>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>>> sure that they will support Community Choice; and also support >>>>>>>>> closing >>>>>>>>> down the city's remaining polluting power plants. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So we have actually won our first battle by getting fully up in >>>>>>>>> PG&E's >>>>>>>>> face! and forcing its bullshit out in to the light of day. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now let's win the war for Community Choice which will kick PG&E >>>>>>>>> the hell >>>>>>>>> out of the City, and lead the world to save the planet. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> peace >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Eric Brooks >>>>>>>>> ???? >>>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ?? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> San Francisco Green Party Active Members List >>>>>> To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here: >>>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> San Francisco Green Party Active Members List >>>>> To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here: >>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> San Francisco Green Party Active Members List >>>> To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here: >>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active >>>> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ Sustainability mailing list Sustainability(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability

3 2

Re: [Sustain] [SFGP-A] Prop H: Regardless Of The Final Vote We HaveAlready Won!
by Cal Broomhead 11 Nov '08

11 Nov '08

I don't think they used ratepayer money, the CPUC would not allow that. But the shareholders have pretty deep pockets, so it would come out of their corporate marketing budget, which is probably plenty big. I wonder if they get to count it as a business expense under their Federal and State tax filings? Would be good to discuss with a tax attorney. Know any? Cal Broomhead and Kathleen Ribeiro broomhead(a)igc.org > [Original Message] > From: Eric Brooks <brookse32(a)aim.com> > Cc: GPSF Sustainability Working Group <sustainability(a)sfgreens.org>; Green Active list <active(a)sfgreens.org> > Date: 11/5/2008 6:18:43 PM > Subject: Re: [Sustain] [SFGP-A] Prop H: Regardless Of The Final Vote We HaveAlready Won! > > That's an interesting approach. Might just work as a good fall back if > outright bans don't fly. > > David Fairley wrote: > > Isn't PG&E a "public utility", and a legally permitted monopoly? Even > > if we couldn't stop all corporations from making political > > contributions, we might be able to pass more limited legislation that > > public utilities from backing or opposing propositions. I mean, > > there's something egregious about getting screwed with rate money that > > we are forced to pay. Aren't there limitations on using government > > funds to support or oppose a proposition? If you're Mayor Newsom, you > > can't use public $ for mailers backing Prop J or your other pet > > propositions, right? Why should the CEO of PG&E use what are basically > > public funds for political gain? > > > > David > > > > On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:34:32 -0800, Joe Lynn <joelynn114(a)hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Corporate personhood is enshrined in the Southern Pacific case before > >> the > >> Supreme Court circa 1870-1880. I�ve always seen the case as the flip > >> side > >> of the Dred Scott decision. In the Southern Pacific case the rights of a > >> person were given to propert. In the Dred Scott case the rights of a > >> person > >> were denied to a person because he was property. That said, the Southern > >> Pacific case blocks reform along these lines, at least with a > >> Roberts/Alito > >> Suspreme Court. > >> > >> I am convinced that public financing is the only remedy that makes > >> sense. > >> It may be possible to set up a public finance program to wage > >> ballot-measure > >> campaigns. Public finance is an extension of Benjamin Franklin�s > >> principles > >> of a public library. In both cases, the public treasury may be used for > >> ideas not embraced by the majority under the principle that > >> dissemination of > >> ideas to a free-thinking people is critical to democracy. There are a > >> lot > >> of kinks to work out for such a program, but a reactionary Court has > >> ruled > >> that regulation of money entails regulation of speech. This raises a > >> profound obstacle to reform efforts. In addition, administration of > >> regulatory schemes presumes administrators committed to the political > >> philosophy that gives rise to the regulation. As we have seen in San > >> Francisco, that presents an even more fundamental practical problem for > >> reformers. Along these lines, Oliver Luby, the Campaign Fines Officer at > >> the SF Ethics Commission, has an op-ed piece in Tuesday�s Chronicle > >> relating > >> Ethics decision to give major donors ($10,000 or more) a free ride on > >> disclosures. > >> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/04/ED2813T8OR.DTL&h > >> > >> w=luby&sn=001&sc=1000 > >> > >> > >> On 11/5/08 12:41 PM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32(a)aim.com> wrote: > >> > >>> It would be a gutsy and very difficult move, but I'm thinking we > >>> might launch > >>> a campaign as CELDF has in smaller towns to pass a Charter amendment > >>> striking > >>> down corporate 'personhood' in San Francisco County. > >>> > >>> On a more practical and doable level, we need to sit down with some > >>> good > >>> attorney's and pass a Board ordinance with the strongest limits > >>> possible on > >>> independent and corporate election expenditure behavior that we can > >>> come up > >>> with. It will take some deep boiler room consensus meetings to make > >>> it happen. > >>> > >>> Joe Lynn wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I'd be very interested to hear your ideas on how to control PG&E type > >>>> spending on a ballot measure initiative. Particularly when the Supreme > >>>> Court is controlled by Roberts/Alito style thinking. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 11/5/08 11:42 AM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32(a)aim.com> > >>>> <mailto:brookse32@aim.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Remember all, that though the vote itself was lost, we have > >>>>> already won > >>>>> > >>>>> We have forced PG&E to spend more money than has -ever- been spent > >>>>> on a > >>>>> San Francisco campaign. And, after both Lennar corporation's $7 > >>>>> million > >>>>> ballot deception to force toxic gentrification on the Southeast > >>>>> side in > >>>>> the last election, and now PG&E's even more outrageous moves to > >>>>> buy this > >>>>> election at an even higher (ludicrous) price, it is a -very- good bet > >>>>> that we will easily pass a strong corporate and independent > >>>>> expenditure > >>>>> campaign finance reform measure in the next year. > >>>>> > >>>>> And we have now built a strong and angry coalition of progressives > >>>>> and > >>>>> Supervisors who are -pissed- at PG&E. > >>>>> > >>>>> PG&E's days are numbered. > >>>>> > >>>>> So we have already won ;) > >>>>> > >>>>> But most importantly, the Community Choice renewable energy > >>>>> project (the > >>>>> first 51% referred to in Prop H) is already moving forward > >>>>> regardless of > >>>>> Prop H and PG&E is going to attack it as well. Our campaign has > >>>>> helped > >>>>> strongly reveal all of the tactics that PG&E will use to attack > >>>>> Community Choice, and we will now be ready for them. And those > >>>>> attacks > >>>>> will carry much less weight, both because Community Choice is much > >>>>> less > >>>>> vulnerable to them in the way it is worded, because State law > >>>>> actually > >>>>> forbids PG&E from attacking Community Choice, and because the > >>>>> angry core > >>>>> of organizers that PG&E has just attacked on Prop H, are now > >>>>> primed and > >>>>> ready to kick PG&E's ass on a much more level playing field with > >>>>> Community Choice. > >>>>> > >>>>> We will need all of you to help us win the Community Choice fight; > >>>>> which > >>>>> will -absolutely- bring us that 100% clean energy by 2040 > >>>>> regardless of > >>>>> last night's outcome. Prop H simply would have made it easier too > >>>>> get there. > >>>>> > >>>>> To see why Community Choice is so important and why it will need your > >>>>> help, go to: > >>>>> http://our-city.org/campaigns/communitychoice.html > >>>>> and > >>>>> http://communitychoiceenergy.org/ > >>>>> > >>>>> Note that Community Choice has already passed as law, and it is now > >>>>> going out for bids to contractors. The key fight will be to get > >>>>> customers to stick with Community Choice and not opt out for PG&E > >>>>> over > >>>>> the next year. This is a fight that we definitely can win, if we > >>>>> stay on > >>>>> it with a sharp focus. > >>>>> > >>>>> If we win this fight San Francisco -will- go 100% renewable and soon. > >>>>> > >>>>> Note also that there are two more appointments to be made to the SF > >>>>> Public Utilities Commission (which is overseeing Community Choice) > >>>>> and > >>>>> the Supes now have the power to leverage those appointments and make > >>>>> sure that they will support Community Choice; and also support > >>>>> closing > >>>>> down the city's remaining polluting power plants. > >>>>> > >>>>> So we have actually won our first battle by getting fully up in > >>>>> PG&E's > >>>>> face! and forcing its bullshit out in to the light of day. > >>>>> > >>>>> Now let's win the war for Community Choice which will kick PG&E > >>>>> the hell > >>>>> out of the City, and lead the world to save the planet. > >>>>> > >>>>> peace > >>>>> > >>>>> Eric Brooks > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara > > _______________________________________________ > Sustainability mailing list > Sustainability(a)sfgreens.org > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability

1 0

[Sustain] Power Plant Hearing Wed, Nov 12!
by Eric Brooks 10 Nov '08

10 Nov '08

Hi all, Thanks to your turn out and comments, Supervisor Sophie Maxwell's power plant legislation was sent back to committee and called for a special hearing this Wednesday in the Land Use Committee. Contrary to what supervisor Maxwell and Board President Aaron Peskin claimed in their surprise hearing on that conditional use legislation for power plants, the legislation -still- does not ensure that the polluting Combustion Turbine 'Peaker' Plants will undergo the same rigorous process as other power plants under the legislation. This is because the California Energy Commission (CEC) has already granted the 'peakers' environmental review and approval, and its rulings overrule any subsequent local review law we pass, specifically in regard to already approved projects like the 'peakers'. (The CEC approval of the 'peaker' project expires in October of 2009.) In addition, the legislation still contains clauses that could seriously interfere with the Community Choice renewable energy project, which is our best hope for a rapid replacement of the Potrero Power Plant without building another fossil fuel plant. It is crucial now that as many of us as possible contact the Land Use Committee members and demand that they continue this legislation until they actually meet with all of us as stake holders at one table; including Bayview and Potrero residents, and environmental and social justice organizations; and that they work -together- with all of us to craft legislation that will truly hold the 'peakers' to the same standard as other plants, and which will fully protect the Community Choice project. Insist that -your- group be included at the table. Important Note: If you contact them via email, also email their aides to make sure that the Supervisors will receive your comment before Wednesday. And of course, show up to the hearing to speak if you can. Here are contact information for the committee's Supervisors, and hearing details (We are item 3 - Items 4 through 7 are on the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan): Hearing: http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_page.asp?id=92531 Aaron Peskin (415) 554-7450 - voice (415) 554-7454 - fax Aaron.Peskin(a)sfgov.org aides: Rose.Chung(a)sfgov.org David.Owen(a)sfgov.org Gerardo Sandoval (415) 554-6975 - voice (415) 554-6979 - fax Gerardo.Sandoval(a)sfgov.org <mailto:Gerardo.Sandoval@sfgov.org> nicholas.kinsey(a)sfgov.org Luke.Klipp(a)sfgov.org Sophie Maxwell (415) 554-7670 - voice (415) 554-7674 - fax Sophie.Maxwell(a)sfgov.org Jon.Lau(a)sfgov.org Emily.Rogers(a)sfgov.org *City and County of San Francisco* *Land Use and Economic Development Committee* */City Hall, Room 263/* seal of the city and county of sf *_Meeting Agenda _Wednesday, November 12, 2008 2:00 PM Special Meeting* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ */Members: Sophie Maxwell, Gerardo Sandoval, Aaron Peskin Clerk: Linda Laws (415) 554-4441/* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * AGENDA* *1.* *081335* <http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/committees/materials/08133…> *[Summary Vacation of Public Utility Easements at the intersection of Crescent Way and Executive Park Boulevard]* *Supervisor Maxwell* Ordinance ordering the summary vacation of unused and unnecessary public utility easements located at the intersection of Cresent Way and Executive Park Boulevard in San Francisco (within Assessor's Block 4991); making findings pursuant to the California Streets and Highways Code Sections 8330 et seq.; adopting findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; adopting findings that the vacation is consistent with the City's General Plan and Eight Priority Policies of City Planning Code Section 101.1; authorizing the conveyance of the vacated public utility easements to Top Vision Development, LLC; and authorizing other actions in furtherance of this ordinance. 10/21/08, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Land Use and Economic Development Committee. *2.* *081002* <http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/committees/materials/08100…> *[Zoning - Violations of General Advertising Sign Requirements]* *Supervisors Alioto-Pier, Peskin* Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by amending Section 610 to require response to a notice of violation to be given within 30 days instead of 45 days and to add subsection (f), which addresses repeat violations of general advertising sign requirements by a single entity on the same property; adopting findings, including environmental findings and findings required by Section 302 and Section 101.1 of the Planning Code. 7/16/08, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Land Use and Economic Development Committee. 7/23/08, REFERRED TO DEPARTMENT. Referred to Small Business Commission for comment and recommendation. Referred to Planning Department for environmental review and Planning Commission for review and comment. 8/6/08, RESPONSE RECEIVED. Planning Department - Not a project pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. 10/10/08, RESPONSE RECEIVED. Planning Commission Resolution 17708 recommending approval with modification. 10/27/08, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Alioto-Pier. Continued to November 3, 2008. 11/5/08, AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. Heard in Committee. Speaker: Dan Sider, Planning Department. 11/5/08 Amendment of the whole bearing new title. Continued to November 12, 2008. 11/5/08, CONTINUED AS AMENDED. Continued to November 12, 2008. *3.* *081058* <http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/committees/materials/08105…> *[Planning - Conditional Use Requirement for Power Plants in M-1 and M-2 Zoning Districts]* *Supervisors Maxwell, Peskin* Ordinance amending Planning Code Section 226 to require that power plants in M-1 and M-2 zoning districts obtain conditional use authorization, adding Section 226.1 requiring additional findings; amending the Administrative Code to add Chapter 29A to require the Board of Supervisors consider the criteria of Planning Code Section 226.1(c) prior to taking City power plant approval actions; making environmental findings, and making findings of consistency with the General Plan and priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1. 7/29/08, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Land Use and Economic Development Committee, expires on 8/28/2008. 7/31/08, REFERRED TO DEPARTMENT. Referred to Planning Department for environmental review and Planning Commission for review and comment. Referred to Department of Environment for informational purposes. 9/23/08, RESPONSE RECEIVED. Planning Depatment - Not physical per Section 15060(c)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. 10/24/08, RESPONSE RECEIVED. Planning Commission Resolution No. 17726 recommending approval with modifications. 10/27/08, AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Tara Sullivan-Lenane, Planning Department; Dr. Ahimsa Porter-Sumchai; William Ratcliff, SF BayView Newspaper; Joshua Arce, Brightline; Marie Harrison; Joe Boss; Dave Seagal; Tony Kelly, Potrero Boosters. 10/27/08 Amendment of the whole bearing new title. Supervisor Peskin requested to be added as a co-sponsor. 10/27/08, RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. 11/4/08, RE-REFERRED to Land Use and Economic Development Committee.

1 0