- Sustainability - list.sfgreens.org

[Sustain] Tomorrow! Need BIG Turn Out For Clean Energy & Green Jobs! SF City Hall Rm 250 2pm, Friday July 30
by Eric Brooks 29 Jul '10

29 Jul '10

REMINDER! Need BIG Turn Out Tomorrow For Local Clean Energy & Green Jobs! Tomorrow at 2pm in SF City Hall room 250, is the crucial Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) hearing on Clean Power SF during which the SFPUC staff (and possibly even LAFCo staff) will outrageously attempt to argue that all of the guarantees of local renewables and efficiency installations in the program should be completely gutted from it and that instead the SFPUC staff should pursue the installations independently as myriad individual small project bids. This move would decimate the program, killing it by a death of a thousand cuts. SPEAK AT THE HEARING! It is vital that as many clean energy and green jobs organizers come to the hearing and speak. Here are some basic talking points that you can use in your comments: *Both the worsening global climate crisis, and the continuing deep economic crisis, have made essential the widespread installation of localized solar, wind power, distributed generation and efficiency projects which will both help save the planet, and create thousands of local job opportunities. *It is essential that the City negotiate a Clean Power SF contract which guarantees 360 megawatts of locally installed, municipally owned, renewable electricity generation and efficiency in the first three years of the program, and that San Francisco is run on at least 50% locally generated clean renewable electricity by 2020. *To make certain that Clean Power SF is financially strong and has electricity rates that are competitive with fossil fuel electricity, it is essential that the Clean Power SF contract period be 15 years or longer so that, over time, the higher up front cost of renewables can be easily paid back once the fuel free operation of those renewables naturally becomes much -lower- cost than fossil fuel electricity. *To ensure the economic stability of the program, achieve better economies of scale, and to and make certain that all San Franciscans and local businesses are guaranteed their place in Clean Power SF, the contract must also mandate that all San Francisco electricity consumers are included in the program from the beginning. *It is vital that the Clean Power SF program set the highest local hiring requirements to date, in a project of its size, to ensure that the promise of a vibrant emerging local green economy is made real. *Communities outside of San Francisco are depending on Clean Power SF to set the highest possible standards for local clean energy and green jobs, so that they can call on their own local officials to meet or exceed those standards. *To ensure that all of these goals are met, we -insist- that Local Power give final approval on all Requests For Proposal (RFP) and final contract documents. The hearing time, place & details are: - SF Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) - Friday, July 30, 2pm - SF City Hall, Main Chamber, Room 250 - Directions: From SF Civic Center BART/Muni, cross United Nations Plaza to the City Hall entrance on Polk Street between Grove and McAllister thanks! Eric Brooks Community Choice Energy Alliance 415-756-8844

1 0

[Sustain] Fri July 30th! Need BIG Turn Out For Local Clean Energy & Green Jobs! PLEASE RSVP
by Eric Brooks 22 Jul '10

22 Jul '10

Hi all! VERY IMPORTANT! The moment has arrived! It is crucial that as many of you turn out on Friday, July 30, 2pm, at San Francisco City Hall Room 250, to help set a -strong- precedent for local clean energy and clean energy jobs, both in the Bay Area, and throughout the world. San Francisco's imminent community choice program, Clean Power SF, is planned to run the City on 50% local clean energy by 2020! But there is a big problem.. New bids for Clean Power SF are going out soon, and it is crucial that we demand that the request for bids not be weakened by having its mandates for actual installed local renewables and efficiency removed (which would also gut the local hiring opportunities from the program completely). The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) which has constantly sought to weaken the program for seven straight years, is unfortunately in charge of the bid release. The SFPUC intends to release a weak bid document at the end of this month which will: 1) Completely remove the comprehensive, large scale, local solar, wind, distributed generation and efficiency installations from the program so that it will begin solely by artificially purchasing imported renewable energy and possibly even renewable energy credits (carbon credits) on the open market; with construction of actual local renewables and efficiency only -promised- to be pursued separately as multiple, small, individually bid projects, with no guarantees such projects will be built into the Clean Power SF program whatsoever! 2) Cut the program down to a five year contract, thereby making it impossible to properly pay off a local renewables and efficiency portfolio over time. (Assuming there will even -be- such a portfolio at all! - See point 1.) Renewables and efficiency need a 15-20 year project period to pay themselves off in order to remain competitive with fossil fuel energy prices. 3) Gradually phase in the customer base of the program so that not all customers are included from the beginning! Just as with universal health care and Social Security, it is crucial that all customers join the program at once. This is the only way to achieve the -much- better economies of scale in purchasing and building renewables and efficiency that are necessary for the program to work financially, and effectively meet or beat PG&E's fossil fuel energy rates. Such a gradual phasing plan could also strand most potential Clean Power SF customers -out- of the program, if PG&E manages to pass a 50% plus one vote version of Prop 16 before all of those customers are allowed in. This would destroy Clean Power SF. Important Note: Our best way of ensuring that these weakening measures are not included in the bid is to insist that Local Power's Paul Fenn (the creator of the Community Choice Aggregation model on which Clean Power SF is based) gives final approval of all bid documents and the final contract (which is planned to be released in September). Many of you know Paul from his work in helping to found and run the campaign against PG&E's Prop 16. Our best insurance to make sure that Clean Power SF is done right, is to insist that Paul Fenn and his Local Power team give their thumbs up on all final documents before release. TO HELP ENSURE THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE CLEAN POWER SF PROGRAM: SHOW UP TO THE JULY 30TH HEARING TO SPEAK AND RAISE TWO OR THREE OF THE FOLLOWING TALKING POINTS *Both the worsening global climate crisis, and the continuing deep economic crisis, have made essential the widespread installation of localized solar, wind power, distributed generation and efficiency projects which will both help save the planet, and create thousands of local job opportunities. *It is essential that the City negotiate a Clean Power SF contract which guarantees 360 megawatts of locally installed, municipally owned, renewable electricity generation and efficiency in the first three years of the program, and that San Francisco is run on at least 50% locally generated clean renewable electricity by 2020. *To make certain that Clean Power SF is financially strong and has electricity rates that are competitive with fossil fuel electricity, it is essential that the Clean Power SF contract period be 15 years or longer so that, over time, the higher up front cost of renewables can be easily paid back once the fuel free operation of those renewables naturally becomes much -lower- cost than fossil fuel electricity. *To ensure the economic stability of the program, achieve better economies of scale, and to and make certain that all San Franciscans and local businesses are guaranteed their place in Clean Power SF, the contract must also mandate that all San Francisco electricity consumers are included in the program from the beginning. *It is vital that the Clean Power SF program set the highest local hiring requirements to date, in a project of its size, so as to ensure that the promise of a vibrant emerging local green economy is made real. *Communities outside of San Francisco are depending on Clean Power SF to set the highest possible standards for local clean energy and green jobs, so that they can call on their own local officials to meet or exceed those standards. *To ensure that all of these goals are met, we -insist- that Local Power give final approval on all Requests For Proposal (RFP) and final contract documents. The hearing time, place & details are: - SF Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) - Friday, July 30, 2pm - SF City Hall, Main Chamber, Room 250 - Directions: From SF Civic Center BART/Muni, cross United Nations Plaza to the City Hall entrance on Polk Street between Grove and McAllister That's it all. This is zero hour! Please call or email back to me so that we can coordinate for the 30th. thanks! Eric Brooks Community Choice Energy Alliance 415-756-8844

1 0

[Sustain] Alert! Call City Hall Today To Stop Toxic Developer
by Eric Brooks 12 Jul '10

12 Jul '10

Action: Call-In Day Today! All, Tomorrow, Tuesday, July 13, the SF Board of Supervisors will cast one of the most important environmental votes in City history. At stake is a vital wildlife habitat, and the public health and safety of all San Franciscans, especially those in the City's most ecologically and economically vulnerable community, the Bayview Hunters Point. Recently, Miami based mega developer Lennar corporation was fined over $500,000 for repeatedly violating air safety regulations in a huge condo development project in the Bayview. Yet even though Lennar was found liable for stirring up deadly toxic chemicals and asbestos, it is on the verge of being allowed to double its operations! Lennar's new project would replace large areas of San Francisco's Candlestick Point State Park wildlife habitat, with high-end waterfront condos and a yacht harbor. Project Also Sits Directly On Toxic/Radioactive Navy Dump In part of the new project area, there is also a dangerous U.S. Navy chemical and radioactive dump, designated as a hazardous Superfund site by the U.S. EPA. The approval will allow Lennar to continue its dangerous, shoddy construction, and will also permit the Navy dump to be covered with an unsafe 'cap' rather than requiring all toxic and radioactive materials to be removed from the site. Once the 'cap' is in place, homes, businesses and parkland will be built on top of it. WHAT YOU CAN DO Rejecting the project will depend on the crucial swing vote of Board of Supervisors President David Chiu. Call Supervisor Chiu at 415-554-7450 with the following comment: "Please reject the Candlestick, Hunters Point Environmental Impact Report. It is unacceptably dangerous to the Bayview and the entire City, and threatens destruction of vital wildlife habitat." If you call during the evening, or get a recording, just leave your comment as voice mail. For more information see: http://our-city.org/campaigns Thanks for your action and support!

1 0

[Sustain] Important: Web Site For Comments To Chiu vs Toxic EIR
by Eric Brooks 29 Jun '10

29 Jun '10

Hi all, I've just put up a web alert page that lays down the basics on the toxic Hunters Point 2 development and directs viewers to call/email Board of Supervisors President David Chiu. See http://our-city.org/campaigns Chiu will be our -key- tipping point on this campaign. We must swamp him with massive public comment in the next three weeks so that he will have the courage to step up and reject the project EIR. The Board may vote as early as mid July. Chiu has said some positive things for our side in committee, but he is still not openly opposing the EIR. We -must- push him hard. Please spread the alert page widely so that we can get this in gear soon enough to turn his vote in our favor. Create a version on your own web sites if you can. (Feel free to copy and paste from Our City's original.) To go directly to the contact action yourself and immediately comment to Present Chiu go to: http://our-city.org/campaigns/index.html#WHAT_YOU_CAN_DO peace Eric B

1 0

[Sustain] Fwd: Whales victory, whaling ban survives
by Eric Brooks 25 Jun '10

25 Jun '10

Latest news and action alert from Greenpeace <http://us.greenpeace.org/site/R?i=FV3oBhtemL3WmcUDyaR_bA..> Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser <http://us.greenpeace.org/site/R?i=ql2L7R4IRsWk1c9KXMpOFQ..> We did it! Thanks to YOU, the Obama Administration kept its promise to save whales at the International Whaling Commission (IWC) talks. As a result, the IWC was unable to lift the ban on commercial whaling! As I sat in a stuffy meeting room in Agadir, Morocco with delegates and representatives from other nations, I knew I wasn't alone in working to help save the whales. I had more than 1.5 million passionate people, like YOU, with me there in spirit supporting the whales and standing up to tell the President that they deserve to be saved, not slaughtered. While the gathering nations failed to implement new plans for whale conservation, I'm pleased that our President and his team stood their ground in the end, thanks to your efforts. This year, the best we could do was preventing the IWC from rolling back protections for whales. Next year, we need to apply even more pressure so the IWC will close dangerous loopholes that have allowed Japan, Iceland, and Norway to continue killing whales. Thank you for all your support. The whales are breathing a big sigh of relief! For the whales, Phil Kline Phil Kline Oceans Campaigner Facebook <http://us.greenpeace.org/site/R?i=47bkOCvQhiLE1Pte75sFfw..> MySpace <http://us.greenpeace.org/site/R?i=yUdU-DrvNmQppOX_yGa2SA..> Twitter <http://us.greenpeace.org/site/R?i=W7bBECbMUORja1QvHKwA0Q..> YouTube <http://us.greenpeace.org/site/R?i=tBeweVVr6tR5hiEIH1ZPgg..> Click here to forward this message. <http://us.greenpeace.org/site/R?i=osOStGhRIuNuqhM0xFJEFw..> Greenpeace 702 H Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20001 | 1-800-326-0959

1 0

[Sustain] Ask Office Chains To REJECT Paper From Genetically Engineered Trees
by Eric Brooks 10 Jun '10

10 Jun '10

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/642/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=40… Organic Consumers Association wrote: Call on Office Depot, Office Max and Staples to reject paper from Genetically Engineered trees! Despite emails and calls from over ten thousand OCA members, the US Department of Agriculture has approved a "field trial" of 200,000 genetically modified eucalyptus in Florida <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Ol%2FoAgxgZw%2FQG36i…>. The field trials are being conducted by ArborGen, a notorious biotechnology entity owned by the "Big Three" paper multinationals: International Paper, MeadWestvaco, and Rubicon. Act now! Send an email to the nation's top retail office supply stores and insist that they reject paper products from GE trees! Take Action <http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=nk63Uf5E7eZPlAKx21PV…> -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] Dean Preston Article On ParkMerced
by Eric Brooks 01 Jun '10

01 Jun '10

http://xrl.us/bhnjjk Parkmerced in Default: What Now for Owners' Plan to Bulldoze Over 1,500 Rent-Controlled Homes? by Dean Preston, Jun. 01, 2010 The owners of San Francisco's Parkmerced cannot pay their mortgage, yet they want permission from the city to demolish more than 1,500 rent controlled homes. While most of the public discussion about the proposed development project has been about environmental, transit and preservation issues, the planned demolition of so many rent-controlled housing units is reason alone to stop this project. Parkmerced was built by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) after World War II. Met Life also built similar complexes in New York City (The Riverton Houses, Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village) and other large U.S. cities. For decades, these developments have provided stable housing for middle-class renters in increasingly expensive urban real estate markets. In 2005, a partnership of Stellar Management and Rockpoint Group purchased Parkmerced and The Riverton. The complexes were purchased for sums that could not be justified by the existing rental income on the properties. Instead, as noted in a /New York Times/ piece this weekend <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/29/business/29real.html>: "just like Riverton and Stuyvesant Town, the owners of Parkmerced sought to take advantage of a roaring market to replace rent-regulated residents with tenants able to pay far higher rates." These "predatory equity" schemes have not been working out as investors intended. Tishman Speyer (Stuyvesant Town), Stellar Management (Riverton), Page Mill Properties (East Palo Alto), and others wound up in foreclosure, with banks, pension funds <http://tenantstogether.org/article.php?id=1332> and other institutional investors losing the funds invested in these reckless schemes. Parkmerced is not far behind these other properties on the road to foreclosure. The latest news is that the owners are in default <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bottomline/detail?blogid=56&entry_id=64…> on their loans. Former Willie Brown spokesman P.J. Johnston, now working for Stellar Management, sought to reassure the community that the default would not change life at Parkmerced. According to Johnston, the owners remain committed to moving forward with their development plans. Those plans calls for the demolition of over 1500 "garden apartments," all of which are subject to San Francisco's rent control law. The owners argue that they will replace these units with over 5000 new housing units on the site at a rate of 300 per year. (It is unclear how many of these anticipated units would be /rental/ units. The owners admitted at a recent Planning Commission hearing that the mix of rentals to owned units "has not been finalized.") They claim that they will replace the rent-controlled units with new rent-controlled units. The promise to replace the demolished rent-controlled housing with rent-controlled housing cannot be taken at face value. First, given the owners' current financial situation, there is no assurance that they would be able to perform on such a promise. In a worst-case scenario, one that seems entirely possible, rent controlled homes would be bulldozed and then the project abandoned -- in whole or in part -- when it came time to build the replacement units. Second, the City must remember that this ownership group's business model involves the deregulation of rent-controlled units. At minimum, the city should demand and examine placement memoranda, investment agreements and other documents that the owners provided to potential investors. Similar documents in other predatory equity deals reveal the intent to displace tenants and raise rents despite local tenant protection laws. Third, now that California's Court of Appeal has expanded the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act to bar most rent-restrictions on new housing, proposed rent restrictions on replacement housing would likely be challenged in court by the owners, or subsequent owners, of Parkmerced. While Costa Hawkins recognizes a limited exception for certain types of development agreements, the 2009 /Palmer v. Sixth Street <http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=7184>/ court decision shows that cities cannot rely on the Courts to interpret Costa Hawkins to allow rent-restrictions on new housing. Until state law changes so that the city can guarantee its residents that replacement units will be rent-regulated, the City should not even consider allowing such a large-scale demolition of rent-controlled housing units. Finally, let's not forget that San Francisco has a policy against demolishing <http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=1633> sound rent-controlled housing. The City's Planning Code <http://search.municode.com/html/14139/level2/A3_s317.html> makes this clear. The City's Planning Department reiterates the point: "Under requirements of the General Plan, the Department is predisposed to discourage the demolition of sound housing." Given the precarious financial position of the owners, the uncertainties regarding rent-restrictions on replacement housing and the city's policy to discourage the demolition of sound housing, it is hard to imagine that any responsible city official would approve moving forward with a plan to demolish over 1500 rent-controlled homes at Parkmerced. /Dean Preston is the executive director of Tenants Together, California's Statewide Organization for Renters' Rights. For more information about Tenants Together, go to www.tenantstogether.org <http://www.tenantstogether.org>/

1 0

[Sustain] Important: Park Merced Details
by Eric Brooks 27 May '10

27 May '10

Hi all, A major development project in Park Merced which will build huge amounts of one to one parking and have major negative transit and neighborhood impacts is up for hearings and votes next month and the effort to stop it needs our support. Here, and attached, are the details, sent by Aaron Goodman who is leading the effort to stop the project in its current form. amgodman(a)yahoo.com wrote: Please find the attached summary, with images, of Park Merced and the upcoming DEIR. June 2nd is the SF Historic Preservation Commission Hearing June 17th is the SF Planning Commission Hearing June 28th is the deadline for comments on the DEIR 5:00pm (SF Planning Dept.) Thank you for listening and your hopeful involvement in the issues of sustainability, and preservation which cannot be separated in terms of real "green" redevelopment. Sincerely Aaron Goodman

1 0

[Sustain] Support AB 234 Pre-Booms in California's Waters
by Eric Brooks 27 May '10

27 May '10

flyingcat95033(a)yahoo.com wrote: Hi everyone, Please sign this petition from Wildcare to help pass AB234 which would require a precautionary boom around all vessels fueling in California waters. The petition goes to Senator Joe Simitian who is the chair of the Environmental Quality Committee. Thanks. http://www.wildcarebayarea.org/site/Survey?SURVEY_ID=3100&ACTION_REQUIRED=U… Michelle

1 0

[Sustain] Urgent: only a few hours left to stop $9B in new nuke loans
by Eric Brooks 27 May '10

27 May '10

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Urgent: only a few hours left to stop $9B in new nuke loans Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 13:43:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Nuclear Information and Resource Service <nirsnet(a)nirs.org> Reply-To: nirsnet(a)nirs.org To: brookse32(a)aim.com web banner 6930 Carroll Avenue, #340, Takoma Park, MD 20912; 301-270-6477; nirsnet(a)nirs.org <mailto:nirsnet@nirs.org>; www.nirs.org <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=YDFlANR44QgSQIhh%2Bmb…> *HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE TO MEET AT 5 PM TODAY* *WILL CONSIDER DOE REQUEST FOR $9 BILLION IN NEW TAXPAYER LOANS FOR REACTORS* *PLEASE CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES NOW* May 27, 2010 Dear Friends, There are only a few hours left to make your voice heard and help stop the Department of Energy's attempt to get $9 Billion for new loans to build new nuclear reactors. Please send a letter to your Representative now here. <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=f6ksLbNYr1Xj2jocwmMRJ…> We need a lot more letters going in this afternoon. If your Representative is on the House Appropriations Committee (list below), please call him/her this afternoon and urge that he/she stop this new loan authority. Congressional Switchboard: 202-224-3121. Thanks for all you do, Michael Mariotte Executive Director Nuclear Information and Resource Service nirsnet(a)nirs.org <mailto:nirsnet@nirs.org> www.nirs.org <http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=h2rkgFThQ%2BPScT%2FSH…> House Appropriations Committee members: *Democrats* David R. Obey, Wisconsin, Chairman Norman D. Dicks, Washington Alan B. Mollohan, West Virginia Marcy Kaptur, Ohio Peter J. Visclosky, Indiana Nita M. Lowey, New York José E. Serrano, New York Rosa L. DeLauro, Connecticut James P. Moran, Virginia John W. Olver, Massachusetts Ed Pastor, Arizona David E. Price, North Carolina Chet Edwards, Texas Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Lucille Roybal-Allard, California Sam Farr, California Jesse L. Jackson, Jr., Illinois Carolyn C. Kilpatrick, Michigan Allen Boyd, Florida Chaka Fattah, Pennsylvania Steven R. Rothman, New Jersey Sanford D. Bishop Jr., Georgia Marion Berry, Arkansas Barbara Lee, California Adam Schiff, California Michael Honda, California Betty McCollum, Minnesota Steve Israel, New York Tim Ryan, Ohio C.A "Dutch" Ruppersberger, Maryland Ben Chandler, Kentucky Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Ciro Rodriguez, Texas Lincoln Davis, Tennessee John T. Salazar, Colorado Patrick J. Murphy, Pennsylvania *Republicans* Jerry Lewis, California, Ranking Member C.W. Bill Young, Florida Harold Rogers, Kentucky Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Jack Kingston, Georgia Rodney P. Frelinghuysen, New Jersey Todd Tiahrt, Kansas Zach Wamp, Tennessee Tom Latham, Iowa Robert B.Aderholt, Alabama Jo Ann Emerson, Missouri Kay Granger, Texas Michael K. Simpson, Idaho John Abney Culberson, Texas Mark Steven Kirk, Illinois Ander Crenshaw, Florida Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana John R. Carter, Texas Rodney Alexander, Louisiana Ken Calvert, California Jo Bonner, Alabama Steven C. LaTourette, Ohio Tom Cole, Oklahoma

1 0