August 2005 - Transpo - list.sfgreens.org

Campaign Training in SF oct 21-23
by Dave Snyder 30 Aug '05

30 Aug '05

SFBikers and Car-free living advocates, In one of my lives, I work with the Thunderhead Alliance promoting best practices in bicycle and pedestrian advocacy. The Thunderhead Alliance is giving a training for advocates here in San Francisco Oct. 21-23. The training is for representatives of organizations. It costs $250 for the first registrant from an organization, $150 for subsequent registrants. You cannot sign up on your own; you must be sent by an organization. But I know enough of our local grassroots advocacy groups that they would be happy to send you if you present a cogent proposal for a volunteer-led campaign. For details, click here: http://www.thunderheadalliance.org/trainings05sf.htm. Below is a blurb that you can share with others who might be interested. I'm going on vacation in a couple of hours, so I apologize in advance for not being available. But leave me a message or call me after Labor Day and we can talk then, if you have any questions. Cheers, Dave ====== If you dream of winning a bicycle campaign -- whether for a bike lane on a busy street, a new path, a safe routes to school program -- and building a powerful long-lasting force for bicycle and/or pedestrian advocacy in the course of your campaigning, you should attend the Thunderhead Campaign Training in San Francisco, CA Oct. 21-23. The Thunderhead Alliance (http://www.thunderheadalliance.org) provides the only professional training series for leaders of bicycle and pedestrian advocacy organizations. The curriculum we'll be using in San Francisco is based on tried-and-true campaign strategies modified for bicycle and pedestrian advocacy in the 21st century. Having attended these trainings as a participant (once, years ago, from a related organization) and trainer (twice this year, through Thunderhead) I can personally speak to the value of gaining --and sharing -- the leadership tools that you'll pick up. You'll be able to expand the effect of your work substantially when you return from the training. And hanging out with fellow bicycle and pedestrian advocates in San Francisco in October is a whole lot of fun! Contact me if you have any questions: Dave Snyder (415) 216-7393. -- --------------------------------------- Dave Snyder Director of Program Development Thunderhead Alliance - http://www.thunderheadalliance.org (415) 216-7393

1 0

Fw: Comm. on the Env. Hydrogen & Renewable Energy Mtg. Agenda 8-29-05
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 27 Aug '05

27 Aug '05

---------- Forwarded Message ---------- City and County of San Francisco Commission on the Environment Notice and Agenda of Special Rescheduled Meeting* Hydrogen and Renewable Energy Committee *This is a special rescheduled meeting because it has been rescheduled from August 3, 2005 at 4:00 p.m. to August 29, 2005 at 5:00 p.m. Monday, August 29, 2005, 5:00 p.m. San Francisco City Hall, Room 421 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102 Members: Commissioners Nia Crowder, Chair; Paul Pelosi, Jr.; Angelo King Monica Fish, Commission Secretary Order of Business 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 2. ACTION: Adoption of Minutes of the March 21, 2005 Special Meeting. (Explanatory document: Draft Minutes of the March 21, 2005 Hydrogen and Renewable Energy Committee Special Meeting)* 3. DISCUSSION and ACTION: Proposed Amendment to the Bylaws of the San Francisco Commission on the Environment to amend the regular meeting date of the Hydrogen & Renewable Energy Committee (Explanatory Documents: Draft Notice of Proposed Amendment to the Bylaws and Draft Resolution Amending Bylaws). 4. PRESENTATION: Review of Wave and Tidal Power Projects. Sponsor: Commissioner Nia Crowder Staff: Peter O’Donnell, Renewable Energy Coordinator and Cal Broomhead, Energy Manager 5. PRESENTATION: Update on Community Choice Aggregation. Sponsor: Commissioner Nia Crowder Staff: Cal Broomhead, Energy Manager 6. DISCUSSION: Report on Governor’s Climate Action Team. Sponsor: Commissioner Nia Crowder Staff: Cal Broomhead, Energy Manager 7. DISCUSSION: Update on Solar Programs and Installation Oversight. Sponsor: Commissioner Nia Crowder Staff: Cal Broomhead, Energy Manager 8. DISCUSSION: Update on the Electricity Resource Plan. Sponsor: Commissioner Nia Crowder Staff: Cal Broomhead, Energy Manager 9. INFORMATION: Chair’s Announcements 10. INFORMATION: New Business 11. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJOURNMENT ** Copies of explanatory documents are available at (1) the Commission’s office, 11 Grove Street, San Francisco, California between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., (2) on the Commission’s website at http://sfgov.org/site/sfenvironment_meeting.asp?id=17749, (3) upon request to the Commission Secretary, at telephone number 415-355-3709, or (4) via e-mail at Monica.Fish(a)sfgov.org within three business days of a meeting. Please note: This email contains only the agenda for the meeting. For complete information on these meetings, including disability access, explanatory documents, Sunshine Ordinance information, lobbyist information and other meeting information, please follow the attached link: http://www.sfenvironment.com/events/SunshineAccessCOE.doc. If you wish to receive complete information for these and other meetings by email, including disability access, explanatory documents, Sunshine Ordinance information, lobbyist information and other meeting information, please respond to this email and put "Complete Notice" in the subject heading. Monica Fish, Commission Secretary TEL: (415) 355-3709 FAX: (415) 554-6393

1 0

Fw: RE: [Fwd: peak oil (of course!!!)]
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 27 Aug '05

27 Aug '05

Here are the names of some other people whom we could invite to be panelists. Sue ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Kalley Rajala krajala(a)earthlink.net http://www.livabilityproject.org 1-877-472-3955 (650) 738-5814 Jason Bradford (530) 220-3731 cell jcbradford(a)ucdavis.edu Amos Nur is a good pick as well; here is an interview I did with him: http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/417 for your reference -----Original Message----- From: susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com [mailto:susan_e_vaughan@juno.com] Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 11:40 PM To: droom(a)postcarbon.org Cc: susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com; jrizzo(a)sprintmail.com; info(a)postcarbon.org Subject: RE: [Fwd: peak oil (of course!!!)] Hi David, Thanks so much. I can figure out how to contact all these people except perhaps Kelley Rajala and Dr. Jason Bradford. Do you have their contact info? Richard Heinberg also gave me a list of people today. That list included four people you have also mentioned: Richard Heinberg, yourself, Jan Lundberg and Richard Register. It also included Amos Nur, Stanford geophysist. Thanks so much for your help. Sue Hi Susan No big deal about the panel. I was not saying that I felt strongly that I needed to be on the panel, but more so that I would prefer to be on the panel than to be a moderator. Here are the folks that I would recommend. Please let them know that I recommended them. Also, let me know if you need contact info. ð Richard Heinberg the problem and the oil depletion protocol (http://www.museletter.com/archive/160.html) ð Dr. Jason Bradford (of Willits Economic Localization) relocalization and the what they are doing in Willits ð David Room relocalization, community supported manufacturing, and impact on people of color and the poor ð Sebastopol Mayor Larry Robinson has scheduled a series of town hall meetings in the Fall to address peak oil and related issues, including the Iraq War. My intention is for the peak oil meeting be a community brainstorming session of what we can do as a community to minimize chaos and the disruption of our lives ð Jan Lundberg (Ex oil industry expert) - the problem, global warming, and culture change ð Kelley Rajala (of the Livability Project) relocalization projects in Pacifica, post-oil business ð Van Jones (Reclaim the Future) green jobs for youth ð Richard Register (Ecocity Builders) Ecological cities, transport, cars -------- Original Message -------- Subject: peak oil (of course!!!) Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 21:39:16 GMT From: susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com <susan_e_vaughan(a)juno.com> To: info(a)postcarbon.org CC: jrizzo(a)sprintmail.com Hi Dave, I am working on a peak oil hearing to be held at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors sometime this fall. The item was introduced to the Board of Supervisors a few months ago, and it was assigned to the City Operations and Neighborhood Services Committee (a three-person panel of supervisors). Myself and John Rizzo (of the Sierra Club and the SF Green Party) are working on this. Unfortunately, the hearing will not be able to last more than about an hour or an hour and 15 minutes at most. We are going to be lining up individuals to represent various city departments (Planning, Department of the Environment, the Muncipal Transportation Agency, and the Public Utilities Commission), and we are also doing outreach to the various experts who can come and speak on this phenomenon. However, members of the public would be resticted to public comment time of anywhere from two to four minutes. Experts, such as Richard Heinberg if we could get him to come, would be considered members of the public, but Supervisor Mirkarimi could extend the time of their testimony to 10 or 15 minutes with questions. Thus we are going to be limited to about four experts. Based on the testimony of the department representatives (who really should be there to learn, but unfortunately, it can't work that way in SF), and informed guests, John has suggested that the Board of Supervisors could create an official task force that will produce a report that could be released to the public with a press release. Following the release of this report, there could be follow-up hearings. What you could help us with: who do you recommend that we invite to give public testimony? If you recommended Person X, what special thing would that person bring to the hearing? If you recommended Person Y, what would Person Y bring? On other matters: 1) the TWG is getting ready for another screening of The End of Suburbia, followed by a panel discussion, but a at a different location. I know you want to be on the panel, but I'm not sure that we will be able to accommodate you this time. Our meeting is tomorrow night so I'll let you know. 2) I'm working on starting my own cable access TV show and would like you to appear on my show to talk about peak oil and the Post-Carbon Institute. I'll probably get started in October or November. Hope you are doing well. Sue Vaughan (415) 668-3119 (except that I'm going away for a week starting on Wednesday, I'll have computer access)

1 0

Fwd: [Community_choice_energy_alliance] Heinberg Comment on 'Oil at the "Breaking Point"'
by Don Eichelberger 25 Aug '05

25 Aug '05

> >From community_choice_energy_alliance-bounces(a)cypress.sfbaysc.org Thu > Aug 25 14:10:48 2005 >Envelope-to: done(a)energy-net.org >From: Ecological Options Network <eon3(a)earthlink.net> >Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 13:59:00 -0700 >Subject: [Community_choice_energy_alliance] Heinberg Comment on 'Oil at the > "Breaking Point"' > >Thanks to Richard Heinberg (author of The Party's Over, Power Down) for >the following response to the NYT/Maas article "The Breaking Point," we >circulated earlier this week. JH >====================== > >These calculations, "33 years left" or "24 years left" are completely >irrelevant, as it is a physical impossibility to continue extracting the >resource at a constant or increasing rate until suddenly it is all gone. >Instead, production inevitably--for purely physical reasons--follows a >rough bell-shaped curve, with a slow ramp-up, a peak, and a slow decline. >The oil will not be all gone in 33 years: we will still be extracting it >in dribs and drabs. However, much sooner than that--probably next year or >the year after--we will see the all-time peak of production, followed by a >decline of perhaps 3 percent per year in the possible rate of extraction. >That's the only calculation that matters. > >Richard > >============ >[New York Times >August 21, 2005 > >The Breaking Point >By PETER MAASS > >The largest oil terminal in the world, Ras Tanura, is located on the >eastern coast of Saudi Arabia, along the Persian Gulf. From Ras Tanura's >control tower, you can see the classic totems of oil's dominion -- >supertankers coming and going, row upon row of storage tanks and miles and >miles of pipes. Ras Tanura, which I visited in June, is the funnel through >which nearly 10 percent of the world's daily supply of petroleum flows. >Standing in the control tower, you are surrounded by more than 50 million >barrels of oil, yet not a drop can be seen.... ] > >====================== > >EON > >the Ecological Options Network > >"What's Working Where, Worldwide" > > <http://www.eon3.net>www.eon3.net > >_______________________________________________ >Community_Choice_Energy_Alliance mailing list >Community_Choice_Energy_Alliance(a)cypress.sfbaysc.org >http://cypress.sfbaysc.org/mailman/listinfo/community_choice_energy_alliance "><"<>"><"<>"><"<>"><"<>"><"<>"><"<>" Organizing is Sorting in to smaller piles, Then dealing with them. Wonder why you can't? It is always best practice To ask how you can. Don Eichelberger Abalone Alliance Safe Energy Clearinghouse http://www.energy-net.org San Francisco Green Party http://www.sfgreenparty.org California State Green Party Issues Working Group Co-coordinator http://cagreens.org/giwg/ Green Community/GreenWorks project for sustainable small businesses http://www.sfgreenworks.org 2940 16th St., #309 San Francisco, CA 94103 phone 415-861-0592 or 415-567-4577 done(a)energy-net.org done(a)greens.org done(a)ispwest.com

1 0

Re: Home Depot - The Process On That Motion, and Serious Problems With How It Came Down
by Eric Brooks 23 Aug '05

23 Aug '05

Hi Bruce and all, It basically went thusly: 1) A presenter called on the General Membership to endorse a measure calling on the Board of Supes to reject the Planning Commission's approved EIR for the Home Depot, then and seek a better deal (better EIR, smaller Home Depot store, etc.) 2) A lot of discussion and debate then ensued, not as much about rejecting the EIR, but between pro and anti Home Depot folks. Anti focused on the type of corp Home Depot is and that the end results would be bad - jobs promises would be betrayed. Pro focused on jobs for Bayview Hunters Point. 3) After a lot of heated debate, the pro Home Depot (opposing the motion to reject the EIR) camp used the technique of a blocking concern to throw the matter to a vote. Two or three members used the block. (see 4 further below). (Note: This blocking tactic is entirely inconsistent with consensus process. A blocking concern is a very serious move only supposed to be used to indicate that a decision that is about to be made by a group threatens the core principles of the group itself. It is not supposed to be used as a decision making tactic when two factions in a group simply have an honest, complex disagreement in perspective on policy. In this case the honest debate was - Will or will not a Home Depot help the economically marginalized Southeast community? So those raising the blocking concern were in effect calling on the group to believe that it would be a -fundamental betrayal- of the principles of the SF Green Party to oppose the Home Depot EIR because the Home Depot would bring some jobs to BVHP. Such a contention of fundamental betrayal is absurd. The facilitator should have firmly pointed this out, and demanded that those blocking either raise a -legitimate- blocking concern or stand aside.) 4) The blocking concern tactic forced the issue to a vote on the motion 'To reject the Home Depot EIR to seek a better one.' In favor of the motion were 11, opposed 5, abstaining 2. Since the motion didn't achieve the 80% needed, it failed. Final Comments: It is very telling that the whole mess of the inappropriate block lead to a bad decision on this issue in one very key respect. As Greens, our -real- debate (besides the tricky job issue) should have been 'Does this motion go far enough, or, because the Home Depot corporation and its everyday actions are so diametrically opposed to the core values of the Green Party, should we reject this motion because it is not a motion to reject placing a Home Depot in San Francisco at all. No home depot ever.' -That- should have been the debate. In fact, I felt unable to raise that debate, because the pro Home Depot/anti motion faction was so intent on killing the motion based on some vague economic justice question, and was doing such a powerful job of shifting the debate and heading for a block, that if I succeeded in questioning the motion in the radical left direction, it would have only made it all the harder for us to take at least -some- small action to reject the Home Depot. In retrospect, I could have raised that concern (which would have been a blocking concern based on the fact that -any- future compromise with Home Depot -would- be a fundamental betrayal of the core values of the SF Green Party). At least then, our block, and the rejection of the motion, would have been across the spectrum, and would have had some legitimacy as a block leading to a vote. However, my dilemma, was that in so doing, I would have been joining the inappropriately blocking camp, and to some extent validating it. That dynamic was so unpalatable that I ended up debating what to do in my own head instead of interrupting and speaking up as I should have done, probably by first raising a point of process questioning the impending block. Because there was a failure in Consensus process and facilitation on this matter, we should rescind the vote and call the motion again at the next meeting, and have the -real- debate that I mention just above. And because the jobs/economics part of this debate is so complex and deep, there needs to be at large block of time laid out to -really- discuss that dynamic; in my view, an hour or more. And folks should be present who can point out the inherent serious contradictions in trying to solve community economic problems by bringing in a Big Box store. Peace, Eric Brooks Sue, I need some clarification since the minutes were "action" minutes and didn't provide any background on the actual language of the motion. Since I was unable to make it to the GM and all I have is the minutes to go by, I am wondering if the "motion to 'oppose the Home Depot EIR'" is correct that the discussion for consensus was to *OPPOSE the EIR* and, if not, to just then let the motion fail leaving the SFGP having no position on the matter; -or- Was the motion to take a position based on the results of the discussion to OPPOSE or SUPPORT the EIR? Was the intent of the motion wholly on a single position of opposition? Or, was it looking for consensus on the EIR in general? Bruce P.S. I don't believe I am familiar with Jerry Path. Can someone give me an introduction as to how he comes to the Green Party? I certainly don't know all the players. ==

1 0

Re: [Transpo] SPUR paper on Muni restructuring
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 23 Aug '05

23 Aug '05

I told Dave Snyder that he and Jay Primus could go first (originally, I had told Emily Drennen she could go first, but I don't think she will be able to make it -- people should check out her resume at her website: emilydrennen). How about 30 minutes for Dave and Jay? Sue -- John-Marc Chandonia <jmc(a)sfgreens.org> wrote: It got through fine to me. We'll need to set times for agenda items at the beginning of tomorrow's meeting, so I hope everybody can be on time. At a first glance, this paper looks quite interesting, so I hope we can spend a significant amount of time on it. Also of potential interest to Transpo members are my pictures from Cambridge, UK; in addition to a lot of normal touristy pictures, I took some pictures of transportation-related features I thought people might be interested in: http://www.dolorespark.org/pics/Cambridge05/ JMC -- John-Marc Chandonia (jmc(a)sfgreens.org) http://sfgreens.org/ _______________________________________________ Transpo mailing list Transpo(a)sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/transpo

1 0

Re: Home Depot
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 23 Aug '05

23 Aug '05

Buce, I didn' go to the GM so I don't know. Jerry Path is an active and valauble member of the TWG. Sue Sue, I need some clarification since the minutes were "action" minutes and didn't provide any background on the actual language of the motion. Since I was unable to make it to the GM and all I have is the minutes to go by, I am wondering if the "motion to 'oppose the Home Depot EIR'" is correct that the discussion for consensus was to *OPPOSE the EIR* and, if not, to just then let the motion fail leaving the SFGP having no position on the matter; -or- Was the motion to take a position based on the results of the discussion to OPPOSE or SUPPORT the EIR? Was the intent of the motion wholly on a single position of opposition? Or, was it looking for consensus on the EIR in general? Bruce P.S. I don't believe I am familiar with Jerry Path. Can someone give me an introduction as to how he comes to the Green Party? I certainly don't know all the players. ==

1 0

SPUR paper on Muni restructuring
by Dave Snyder 22 Aug '05

22 Aug '05

Transpo readers, The Transportation Working Group is considering a proposal to restructure Muni service for faster, more reliable service at less cost. Among many things, it proposes replacing the current route structure from the 1920s privatized era with a modern structure based on high-speed, high-frequency, highly-reliable trunk lines. I've attached the paper for your review. If the file is too large John-Marc will let me know and I'll send another email in a short while with a link to a website where you can download it. Dave

2 1

Re: Green Party considering your paper on Tuesday
by Dave Snyder 22 Aug '05

22 Aug '05

SFGP office, 1028-A (leftmost door of apartment building) Howard St. west of 6th. Tuesday 08/23/05 7:00PM- 9:00PM Transportation Working Group meeting Look forward to seeing you there. Dave At 11:06 AM -0700 8/22/05, Jay Primus wrote: >Dave, > >When and where is it? I would like to be there --- > >Let me know -- if easier, you can call 203 4784 > >Jay > > > > > >Dave Snyder <dave(a)livablecity.org> wrote: > >Jay, > >The Transportation Working Group is considering your paper next >Tuesday. I plan to be there to answer questions and recommend their >support. It would be great if you could come as well. > >Cheers, > >Dave > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: Home Depot
by susan_e_vaughan＠juno.com 22 Aug '05

22 Aug '05

Good idea. It will have to be after August 31 as I will be away until then. Sue -- Bruce Wolfe <Bruce(a)BruceWolfe.net> wrote: As the respective chairs of the Transportation and HLU WG's, I am requesting that you have a special joint meeting to settle this issue and present a joint position on the matter. Bruce -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.13/78 - Release Date: 8/19/2005

1 0