Blog » sustainable development

The December 21, 2010 announcement that San Francisco's polluting Potrero Power Plant would shut down by the end of the year was as much a cause for celebration as it was a reason to recount the twists and turns that it took to finally shutter the city's last fossil fuel-burning commercial power plant. For many years, the preferred method of closing Potrero was to build three new power plants to replace it smack dab between the Bayview-Hunters Point and Potrero Hill communities where San Francisco's dirty power plants have been located for over a century. The environmental, social justice, and sustainability advocacy required to flip the switch on Potrero is certainly a lesson in the heavy lifting that any city must undertake in seeking to end its reliance on fossil fuel power plants.

The Potrero Power Plant itself was built in 1965, but its location has been a site of electricity generation since 1890. Consisting of a massive gas boiler and diesel peaking units that operated when the boiler came down for maintenance, Potrero has been blamed for environmental health disparities in Southeast San Francisco and negative impacts on the bay due to the discharge of heated water used to cool the facility. City Attorney Dennis Herrera is a neighbor of the power plant and made its closure a priority since he was first elected in 2001, while former district Supervisor Sophie Maxwell fought perhaps even longer before watching the plant shut down in the waning days of her last term in office.

Yet it is the unique coalition of organizations, activists, and elected officials that moved the City to abandon its plan to spend $270 million on new gas power plants to replace Potrero that is perhaps the most fascinating part of the recently-concluded power plant saga. Groups such as the Potrero Boosters and SF Community Power had fought for the better part of a decade to close the Potrero Plant but were told time and again that new combustion turbine power plants were required if Potrero was ever to shut down. At a July 2007 hearing of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, longtime Bayview-Hunters Point activist Espanola Jackson was the lone community voice of dissent against a vote to greenlight the construction of the first power plants to be built in the City in decades.

Within a short period of months, Ms. Jackson's empassioned plea for an end to power plants in her disproportionately polluted corner of San Francisco would attract the support of environmentalists within the Sierra Club and Green Party, community organizations such as the A. Philip Randolph Institute and Greenaction, and the newly-founded civil rights non-profit Brightline Defense Project. In late 2007, Public Utilities Commissioner David Hochschild called the question of whether or not to build new power plants "the biggest energy decision facing San Francisco since construction of the Hetch Hetchy Dam."

It was an early 2008 memorandum from San Francisco Planning and Urban Research, however, that blew the doors wide open on the power plant debate. The "SPUR memo" made the case based on hard facts that estimates of the amount of electricity required to keep the lights on in San Francisco had been wildly overstated and that Potrero could be shut down upon completion of an underwater cable from the East Bay without subjecting the lungs of Ms. Jackson and her southeast San Francisco neighbors to at least thirty more years of power plant pollution. Environmental justice and community advocates were now armed with factual analysis to galvanize support at the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and that summer an unlikely dynamic duo of Michela Alioto-Pier and Ross Mirkarimi manhandled a trio of power plant hail marys that were lobbed at the Board by those who believed it impossible to close Potrero without continuing its power plant legacy.

By the fall, the anti-power plant coalition gained a powerful ally in Mayor Gavin Newsom, whose green credentials depended on his ability to successfully navigate toward a pollution-free solution to the Potrero Power Plant. In late 2008, Public Utilities Commissioner Dick Sklar, who has since passed away, made a successful motion to tear up the contract to build new power plants in order to make a continued case for closure of Potrero outright. Over the next year, Supervisor Alioto-Pier in particular was dogged in her insistence that San Francisco keep pressure on the California Independent System Operator, a state agency charged with maintaining as much electricity as possible to guard against remote instances of power failure. Growing solidarity among the San Francisco city family in 2009 was complemented by constant community delegations to Independent System Operator meetings in which advocates sometimes ended up in shouting matches with power plant regulators, and Public Utilities General Manager Ed Harrington helped shepherd the sale of the combustion turbines once slated to pollute San Franciscans in order to help the City close a massive budget deficit.

The year 2010 began with the anticipation that the pending completion of the 400 megawatt Trans Bay Cable would at last trigger the demise of the Potrero Power Plant. Expectations dipped, however, when most of 2010 was spent fixing a series of faulty computer chips at the Trans Bay Cable sub-station in San Francisco. The months leading up to December left many advocates who had fought to close Potrero with a feeling of both powerlessness, based on the fact that fate now rested in the hands of electrical engineers scrambling to replace malfunctioning motherboards, and a sense of reflection, based on the long road that preceded the path to a power plant-free city. That time of uneasiness allowed San Francisco's power plant battle to be placed into context, however, with a determination that the closure of Potrero would not require the construction of new power plants elsewhere and a realization that the main challenge facing cities aiming to phase out fossil fuel generation is that dirty electricity is simply too safe and predictable in the technocratic eyes of regulators.

Few sustainability experts will dispute that we as a society must wean ourselves off of reliance on fossil fuel power, especially in cases such as that of San Francisco, where the hard work of so many was required to responsibly and dispositively demonstrate that the Potrero Power Plant was obsolete not only in terms of powering San Francisco but in guarding against unforeseen contingencies. The Potrero Power Plant is no longer, but California currently operates over 900 power plants that collectively produce much more electricity that the state needs even on the year's hottest summer days. Maybe now is the time for San Francisco to use its lessons learned to help shut down some of those old dinosaurs.

Joshua Arce is the Executive Director of the Brightline Defense Project.

[Photo Credit: flickr user Ostrosky Photos]

We know that the climate is changing. We know that sea levels are going to rise at a faster rate in the coming decades—as much as 16 inches by mid-century—and we know that large parts of the Bay Area are going to become vulnerable to flooding in the process. (Read SPUR's papers on sea level rise here and here.) Policy failure outside our region (nationally and internationally) is making it even more important within our region to both try to stop climate change and prepare for its worst and inevitable effects. How do we do this in a way that is logical yet sustainable, that harnesses regional ingenuity and collaboration, focuses growth in the right places, and prevents as much misery as possible?

Over the last two years, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) has been working on a proposal to amend its guidance document, the Bay Plan, to include new findings and policies related to climate change and sea level rise. This proposal is based on years of research by BCDC and others to try to understand and project the effects of future sea level rise on the shoreline—and what rising sea levels mean for people, property, infrastructure, and fragile Bay wetlands. (See the BCDC's report, "Living with a Rising Bay" and the Pacific Institute's "The Impacts of Sea Level Rise on the California Coast.")

The latest draft of the proposal, issued in September, provides guidance on how local governments and BCDC (within its narrow jurisdiction of 100 feet inland from the shoreline), should permit projects in the future inundation zone, and what kinds of projects should be allowed at all. It proposes to initiate a years-long public process to create a regional strategy for allocating limited flood protection resources and determining where development should not occur in the future, or even be removed. BCDC has been holding an official public hearing on this topic that has remained open for months. They have received hundreds of comments and there will be more workshops and hearings over the next few months. You can find out more at the BCDC Commission meetings and through their FAQs.

SPUR has published several papers on climate change over the last few years; one creates a prioritized climate action plan for the City of San Francisco; a second paper addresses the necessity of sea level rise planning, and provides a typology of shoreline management strategies we might need to use to adapt to the changes in our region. We have an ongoing task force working to vet climate adaptation strategies for the region, including how we should deal with new threats of extreme weather and sea level rise. We have also been trying to build awareness of the need for a regional conversation around this topic through exhibits and public forums at the SPUR Urban Center.

SPUR thinks BCDC’s efforts to study and to raise awareness on sea level rise are incredibly important, and that amending the Bay Plan is a timely and logical next step. We also understand why the specifics of their draft proposal have raised concerns—from Bay restoration advocates, to local governments, to developers with sights on shoreline properties. But we think a workable solution for everyone is possible, and we suggested changes to BCDC this week in a letter and a set of line-item edits to the proposed amendments.

To summarize some of the concerns that have been raised:

• Bay environmental advocates who know that 90 percent of the Bay’s original wetlands have been destroyed want further assurances from BCDC that there will be no more inappropriate shoreline development or fill, and that opportunity sites for restoration will be saved for that purpose (helping us solve climate change, because wetlands sequester carbon).
• Developers and property owners would like the Bay Plan to guarantee that new climate change policies will not affect existing permit holders and will not conflict with the region’s new SB 375 requirements to build transit-oriented infill (which also helps us solve climate change, because people will drive less).
• Local governments would like to have a better understanding of how to permit or protect development in areas that may be inundated in the future, but want more recognition that local building officials—and not BCDC—do all the zoning and most of the permitting of new projects.

In SPUR’s view, the proposed amendments provide some fairly strong assurances to restoration advocates (that should remain strong), but inadequate assurances to property owners and developers about their future liabilities, and a confusing slate of guidance to local governments on how they should reconcile all the climate change information being handed down by regional agencies (BCDC isn’t totally responsible for this, of course, but the Bay Plan could reference some of the other efforts, and in SPUR’s version, it does). While BCDC’s attempt to solve for sea level rise, MTC’s attempt to solve for reducing personal vehicle travel, ABAG’s attempt to solve for compact land use, and BAAQMD’s attempt to solve for air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions are all important, we need a fine-grained analysis to ensure that we achieve these goals in a coordinated way. We need to carefully lay out a plan for the region going forward that provides clarity, especially for local governments, and reconciles competing goals. And most importantly, we must not intentionally plan to optimize for a single issue, like sea level rise, because climate change is not the only issue facing our region in the future. We have many development and conservation goals. We don’t want to make them harder to achieve, or at worst, accidentally force more development into sprawl.

The changes SPUR suggested to BCDC this week for the Bay Plan can be summarized in five main points.  We want the Bay Plan amendments to:

1. Define “infill development” to include: underutilized land within urbanized areas that are served by existing infrastructure including transit, conversion of former military bases, adaptive reuse of existing structures, and ABAG Priority Development Areas;
2. Encourage local governments, and the Commission within its jurisdiction, to allow infill projects to proceed, and others if they have an adaptation and financial strategy, while a regional sea level rise strategy is being developed;
3. Provide formal assurances in new findings clarifying that the proposed amendments do not expand the Commission’s jurisdiction;
4. Provide assurances to give certainty to activities that may be undertaken in the future that are within the scope of an existing permit;
5. State that BCDC should work with other agencies and local governments to identify long-term regional flood protection strategies and create consistency with SB 375 sustainable communities strategies.

Overall, we at SPUR are very encouraged by our regional agencies’ efforts to solve for global warming in a world that cannot seem to enact the changes we need. We are grateful to BCDC for being a thought leader on this issue. We think it is totally possible and necessary to encourage appropriate infill development and meaningfully plan for sea level rise. We can do this at the regional scale, and we must also do it locally. And we believe that our proposed changes to the Bay Plan Amendments are an improvement on BCDC’s template, and will advance many of our region’s aspirations for the future.

Let us know what you think.

[Photos: left: flickr user armstrks, right: via SF Chronicle]

"Nothing big happens in less than a decade," the late Brian O'Neill was quoted as saying. Those words from the ambitious superintendent of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (and longtime SPUR board member) who worked to transform one of the largest urban park districts in the country, still serve as a reminder when tackling giant projects, putting into perspective all that was accomplished during his tenure.

During an evening symposium at SPUR on the future of the park, GGNRA Executive Director Greg Moore emphasized the importance of community partnerships and local stewardships to carry on O'Neill's legacy.

When placed at the head of the 75,500- acre GGNRA — which encompasses San Francisco's Presidio, the Marin Headlands and portions of San Mateo County — in 1986, O'Neill's vision was "audaciously vast," said Moore. This was exemplified with the transformation of military posts to national parks over a span of several decades.

As San Francisco finally sees headway on massive projects such as the seismic and structurally unsafe Doyle Drive replacement, the giant swaths of green along the Northwestern portion of the city are also seeing progress once unthinkable.The 1,492-acre Presidio has been a monumental demonstration of what collaboration between multiple agencies such as the California Coastal Conservancy and a dedicated community can achieve, albeit one fraught with difficulties including legislative holdups and funding shortfalls.

Building on the legacy already established by early park advocates such as Philip Burton and John F. Kennedy, O'Neill went on to spearhead many projects whose success is visible today. The replanting of over 150,000 native plant species, construction of several impressive overlook sites, rehabilitation of more than 100 historic structures and major improvements to the GGNRA's 196 miles of trails have all been made possible through multi-agency collaboration and local involvement.

The Trails Forever Initiative, launched in 2003, aims to link the massive greenbelt north and south of the Golden Gate through an extensive network of trails. Signature trail projects include Land's End, Marin Parklands and Mori Point in San Mateo, which focus on making the trails more accessible and sustainable while encouraging citizens' responsibility to the parks.

Crissy Field [Photo: flickr user Mel1st]

Among the most noticeable projects — and a popular favorite — was the overhaul of Crissy Field. Once used as a backyard dumpsite for the military, it had all the hallmarks of a toxic, forgotten port with piles of buckled concrete, discarded tires and mechanical parts. The $34 million campaign spearheaded by O'Neill resulted in a beautiful space now regarded as the front yard of San Francisco with a velvety lawn, walking and biking paths, public art installations and education centers for urban youth. More than 500,000 school kids participate in the Parks as Classrooms programs, fostering future generations of park enthusiasts and preservationists.

And the projects keep growing and evolving, thanks to the strong sense of stewardship fostered by trailblazers like O'Neill. On any given day of the year, volunteers including anyone from school children to corporate employees can be seen continuously working on the park. While the accomplishments have already been great, it is the ongoing stewardship from the people of the Bay Area that will keep the parks forever thriving.

Your neighbor's car could soon be available for hourly rental. Any takers? [Photo Credit: Fabiana Meacham]

Would you rent out your car to offset the costs of owning it? Would you get rid of your car if you could rent one from your neighbor?

Until recently, those weren't legal options in California. But new legislation could dramatically increase the practice in the state. Starting in 2011, car owners will be able to maintain their personal insurance policies (albeit at a higher price) while renting their cars by the hour, helping them offset the costs and environmental impact of car ownership.

Successful non-profit ventures like the Bay Area's City CarShare, which SPUR helped incubate, have led the way in promoting car sharing, encouraging many to give up their personal vehicles. A UC Berkeley study found that 30% of San Francisco households that used City CarShare sold at least one of their private cars. By allowing individuals to share their private vehicles, the new legislation takes the concept pioneered by organizations like City CarShare one step further — and could have a large impact on the rate of car ownership in California.

City CarShare will also play a role in facilitating the new personal car sharing policy. Car owners will be able to register their cars for use among the organization's pre-screened member base, make use of its timed lock and key system, and specify availability hours through its website.

Similar initiatives have proven successful outside the United States as well. The UK's WhipCar, a car sharing service comprised of privately owned vehicles, has seen a sharp surge in popularity, with its fleet expanding to 600 cars from 30 in a matter of months. WhipCar has cleverly marketed itself to car owners who are strapped for cash and car-less citizens who appreciate the hassle-free concept of "renting the car next door." In light of the current economic situation, this message surely resonates with Californians looking to supplement their incomes, as well as those who can't afford to buy or keep their cars.

But beyond allowing Californians to earn an extra buck from their cars, the new legislation is indicative of the rise of "collaborative consumption," a concept that empowers individuals to share, trade and barter their goods and resources through online platforms. Websites that connect people seeking to swap goods, rent out rooms in their homes, and lend small amounts of money are all examples of the growing collaborative consumption movement. The state's legitimization of personal car sharing may just be one element in a much broader network of peer-to-peer consumerism taking root in our country.

City CarShare will soon incorporate personal car sharing into its services. [Photo Credit: flickr user felixkramer]