Commentary: A Tale of Two Reconsiderations

Ordinarily in a given term you can count the number of reconsiderations on one hand. In fact, before Tuesday night, I can only remember one reconsideration the entire City Council term, that was a vote on a park survey, when Ruth Asmundson was absent and the vote would have been deadlocked on a $70,000 park survey until Councilmember Don Saylor strategically voted against it in order to be able to move for reconsideration. The parliamentary rule is that only a member who voted for the winning side can move for reconsideration.

However, on Tuesday night, the council voted not once but twice to reconsider votes–for very different reasons.

SPHERE OF INFLUENCE

The first reconsideration was on the Sphere of Influence recommendation to LAFCO. As we reported on Tuesday, it became clear to us watching the meeting that the Davis City Council approach was indeed off. The City Council had voted to expand the Sphere of Influence (SOI) area mainly because they believed that the larger the area that they controlled, the better they would be able to prevent growth.

During the course of the LAFCO meeting it became obvious to all that expanding the size of the SOI would not grant Davis any added protection. Indeed Robert Ramming pointed out that the county’s proposed study areas all occurred within the current SOI. At the same time, Supervisor Matt Rexroad pointed out that on the map these did not look like greenbelts and bike paths as Councilmember Souza hoped but rather like a development map.

From a legal standpoint the SOI is a map of urban usage and while Councilmember tried to argue that Greenbelts and bikepaths were urban usages for Davis, it was unconvincing. LAFCO has not operated as such. The SOI is an area for urban develop not a means to prevent growth traditionally.

The bottom line was and Councilmember Souza realized it during the course of the discussion on Monday, the ultimate impact of placement in the SOI might be the inclusion of a property in the general plan, that leads to speculative valuation of the property, and growth pressure. We may have no intention of growing today, five years from now, or even ten years from now, but we also have little control over the process down the line. In essence we may be starting a process that will actually lead to the opposite of what we intend.

As I spoke with members of the community and councilmembers after the Monday meeting, it was obvious to me that no one knew the consequences of placement in the SOI nor did they know exactly which way would offer more protection. Indeed I asked that very question at the LAFCO meeting and no one could answer it.

It became obvious that Davis’ City Staff had done a poor job yet again of preparing the Davis City Council and it turned the process into almost a farce.

As Supervisor Matt Rexroad wrote on his blog following the meeting:

“The Davis City Council has requested to dramatically increase the area within their sphere of influence (SOI). They are doing this in an attempt to have greater control over development on their edge.

I actually want the City of Davis to have control of development on their urban edge. It makes sense to me. As a former Mayor I don’t want (or need) the county telling me what I need to do. That is up to the City Council.

Here is the problem. If you increase the area within the SOI you are signaling that development is the desire for this area.

The reality os that Davis does not really want development in the area. They want to control any development in the area — and probably kill development. That is their choice.

I want to let Davis have control of their boundary. I am just not sure that the request to LAFCO is sincere.

My deal is this — If a city in Yolo County wants to annex land or increase their control of their edge I will work to make the deal happen. This request does not really appear to be that at all.”

Throughout the meeting there were references to Davis doing things differently. For members of the Davis City Council, I believe that was a point of pride. For others it is a point of mockery. But at the end of the day it was former Davis Mayor Jerry Adler who made the essential point that Davis was trying to use the SOI as a growth-control device and it was never intended to be such. In fact, just the opposite. And while Davis can be Davis, from a legal standpoint, what Davis was hoping to do would not have worked.

Davis City Councilmember Stephen Souza was correct to urge his colleagues to reconsider, he argued that point well, and they did by a 5-0 vote. It will come back for new consideration in early May right before the LAFCO meeting. I think that may be too long and it does not give them much room for error, but it was the right thing to do.

Davis Korean Church

I cannot say the same for the other move for reconsideration. This has to do with the remodel of the Korean Church in Davis. At a meeting just two weeks ago, the council had during the course of granting their conditional use permit, imposed a required of solar panels on the church–under the condition that if it was too burdensome to the church they could remove that imposition.

What followed was a political football that developed when a member of the church forwarded an email from the Mayor to Davis Enterprise Columnist Bob Dunning who picked up the football and ran with it as far as he could, fanning the flames on this issue and carrying the water of Councilmembers Souza and Saylor.

So Councilmember Don Saylor pulled the item off the consent calendar on Tuesday, moved to approve the second reading for remodel but at the same time moved for reconsideration on the solar panel requirement. The expressed reason was for clarification of what had been passed unanimously at the previous meeting.

As Councilmember Heystek pointed out, he knew full well what he was voting for at the time and saw no reason to reconsider it. Mayor Greenwald decried the fact that the council was reconsidering based on a newspaper columnist’s opinion and also the fact that a councilmember had taken the issue to the newspaper columnist to begin with.

Indeed at the council meeting this Tuesday, Mayor Greenwald argued that the church had looked into the issue and the cost of the photovoltaics were less than the church members had originally feared. But the other point is that the cost consideration was actually placed into the original motion–and yet if you read the Bob Dunning columns, you would never have known that.

The observant reader would notice that in fact Bob Dunning had taken up the church’s cause well before the meeting in mid-March–writing five columns about the church from mid-February up until the vote. Dunning’s March 20, 2008 column tries to paint Sue Greenwald as the extremist and Don Saylor and Stephen Souza as the voices of reason.

But as Crilly Butler writes to the Davis Enterprise, Bob Dunning does not get all of his facts right nor does he paint a full and accurate picture in his March 20, 2008 column.

Writes Mr. Butler:

“First, considering the scope of this huge expansion project, the cost of solar panels will be tiny. The price he mentioned — $40,000 to $80,000 for 2 to 4 kW — is ridiculous. I’m considering a 3 kW installation for my own home and have been quoted about $17,000 after rebates.

And considering that the expansion was already going to be wired and framed for solar on its nicely pitched, unshaded, south-facing roof, it should be a slam dunk. Not to mention that the panels will pay for themselves within a few years, and after that, it’ll be pure profit for the church ! Not bad for a modest investment in a green future, and certainly not the onerous “blindsided by city’s solar experiment” that Dunning ‘s column suggests.

Secondly, Dunning implied that the church would be the city’s “guinea pig” for solar requirements. The truth is, the City Council has included solar panels as a condition of several recent projects requiring zoning and General Plan amendments (just as in the case of the church project). I hope it will continue to do so in the future.

Thirdly, Greenwald mentioned that if the cost was impossible for the church to bear, she would be willing to consider modifying or even eliminating this requirement. Interesting that Dunning forgot to mention this.

If Greenwald’s request was so inappropriate and unreasonable, why is it that her motion was passed unanimously by the entire council?”

Don Saylor suggests in Dunning’s April 1, 2008 column:

“In short, I will need three votes to place this on a future agenda for discussion. I will make the case that it is a bad idea to impose this requirement at the last minute with no policy in place and no rational assessment of the need or benefit for this requirement for the specific project.”

I am not opposed to having a universal requirement here, however, this is hardly the first time the council has made last minutes requirements for projects–it is within their power to do so, and there is a precedent for it with regards to solar panels. Both Mr. Saylor and Mr. Dunning would have a point here if the council had not placed into the requirement a provision that would allow reconsideration if the cost was prohibitive. The voice for reason angle is interesting but again distorts the fact that the original discussion and decision were not unreasonable.

I am sympathetic to the view that if costs are prohibitive to a non-profit such as a church, it should not be imposed on them–but then again, was that not already addressed in the original motion? The objection seemed to be that this was done last minute, but it was also clear that council not only had the right put this requirement in but had in fact done so in the past.

I do agree that the council needs to address the issue of energy efficiency and alternative energy sources overall. I think the model that Berkeley has set up–looking at subsidies for the use of solar–that could be paid off over time with energy savings is the way to go.

The city has set up a climate action team to look at such things, but we really do not need to reinvent as many wheels as we think we do. We ought to look at what is being done, adapt it to Davis and improve upon it first and then look toward new things.

Reconsideration in this case is a dangerous precedence and demonstrates how some of the avowed environmentalists can nevertheless be subject to heavy political pressure when an issue is taken up by political columnists.

At the original meeting, Councilmember Souza suggested that we ought not try to “out-green” each other, but at the same time, it seems clear that some members on this council will cave on issues under political pressure.

I see no reason that we needed to revisit this vote. The council had already put in a provision to reconsider if the photovoltaics proved to be too expensive. This was completely a political calculation rather than a policy move.

In the end, the council reconsidered two votes, the first one was a good move made by the council as a whole, the second one smacked of politics.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

79 Comments

  1. Anonymous

    Did Matt Rexroad have a major impact on City of Davis policies? It seems to me that if you think about last summer and this past Monday he is doing a pretty good job for Davis.

    I agree. Rexroad for Davis City Council.

  2. Anonymous

    Did Matt Rexroad have a major impact on City of Davis policies? It seems to me that if you think about last summer and this past Monday he is doing a pretty good job for Davis.

    I agree. Rexroad for Davis City Council.

  3. Anonymous

    Did Matt Rexroad have a major impact on City of Davis policies? It seems to me that if you think about last summer and this past Monday he is doing a pretty good job for Davis.

    I agree. Rexroad for Davis City Council.

  4. Anonymous

    Did Matt Rexroad have a major impact on City of Davis policies? It seems to me that if you think about last summer and this past Monday he is doing a pretty good job for Davis.

    I agree. Rexroad for Davis City Council.

  5. Matt Williams

    As I said in the public comment on Monday night, the biggest problem with the City’s request is its timing. I completely support the argument Souza made that the citizens of davis believe that active farming on agriculturally zoned land is a valid urban land use.

    The problem is that this concept is one that Davis has yet to act on. Many people have voiced a dream of a permanent agricultural buffer around Davis. That dream has not as yet become a reality. Rexroad’s questions to Souza focused on how “prepared” Davis is to truly provide protection.

    The Housing Element Steering Committee (HESC) has through its deliberations over the past 12 months set the stage for Davis to mover from “dream” stage to “reality” stage. The HESC report to Council, which will be presented on 4/22, places all the peripheral sites way down on the prioritized list. Out of 36 total sites, the four NW Quadrant sites are #33, #34, #35 and #36. Covell Village is #31. The report makes it very clear that none of these sites are needed (or desireable) prior to 2013. We are well protected until then.

    In addition 2013 is the date of the next LAFCO SOI assessment. Davis can use the next five years to 1) complete the Mid Course Correction analysis of the 1% Growth Guideline/Cap and thereby get a handle on Davis’ true “internal” demand for housing, and 2) complete the 2010 General Plan Update. Hpefully, that Update will clearly spell out how Davis has “prepared” itself to recognize and protect active farming as a valid urban land use within a clearly defined Urban Boundary.

    2013 is the right time to be presenting LAFCO with a clear, coherent, well-thought-out, plan for what the SOI of Davis should be.

  6. Matt Williams

    As I said in the public comment on Monday night, the biggest problem with the City’s request is its timing. I completely support the argument Souza made that the citizens of davis believe that active farming on agriculturally zoned land is a valid urban land use.

    The problem is that this concept is one that Davis has yet to act on. Many people have voiced a dream of a permanent agricultural buffer around Davis. That dream has not as yet become a reality. Rexroad’s questions to Souza focused on how “prepared” Davis is to truly provide protection.

    The Housing Element Steering Committee (HESC) has through its deliberations over the past 12 months set the stage for Davis to mover from “dream” stage to “reality” stage. The HESC report to Council, which will be presented on 4/22, places all the peripheral sites way down on the prioritized list. Out of 36 total sites, the four NW Quadrant sites are #33, #34, #35 and #36. Covell Village is #31. The report makes it very clear that none of these sites are needed (or desireable) prior to 2013. We are well protected until then.

    In addition 2013 is the date of the next LAFCO SOI assessment. Davis can use the next five years to 1) complete the Mid Course Correction analysis of the 1% Growth Guideline/Cap and thereby get a handle on Davis’ true “internal” demand for housing, and 2) complete the 2010 General Plan Update. Hpefully, that Update will clearly spell out how Davis has “prepared” itself to recognize and protect active farming as a valid urban land use within a clearly defined Urban Boundary.

    2013 is the right time to be presenting LAFCO with a clear, coherent, well-thought-out, plan for what the SOI of Davis should be.

  7. Matt Williams

    As I said in the public comment on Monday night, the biggest problem with the City’s request is its timing. I completely support the argument Souza made that the citizens of davis believe that active farming on agriculturally zoned land is a valid urban land use.

    The problem is that this concept is one that Davis has yet to act on. Many people have voiced a dream of a permanent agricultural buffer around Davis. That dream has not as yet become a reality. Rexroad’s questions to Souza focused on how “prepared” Davis is to truly provide protection.

    The Housing Element Steering Committee (HESC) has through its deliberations over the past 12 months set the stage for Davis to mover from “dream” stage to “reality” stage. The HESC report to Council, which will be presented on 4/22, places all the peripheral sites way down on the prioritized list. Out of 36 total sites, the four NW Quadrant sites are #33, #34, #35 and #36. Covell Village is #31. The report makes it very clear that none of these sites are needed (or desireable) prior to 2013. We are well protected until then.

    In addition 2013 is the date of the next LAFCO SOI assessment. Davis can use the next five years to 1) complete the Mid Course Correction analysis of the 1% Growth Guideline/Cap and thereby get a handle on Davis’ true “internal” demand for housing, and 2) complete the 2010 General Plan Update. Hpefully, that Update will clearly spell out how Davis has “prepared” itself to recognize and protect active farming as a valid urban land use within a clearly defined Urban Boundary.

    2013 is the right time to be presenting LAFCO with a clear, coherent, well-thought-out, plan for what the SOI of Davis should be.

  8. Matt Williams

    As I said in the public comment on Monday night, the biggest problem with the City’s request is its timing. I completely support the argument Souza made that the citizens of davis believe that active farming on agriculturally zoned land is a valid urban land use.

    The problem is that this concept is one that Davis has yet to act on. Many people have voiced a dream of a permanent agricultural buffer around Davis. That dream has not as yet become a reality. Rexroad’s questions to Souza focused on how “prepared” Davis is to truly provide protection.

    The Housing Element Steering Committee (HESC) has through its deliberations over the past 12 months set the stage for Davis to mover from “dream” stage to “reality” stage. The HESC report to Council, which will be presented on 4/22, places all the peripheral sites way down on the prioritized list. Out of 36 total sites, the four NW Quadrant sites are #33, #34, #35 and #36. Covell Village is #31. The report makes it very clear that none of these sites are needed (or desireable) prior to 2013. We are well protected until then.

    In addition 2013 is the date of the next LAFCO SOI assessment. Davis can use the next five years to 1) complete the Mid Course Correction analysis of the 1% Growth Guideline/Cap and thereby get a handle on Davis’ true “internal” demand for housing, and 2) complete the 2010 General Plan Update. Hpefully, that Update will clearly spell out how Davis has “prepared” itself to recognize and protect active farming as a valid urban land use within a clearly defined Urban Boundary.

    2013 is the right time to be presenting LAFCO with a clear, coherent, well-thought-out, plan for what the SOI of Davis should be.

  9. Christine

    Re: The Korean church. It seems to me that the Council made a very unwise decision in adding a requirement for solar panels when that has not been a requirement for other new buildings, The Roe building on 5th and G for instance and obviously the new Mosque on Russell. This appeared to be a punitive move based on the objections to the Church building a new facility at all. Whether the solar panels cost $50 or $50,000 is not the point, the point is how certain entities get singled out in this community, while others do not. If the council wanted to institute a blanket requirement for solar panels on new buildings over a certain size, I would applaud them, but pulling this out of the air during a meeting is just not right.

    What Bob Dunning says or thinks about it is irrelevant. The council members think for themselves and always have done.

    As for the neighborhood people who were objecting to the new church building, they should be ashamed of themselves. Complaints such as that crime will increase in the area are absolutely ludicrous. The church property is next door to a liquor store! and after complaining about increased parking problems, the proposal to increase the size of the church parking lot was criticized on aesthetic grounds! The little mall on the corner of 5th and L is hardly a picturesque little garden spot.

    I know you dislike Bob Dunning, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. The city council was right to approve the expansion of the church and it was simply the wrong time diplomatically or practically to suggest “extra” requirements, legal or not.

  10. Christine

    Re: The Korean church. It seems to me that the Council made a very unwise decision in adding a requirement for solar panels when that has not been a requirement for other new buildings, The Roe building on 5th and G for instance and obviously the new Mosque on Russell. This appeared to be a punitive move based on the objections to the Church building a new facility at all. Whether the solar panels cost $50 or $50,000 is not the point, the point is how certain entities get singled out in this community, while others do not. If the council wanted to institute a blanket requirement for solar panels on new buildings over a certain size, I would applaud them, but pulling this out of the air during a meeting is just not right.

    What Bob Dunning says or thinks about it is irrelevant. The council members think for themselves and always have done.

    As for the neighborhood people who were objecting to the new church building, they should be ashamed of themselves. Complaints such as that crime will increase in the area are absolutely ludicrous. The church property is next door to a liquor store! and after complaining about increased parking problems, the proposal to increase the size of the church parking lot was criticized on aesthetic grounds! The little mall on the corner of 5th and L is hardly a picturesque little garden spot.

    I know you dislike Bob Dunning, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. The city council was right to approve the expansion of the church and it was simply the wrong time diplomatically or practically to suggest “extra” requirements, legal or not.

  11. Christine

    Re: The Korean church. It seems to me that the Council made a very unwise decision in adding a requirement for solar panels when that has not been a requirement for other new buildings, The Roe building on 5th and G for instance and obviously the new Mosque on Russell. This appeared to be a punitive move based on the objections to the Church building a new facility at all. Whether the solar panels cost $50 or $50,000 is not the point, the point is how certain entities get singled out in this community, while others do not. If the council wanted to institute a blanket requirement for solar panels on new buildings over a certain size, I would applaud them, but pulling this out of the air during a meeting is just not right.

    What Bob Dunning says or thinks about it is irrelevant. The council members think for themselves and always have done.

    As for the neighborhood people who were objecting to the new church building, they should be ashamed of themselves. Complaints such as that crime will increase in the area are absolutely ludicrous. The church property is next door to a liquor store! and after complaining about increased parking problems, the proposal to increase the size of the church parking lot was criticized on aesthetic grounds! The little mall on the corner of 5th and L is hardly a picturesque little garden spot.

    I know you dislike Bob Dunning, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. The city council was right to approve the expansion of the church and it was simply the wrong time diplomatically or practically to suggest “extra” requirements, legal or not.

  12. Christine

    Re: The Korean church. It seems to me that the Council made a very unwise decision in adding a requirement for solar panels when that has not been a requirement for other new buildings, The Roe building on 5th and G for instance and obviously the new Mosque on Russell. This appeared to be a punitive move based on the objections to the Church building a new facility at all. Whether the solar panels cost $50 or $50,000 is not the point, the point is how certain entities get singled out in this community, while others do not. If the council wanted to institute a blanket requirement for solar panels on new buildings over a certain size, I would applaud them, but pulling this out of the air during a meeting is just not right.

    What Bob Dunning says or thinks about it is irrelevant. The council members think for themselves and always have done.

    As for the neighborhood people who were objecting to the new church building, they should be ashamed of themselves. Complaints such as that crime will increase in the area are absolutely ludicrous. The church property is next door to a liquor store! and after complaining about increased parking problems, the proposal to increase the size of the church parking lot was criticized on aesthetic grounds! The little mall on the corner of 5th and L is hardly a picturesque little garden spot.

    I know you dislike Bob Dunning, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. The city council was right to approve the expansion of the church and it was simply the wrong time diplomatically or practically to suggest “extra” requirements, legal or not.

  13. Anonymous

    I don’t think the council singled this group out, in fact, if you look at the last several similar items that have come forward, they’ve all been required to have solar panels. The question for me is not whether we should or should not require them to have solar panels, but rather how we should implement the policy to require all new building permits or redesigns to include them.

  14. Anonymous

    I don’t think the council singled this group out, in fact, if you look at the last several similar items that have come forward, they’ve all been required to have solar panels. The question for me is not whether we should or should not require them to have solar panels, but rather how we should implement the policy to require all new building permits or redesigns to include them.

  15. Anonymous

    I don’t think the council singled this group out, in fact, if you look at the last several similar items that have come forward, they’ve all been required to have solar panels. The question for me is not whether we should or should not require them to have solar panels, but rather how we should implement the policy to require all new building permits or redesigns to include them.

  16. Anonymous

    I don’t think the council singled this group out, in fact, if you look at the last several similar items that have come forward, they’ve all been required to have solar panels. The question for me is not whether we should or should not require them to have solar panels, but rather how we should implement the policy to require all new building permits or redesigns to include them.

  17. Anonymous

    Don Saylor learned his Davis politics at the foot of his mentor and financial godfather, Covell Village developer John Whitcomb, i.e. work to cobble together voter majority support based upon “goodies” that you promise to hand out to various Davis voter constituencies. Davis voters took Whitcomb’s efforts as an insult as they rejected his Covell Village development. We’ll see if Saylor’s reelection campaign politics brings on a similar result.

  18. Anonymous

    Don Saylor learned his Davis politics at the foot of his mentor and financial godfather, Covell Village developer John Whitcomb, i.e. work to cobble together voter majority support based upon “goodies” that you promise to hand out to various Davis voter constituencies. Davis voters took Whitcomb’s efforts as an insult as they rejected his Covell Village development. We’ll see if Saylor’s reelection campaign politics brings on a similar result.

  19. Anonymous

    Don Saylor learned his Davis politics at the foot of his mentor and financial godfather, Covell Village developer John Whitcomb, i.e. work to cobble together voter majority support based upon “goodies” that you promise to hand out to various Davis voter constituencies. Davis voters took Whitcomb’s efforts as an insult as they rejected his Covell Village development. We’ll see if Saylor’s reelection campaign politics brings on a similar result.

  20. Anonymous

    Don Saylor learned his Davis politics at the foot of his mentor and financial godfather, Covell Village developer John Whitcomb, i.e. work to cobble together voter majority support based upon “goodies” that you promise to hand out to various Davis voter constituencies. Davis voters took Whitcomb’s efforts as an insult as they rejected his Covell Village development. We’ll see if Saylor’s reelection campaign politics brings on a similar result.

  21. Anonymous

    Don Saylor learned his Davis politics at the foot of his mentor and financial godfather, Covell Village developer John Whitcomb, i.e. work to cobble together voter majority support based upon “goodies” that you promise to hand out to various Davis voter constituencies. Davis voters took Whitcomb’s efforts as an insult as they rejected his Covell Village development. We’ll see if Saylor’s reelection campaign politics brings on a similar result.

  22. Anonymous

    Don Saylor learned his Davis politics at the foot of his mentor and financial godfather, Covell Village developer John Whitcomb, i.e. work to cobble together voter majority support based upon “goodies” that you promise to hand out to various Davis voter constituencies. Davis voters took Whitcomb’s efforts as an insult as they rejected his Covell Village development. We’ll see if Saylor’s reelection campaign politics brings on a similar result.

  23. Anonymous

    Don Saylor learned his Davis politics at the foot of his mentor and financial godfather, Covell Village developer John Whitcomb, i.e. work to cobble together voter majority support based upon “goodies” that you promise to hand out to various Davis voter constituencies. Davis voters took Whitcomb’s efforts as an insult as they rejected his Covell Village development. We’ll see if Saylor’s reelection campaign politics brings on a similar result.

  24. Anonymous

    I think the primary objection to the solar panels addition was a valid one, that the church did not know ahead of time that this would be required and did not plan for the additional cost. If this is a new Davis policy then get it on paper and let people know up front that this is going to be a requirement so they can plan for the costs. To add it at the eleventh hour is unfair.

  25. Anonymous

    I think the primary objection to the solar panels addition was a valid one, that the church did not know ahead of time that this would be required and did not plan for the additional cost. If this is a new Davis policy then get it on paper and let people know up front that this is going to be a requirement so they can plan for the costs. To add it at the eleventh hour is unfair.

  26. Anonymous

    I think the primary objection to the solar panels addition was a valid one, that the church did not know ahead of time that this would be required and did not plan for the additional cost. If this is a new Davis policy then get it on paper and let people know up front that this is going to be a requirement so they can plan for the costs. To add it at the eleventh hour is unfair.

  27. Anonymous

    I think the primary objection to the solar panels addition was a valid one, that the church did not know ahead of time that this would be required and did not plan for the additional cost. If this is a new Davis policy then get it on paper and let people know up front that this is going to be a requirement so they can plan for the costs. To add it at the eleventh hour is unfair.

  28. Anonymous

    I think the primary objection to the solar panels addition was a valid one, that the church did not know ahead of time that this would be required and did not plan for the additional cost. If this is a new Davis policy then get it on paper and let people know up front that this is going to be a requirement so they can plan for the costs. To add it at the eleventh hour is unfair.

  29. Anonymous

    I think the primary objection to the solar panels addition was a valid one, that the church did not know ahead of time that this would be required and did not plan for the additional cost. If this is a new Davis policy then get it on paper and let people know up front that this is going to be a requirement so they can plan for the costs. To add it at the eleventh hour is unfair.

  30. Anonymous

    I think the primary objection to the solar panels addition was a valid one, that the church did not know ahead of time that this would be required and did not plan for the additional cost. If this is a new Davis policy then get it on paper and let people know up front that this is going to be a requirement so they can plan for the costs. To add it at the eleventh hour is unfair.

  31. David de la Pena

    This project is being “singled out” only because most projects of this sort never make it to city council for their review. If I’m correct, the church could have gone another route in their proposal other than subjecting themselves to city council but city planners recommended that the zoning be ‘cleaned up’ in the process of doing this application. This was a wise decision but it subjected the applicant to some risk by allowing the planning commission and city council to impose other requirements that are completely unlrelated to a zoning change.

    This is very unfair to applicants and it will discourage further applicants to request anything that would require council approval. That would be unfortunate, because many such changes are desirable.

    The city has a draft green building ordinance that it has presented to the planning commission and natural resources commissions, which will set requirements in a fair and balanced way. (The ordinance, by the way, needs to be much stronger) City council should direct energy to getting that ordinance in place as quickly as possible, not in messing with the random projects that they have a say in.

    Someone can also correct me here, but as a non-profit, I believe the church is not entitled to the significant rebate & tax benefits that come along with installing solar. Homeowners can get rebates and businesses can write off the cost and depreciation (very significant), but non-profits have no profit to write off.

  32. David de la Pena

    This project is being “singled out” only because most projects of this sort never make it to city council for their review. If I’m correct, the church could have gone another route in their proposal other than subjecting themselves to city council but city planners recommended that the zoning be ‘cleaned up’ in the process of doing this application. This was a wise decision but it subjected the applicant to some risk by allowing the planning commission and city council to impose other requirements that are completely unlrelated to a zoning change.

    This is very unfair to applicants and it will discourage further applicants to request anything that would require council approval. That would be unfortunate, because many such changes are desirable.

    The city has a draft green building ordinance that it has presented to the planning commission and natural resources commissions, which will set requirements in a fair and balanced way. (The ordinance, by the way, needs to be much stronger) City council should direct energy to getting that ordinance in place as quickly as possible, not in messing with the random projects that they have a say in.

    Someone can also correct me here, but as a non-profit, I believe the church is not entitled to the significant rebate & tax benefits that come along with installing solar. Homeowners can get rebates and businesses can write off the cost and depreciation (very significant), but non-profits have no profit to write off.

  33. David de la Pena

    This project is being “singled out” only because most projects of this sort never make it to city council for their review. If I’m correct, the church could have gone another route in their proposal other than subjecting themselves to city council but city planners recommended that the zoning be ‘cleaned up’ in the process of doing this application. This was a wise decision but it subjected the applicant to some risk by allowing the planning commission and city council to impose other requirements that are completely unlrelated to a zoning change.

    This is very unfair to applicants and it will discourage further applicants to request anything that would require council approval. That would be unfortunate, because many such changes are desirable.

    The city has a draft green building ordinance that it has presented to the planning commission and natural resources commissions, which will set requirements in a fair and balanced way. (The ordinance, by the way, needs to be much stronger) City council should direct energy to getting that ordinance in place as quickly as possible, not in messing with the random projects that they have a say in.

    Someone can also correct me here, but as a non-profit, I believe the church is not entitled to the significant rebate & tax benefits that come along with installing solar. Homeowners can get rebates and businesses can write off the cost and depreciation (very significant), but non-profits have no profit to write off.

  34. David de la Pena

    This project is being “singled out” only because most projects of this sort never make it to city council for their review. If I’m correct, the church could have gone another route in their proposal other than subjecting themselves to city council but city planners recommended that the zoning be ‘cleaned up’ in the process of doing this application. This was a wise decision but it subjected the applicant to some risk by allowing the planning commission and city council to impose other requirements that are completely unlrelated to a zoning change.

    This is very unfair to applicants and it will discourage further applicants to request anything that would require council approval. That would be unfortunate, because many such changes are desirable.

    The city has a draft green building ordinance that it has presented to the planning commission and natural resources commissions, which will set requirements in a fair and balanced way. (The ordinance, by the way, needs to be much stronger) City council should direct energy to getting that ordinance in place as quickly as possible, not in messing with the random projects that they have a say in.

    Someone can also correct me here, but as a non-profit, I believe the church is not entitled to the significant rebate & tax benefits that come along with installing solar. Homeowners can get rebates and businesses can write off the cost and depreciation (very significant), but non-profits have no profit to write off.

  35. David de la Pena

    This project is being “singled out” only because most projects of this sort never make it to city council for their review. If I’m correct, the church could have gone another route in their proposal other than subjecting themselves to city council but city planners recommended that the zoning be ‘cleaned up’ in the process of doing this application. This was a wise decision but it subjected the applicant to some risk by allowing the planning commission and city council to impose other requirements that are completely unlrelated to a zoning change.

    This is very unfair to applicants and it will discourage further applicants to request anything that would require council approval. That would be unfortunate, because many such changes are desirable.

    The city has a draft green building ordinance that it has presented to the planning commission and natural resources commissions, which will set requirements in a fair and balanced way. (The ordinance, by the way, needs to be much stronger) City council should direct energy to getting that ordinance in place as quickly as possible, not in messing with the random projects that they have a say in.

    Someone can also correct me here, but as a non-profit, I believe the church is not entitled to the significant rebate & tax benefits that come along with installing solar. Homeowners can get rebates and businesses can write off the cost and depreciation (very significant), but non-profits have no profit to write off.

  36. David de la Pena

    This project is being “singled out” only because most projects of this sort never make it to city council for their review. If I’m correct, the church could have gone another route in their proposal other than subjecting themselves to city council but city planners recommended that the zoning be ‘cleaned up’ in the process of doing this application. This was a wise decision but it subjected the applicant to some risk by allowing the planning commission and city council to impose other requirements that are completely unlrelated to a zoning change.

    This is very unfair to applicants and it will discourage further applicants to request anything that would require council approval. That would be unfortunate, because many such changes are desirable.

    The city has a draft green building ordinance that it has presented to the planning commission and natural resources commissions, which will set requirements in a fair and balanced way. (The ordinance, by the way, needs to be much stronger) City council should direct energy to getting that ordinance in place as quickly as possible, not in messing with the random projects that they have a say in.

    Someone can also correct me here, but as a non-profit, I believe the church is not entitled to the significant rebate & tax benefits that come along with installing solar. Homeowners can get rebates and businesses can write off the cost and depreciation (very significant), but non-profits have no profit to write off.

  37. David de la Pena

    This project is being “singled out” only because most projects of this sort never make it to city council for their review. If I’m correct, the church could have gone another route in their proposal other than subjecting themselves to city council but city planners recommended that the zoning be ‘cleaned up’ in the process of doing this application. This was a wise decision but it subjected the applicant to some risk by allowing the planning commission and city council to impose other requirements that are completely unlrelated to a zoning change.

    This is very unfair to applicants and it will discourage further applicants to request anything that would require council approval. That would be unfortunate, because many such changes are desirable.

    The city has a draft green building ordinance that it has presented to the planning commission and natural resources commissions, which will set requirements in a fair and balanced way. (The ordinance, by the way, needs to be much stronger) City council should direct energy to getting that ordinance in place as quickly as possible, not in messing with the random projects that they have a say in.

    Someone can also correct me here, but as a non-profit, I believe the church is not entitled to the significant rebate & tax benefits that come along with installing solar. Homeowners can get rebates and businesses can write off the cost and depreciation (very significant), but non-profits have no profit to write off.

  38. Rich Rifkin

    “Re: The Korean church. It seems to me that the Council made a very unwise decision in adding a requirement for solar panels when that has not been a requirement for other new buildings, The Roe building on 5th and G for instance and obviously the new Mosque on Russell.”

    I agree with Christine. I would favor a law which required projects of a certain size or larger to include solar energy.* However, it’s unfair to require this kind of thing on a subjective, case-by-case basis. As Christine points out, the Islamic Center had no such requirement, while the Korean Church had it. My guess is that when the project on Russell Blvd came up, no one thought to require solar panels, because we don’t have a law requiring solar.

    * On October 4, 2006 in my Enterprise colum I wrote: “We can’t solve global warming, alone, in Davis. But we can do our part. The city council ought to adopt a solar energy requirement for all big new developments. Any new project, residential or commercial, worth $1 million or more should have to include 100 percent solar power for its electricity.”

    I was thinking of the Cannery Park project when I wrote that. I hadn’t contemplated houses of worship. I don’t know the total budget of the Korean Church. It might not have applied. But the principal remains the same: we ought not subjectively require some to add this expense while omitting others from it.

    One other thing… I learned from readers, after my column on solar requirements came out, that this requirement can be physically impractical for some buildings. But it still might work to permit the developer to install solar off-site in those cases.

  39. Rich Rifkin

    “Re: The Korean church. It seems to me that the Council made a very unwise decision in adding a requirement for solar panels when that has not been a requirement for other new buildings, The Roe building on 5th and G for instance and obviously the new Mosque on Russell.”

    I agree with Christine. I would favor a law which required projects of a certain size or larger to include solar energy.* However, it’s unfair to require this kind of thing on a subjective, case-by-case basis. As Christine points out, the Islamic Center had no such requirement, while the Korean Church had it. My guess is that when the project on Russell Blvd came up, no one thought to require solar panels, because we don’t have a law requiring solar.

    * On October 4, 2006 in my Enterprise colum I wrote: “We can’t solve global warming, alone, in Davis. But we can do our part. The city council ought to adopt a solar energy requirement for all big new developments. Any new project, residential or commercial, worth $1 million or more should have to include 100 percent solar power for its electricity.”

    I was thinking of the Cannery Park project when I wrote that. I hadn’t contemplated houses of worship. I don’t know the total budget of the Korean Church. It might not have applied. But the principal remains the same: we ought not subjectively require some to add this expense while omitting others from it.

    One other thing… I learned from readers, after my column on solar requirements came out, that this requirement can be physically impractical for some buildings. But it still might work to permit the developer to install solar off-site in those cases.

  40. Rich Rifkin

    “Re: The Korean church. It seems to me that the Council made a very unwise decision in adding a requirement for solar panels when that has not been a requirement for other new buildings, The Roe building on 5th and G for instance and obviously the new Mosque on Russell.”

    I agree with Christine. I would favor a law which required projects of a certain size or larger to include solar energy.* However, it’s unfair to require this kind of thing on a subjective, case-by-case basis. As Christine points out, the Islamic Center had no such requirement, while the Korean Church had it. My guess is that when the project on Russell Blvd came up, no one thought to require solar panels, because we don’t have a law requiring solar.

    * On October 4, 2006 in my Enterprise colum I wrote: “We can’t solve global warming, alone, in Davis. But we can do our part. The city council ought to adopt a solar energy requirement for all big new developments. Any new project, residential or commercial, worth $1 million or more should have to include 100 percent solar power for its electricity.”

    I was thinking of the Cannery Park project when I wrote that. I hadn’t contemplated houses of worship. I don’t know the total budget of the Korean Church. It might not have applied. But the principal remains the same: we ought not subjectively require some to add this expense while omitting others from it.

    One other thing… I learned from readers, after my column on solar requirements came out, that this requirement can be physically impractical for some buildings. But it still might work to permit the developer to install solar off-site in those cases.

  41. Rich Rifkin

    “Re: The Korean church. It seems to me that the Council made a very unwise decision in adding a requirement for solar panels when that has not been a requirement for other new buildings, The Roe building on 5th and G for instance and obviously the new Mosque on Russell.”

    I agree with Christine. I would favor a law which required projects of a certain size or larger to include solar energy.* However, it’s unfair to require this kind of thing on a subjective, case-by-case basis. As Christine points out, the Islamic Center had no such requirement, while the Korean Church had it. My guess is that when the project on Russell Blvd came up, no one thought to require solar panels, because we don’t have a law requiring solar.

    * On October 4, 2006 in my Enterprise colum I wrote: “We can’t solve global warming, alone, in Davis. But we can do our part. The city council ought to adopt a solar energy requirement for all big new developments. Any new project, residential or commercial, worth $1 million or more should have to include 100 percent solar power for its electricity.”

    I was thinking of the Cannery Park project when I wrote that. I hadn’t contemplated houses of worship. I don’t know the total budget of the Korean Church. It might not have applied. But the principal remains the same: we ought not subjectively require some to add this expense while omitting others from it.

    One other thing… I learned from readers, after my column on solar requirements came out, that this requirement can be physically impractical for some buildings. But it still might work to permit the developer to install solar off-site in those cases.

  42. Rich Rifkin

    “Re: The Korean church. It seems to me that the Council made a very unwise decision in adding a requirement for solar panels when that has not been a requirement for other new buildings, The Roe building on 5th and G for instance and obviously the new Mosque on Russell.”

    I agree with Christine. I would favor a law which required projects of a certain size or larger to include solar energy.* However, it’s unfair to require this kind of thing on a subjective, case-by-case basis. As Christine points out, the Islamic Center had no such requirement, while the Korean Church had it. My guess is that when the project on Russell Blvd came up, no one thought to require solar panels, because we don’t have a law requiring solar.

    * On October 4, 2006 in my Enterprise colum I wrote: “We can’t solve global warming, alone, in Davis. But we can do our part. The city council ought to adopt a solar energy requirement for all big new developments. Any new project, residential or commercial, worth $1 million or more should have to include 100 percent solar power for its electricity.”

    I was thinking of the Cannery Park project when I wrote that. I hadn’t contemplated houses of worship. I don’t know the total budget of the Korean Church. It might not have applied. But the principal remains the same: we ought not subjectively require some to add this expense while omitting others from it.

    One other thing… I learned from readers, after my column on solar requirements came out, that this requirement can be physically impractical for some buildings. But it still might work to permit the developer to install solar off-site in those cases.

  43. Rich Rifkin

    “Re: The Korean church. It seems to me that the Council made a very unwise decision in adding a requirement for solar panels when that has not been a requirement for other new buildings, The Roe building on 5th and G for instance and obviously the new Mosque on Russell.”

    I agree with Christine. I would favor a law which required projects of a certain size or larger to include solar energy.* However, it’s unfair to require this kind of thing on a subjective, case-by-case basis. As Christine points out, the Islamic Center had no such requirement, while the Korean Church had it. My guess is that when the project on Russell Blvd came up, no one thought to require solar panels, because we don’t have a law requiring solar.

    * On October 4, 2006 in my Enterprise colum I wrote: “We can’t solve global warming, alone, in Davis. But we can do our part. The city council ought to adopt a solar energy requirement for all big new developments. Any new project, residential or commercial, worth $1 million or more should have to include 100 percent solar power for its electricity.”

    I was thinking of the Cannery Park project when I wrote that. I hadn’t contemplated houses of worship. I don’t know the total budget of the Korean Church. It might not have applied. But the principal remains the same: we ought not subjectively require some to add this expense while omitting others from it.

    One other thing… I learned from readers, after my column on solar requirements came out, that this requirement can be physically impractical for some buildings. But it still might work to permit the developer to install solar off-site in those cases.

  44. Rich Rifkin

    “Re: The Korean church. It seems to me that the Council made a very unwise decision in adding a requirement for solar panels when that has not been a requirement for other new buildings, The Roe building on 5th and G for instance and obviously the new Mosque on Russell.”

    I agree with Christine. I would favor a law which required projects of a certain size or larger to include solar energy.* However, it’s unfair to require this kind of thing on a subjective, case-by-case basis. As Christine points out, the Islamic Center had no such requirement, while the Korean Church had it. My guess is that when the project on Russell Blvd came up, no one thought to require solar panels, because we don’t have a law requiring solar.

    * On October 4, 2006 in my Enterprise colum I wrote: “We can’t solve global warming, alone, in Davis. But we can do our part. The city council ought to adopt a solar energy requirement for all big new developments. Any new project, residential or commercial, worth $1 million or more should have to include 100 percent solar power for its electricity.”

    I was thinking of the Cannery Park project when I wrote that. I hadn’t contemplated houses of worship. I don’t know the total budget of the Korean Church. It might not have applied. But the principal remains the same: we ought not subjectively require some to add this expense while omitting others from it.

    One other thing… I learned from readers, after my column on solar requirements came out, that this requirement can be physically impractical for some buildings. But it still might work to permit the developer to install solar off-site in those cases.

  45. Sue Greenwald

    Solar Panel issue:

    The most astonishing thing about this extremely over-politicized affair is that Don Saylor’s motion could cause more hassle for the Church, staff and council, and more expense for the City, for absolutely no gain to anyone over my own motion.

    My motion was simply to further clarify the already clear intent of the council, which was to allow the modest solar panel requirement to come back to the council for removal if it proved unfeasible or overly burdensome. The initial “requirement” was so tempered that it was in fact only a requirement for a feasibility study anyway.

    The only difference, (aside from the grandstanding value) between Don’s motion and my motion is that Don’s motion requires the item to come back before the Church looks into it’s feasibility, and whether or not the Church decides to go forward with the panels. This will require noticing the entire neighborhood and interested parties, staff, Church and council time, which will all have been completely unnecessary if the Church goes decide to go through with the project.

    Hence, Don’s motion is more burdensome than mine.

    Was the “requirement” unfairly “last minute”? No. This application was a for a general plan amendment, zoning change and conditional use permit. Customized requirements are standardly imposed in such cases, and council frequently imposes these requirements at the final hearing. In fact, council has recently required solar panels on another such project.

    I have occasionally talked with staff about allowing the council to informally weigh-in on these staff reports before such cases go to planning commission, in order allow the applicants to have more informed expectations before the final hearing. The City has tried this in the past, but it has proven cumbersome.

    Staff is now going to inform all applicants that solar feasibility study requirements are a possibility to plan for.

    Finally, my initial motion was constructive and valuable. The Church had thought solar panels to be more expensive than they are, and was not aware that tax credit transfer mechanisms are currently being worked out.

    The pastor of the Church told me that he wants to be a good steward of the environment, and the Church is looking more seriously at economics of installing solar panels sooner rather than later. This was the intent of my motion. I wish that pre-election grandstanding had not soured the process.

    P.S. Steve Souza could have taken the high road, and pointed out that clarifying the original motion would have sufficed. Instead, he sided with the council majority in the political maneuver. I was disappointed.

  46. Sue Greenwald

    Solar Panel issue:

    The most astonishing thing about this extremely over-politicized affair is that Don Saylor’s motion could cause more hassle for the Church, staff and council, and more expense for the City, for absolutely no gain to anyone over my own motion.

    My motion was simply to further clarify the already clear intent of the council, which was to allow the modest solar panel requirement to come back to the council for removal if it proved unfeasible or overly burdensome. The initial “requirement” was so tempered that it was in fact only a requirement for a feasibility study anyway.

    The only difference, (aside from the grandstanding value) between Don’s motion and my motion is that Don’s motion requires the item to come back before the Church looks into it’s feasibility, and whether or not the Church decides to go forward with the panels. This will require noticing the entire neighborhood and interested parties, staff, Church and council time, which will all have been completely unnecessary if the Church goes decide to go through with the project.

    Hence, Don’s motion is more burdensome than mine.

    Was the “requirement” unfairly “last minute”? No. This application was a for a general plan amendment, zoning change and conditional use permit. Customized requirements are standardly imposed in such cases, and council frequently imposes these requirements at the final hearing. In fact, council has recently required solar panels on another such project.

    I have occasionally talked with staff about allowing the council to informally weigh-in on these staff reports before such cases go to planning commission, in order allow the applicants to have more informed expectations before the final hearing. The City has tried this in the past, but it has proven cumbersome.

    Staff is now going to inform all applicants that solar feasibility study requirements are a possibility to plan for.

    Finally, my initial motion was constructive and valuable. The Church had thought solar panels to be more expensive than they are, and was not aware that tax credit transfer mechanisms are currently being worked out.

    The pastor of the Church told me that he wants to be a good steward of the environment, and the Church is looking more seriously at economics of installing solar panels sooner rather than later. This was the intent of my motion. I wish that pre-election grandstanding had not soured the process.

    P.S. Steve Souza could have taken the high road, and pointed out that clarifying the original motion would have sufficed. Instead, he sided with the council majority in the political maneuver. I was disappointed.

  47. Sue Greenwald

    Solar Panel issue:

    The most astonishing thing about this extremely over-politicized affair is that Don Saylor’s motion could cause more hassle for the Church, staff and council, and more expense for the City, for absolutely no gain to anyone over my own motion.

    My motion was simply to further clarify the already clear intent of the council, which was to allow the modest solar panel requirement to come back to the council for removal if it proved unfeasible or overly burdensome. The initial “requirement” was so tempered that it was in fact only a requirement for a feasibility study anyway.

    The only difference, (aside from the grandstanding value) between Don’s motion and my motion is that Don’s motion requires the item to come back before the Church looks into it’s feasibility, and whether or not the Church decides to go forward with the panels. This will require noticing the entire neighborhood and interested parties, staff, Church and council time, which will all have been completely unnecessary if the Church goes decide to go through with the project.

    Hence, Don’s motion is more burdensome than mine.

    Was the “requirement” unfairly “last minute”? No. This application was a for a general plan amendment, zoning change and conditional use permit. Customized requirements are standardly imposed in such cases, and council frequently imposes these requirements at the final hearing. In fact, council has recently required solar panels on another such project.

    I have occasionally talked with staff about allowing the council to informally weigh-in on these staff reports before such cases go to planning commission, in order allow the applicants to have more informed expectations before the final hearing. The City has tried this in the past, but it has proven cumbersome.

    Staff is now going to inform all applicants that solar feasibility study requirements are a possibility to plan for.

    Finally, my initial motion was constructive and valuable. The Church had thought solar panels to be more expensive than they are, and was not aware that tax credit transfer mechanisms are currently being worked out.

    The pastor of the Church told me that he wants to be a good steward of the environment, and the Church is looking more seriously at economics of installing solar panels sooner rather than later. This was the intent of my motion. I wish that pre-election grandstanding had not soured the process.

    P.S. Steve Souza could have taken the high road, and pointed out that clarifying the original motion would have sufficed. Instead, he sided with the council majority in the political maneuver. I was disappointed.

  48. Sue Greenwald

    Solar Panel issue:

    The most astonishing thing about this extremely over-politicized affair is that Don Saylor’s motion could cause more hassle for the Church, staff and council, and more expense for the City, for absolutely no gain to anyone over my own motion.

    My motion was simply to further clarify the already clear intent of the council, which was to allow the modest solar panel requirement to come back to the council for removal if it proved unfeasible or overly burdensome. The initial “requirement” was so tempered that it was in fact only a requirement for a feasibility study anyway.

    The only difference, (aside from the grandstanding value) between Don’s motion and my motion is that Don’s motion requires the item to come back before the Church looks into it’s feasibility, and whether or not the Church decides to go forward with the panels. This will require noticing the entire neighborhood and interested parties, staff, Church and council time, which will all have been completely unnecessary if the Church goes decide to go through with the project.

    Hence, Don’s motion is more burdensome than mine.

    Was the “requirement” unfairly “last minute”? No. This application was a for a general plan amendment, zoning change and conditional use permit. Customized requirements are standardly imposed in such cases, and council frequently imposes these requirements at the final hearing. In fact, council has recently required solar panels on another such project.

    I have occasionally talked with staff about allowing the council to informally weigh-in on these staff reports before such cases go to planning commission, in order allow the applicants to have more informed expectations before the final hearing. The City has tried this in the past, but it has proven cumbersome.

    Staff is now going to inform all applicants that solar feasibility study requirements are a possibility to plan for.

    Finally, my initial motion was constructive and valuable. The Church had thought solar panels to be more expensive than they are, and was not aware that tax credit transfer mechanisms are currently being worked out.

    The pastor of the Church told me that he wants to be a good steward of the environment, and the Church is looking more seriously at economics of installing solar panels sooner rather than later. This was the intent of my motion. I wish that pre-election grandstanding had not soured the process.

    P.S. Steve Souza could have taken the high road, and pointed out that clarifying the original motion would have sufficed. Instead, he sided with the council majority in the political maneuver. I was disappointed.

  49. Sue Greenwald

    Solar Panel issue:

    The most astonishing thing about this extremely over-politicized affair is that Don Saylor’s motion could cause more hassle for the Church, staff and council, and more expense for the City, for absolutely no gain to anyone over my own motion.

    My motion was simply to further clarify the already clear intent of the council, which was to allow the modest solar panel requirement to come back to the council for removal if it proved unfeasible or overly burdensome. The initial “requirement” was so tempered that it was in fact only a requirement for a feasibility study anyway.

    The only difference, (aside from the grandstanding value) between Don’s motion and my motion is that Don’s motion requires the item to come back before the Church looks into it’s feasibility, and whether or not the Church decides to go forward with the panels. This will require noticing the entire neighborhood and interested parties, staff, Church and council time, which will all have been completely unnecessary if the Church goes decide to go through with the project.

    Hence, Don’s motion is more burdensome than mine.

    Was the “requirement” unfairly “last minute”? No. This application was a for a general plan amendment, zoning change and conditional use permit. Customized requirements are standardly imposed in such cases, and council frequently imposes these requirements at the final hearing. In fact, council has recently required solar panels on another such project.

    I have occasionally talked with staff about allowing the council to informally weigh-in on these staff reports before such cases go to planning commission, in order allow the applicants to have more informed expectations before the final hearing. The City has tried this in the past, but it has proven cumbersome.

    Staff is now going to inform all applicants that solar feasibility study requirements are a possibility to plan for.

    Finally, my initial motion was constructive and valuable. The Church had thought solar panels to be more expensive than they are, and was not aware that tax credit transfer mechanisms are currently being worked out.

    The pastor of the Church told me that he wants to be a good steward of the environment, and the Church is looking more seriously at economics of installing solar panels sooner rather than later. This was the intent of my motion. I wish that pre-election grandstanding had not soured the process.

    P.S. Steve Souza could have taken the high road, and pointed out that clarifying the original motion would have sufficed. Instead, he sided with the council majority in the political maneuver. I was disappointed.

  50. Sue Greenwald

    Solar Panel issue:

    The most astonishing thing about this extremely over-politicized affair is that Don Saylor’s motion could cause more hassle for the Church, staff and council, and more expense for the City, for absolutely no gain to anyone over my own motion.

    My motion was simply to further clarify the already clear intent of the council, which was to allow the modest solar panel requirement to come back to the council for removal if it proved unfeasible or overly burdensome. The initial “requirement” was so tempered that it was in fact only a requirement for a feasibility study anyway.

    The only difference, (aside from the grandstanding value) between Don’s motion and my motion is that Don’s motion requires the item to come back before the Church looks into it’s feasibility, and whether or not the Church decides to go forward with the panels. This will require noticing the entire neighborhood and interested parties, staff, Church and council time, which will all have been completely unnecessary if the Church goes decide to go through with the project.

    Hence, Don’s motion is more burdensome than mine.

    Was the “requirement” unfairly “last minute”? No. This application was a for a general plan amendment, zoning change and conditional use permit. Customized requirements are standardly imposed in such cases, and council frequently imposes these requirements at the final hearing. In fact, council has recently required solar panels on another such project.

    I have occasionally talked with staff about allowing the council to informally weigh-in on these staff reports before such cases go to planning commission, in order allow the applicants to have more informed expectations before the final hearing. The City has tried this in the past, but it has proven cumbersome.

    Staff is now going to inform all applicants that solar feasibility study requirements are a possibility to plan for.

    Finally, my initial motion was constructive and valuable. The Church had thought solar panels to be more expensive than they are, and was not aware that tax credit transfer mechanisms are currently being worked out.

    The pastor of the Church told me that he wants to be a good steward of the environment, and the Church is looking more seriously at economics of installing solar panels sooner rather than later. This was the intent of my motion. I wish that pre-election grandstanding had not soured the process.

    P.S. Steve Souza could have taken the high road, and pointed out that clarifying the original motion would have sufficed. Instead, he sided with the council majority in the political maneuver. I was disappointed.

  51. Sue Greenwald

    Solar Panel issue:

    The most astonishing thing about this extremely over-politicized affair is that Don Saylor’s motion could cause more hassle for the Church, staff and council, and more expense for the City, for absolutely no gain to anyone over my own motion.

    My motion was simply to further clarify the already clear intent of the council, which was to allow the modest solar panel requirement to come back to the council for removal if it proved unfeasible or overly burdensome. The initial “requirement” was so tempered that it was in fact only a requirement for a feasibility study anyway.

    The only difference, (aside from the grandstanding value) between Don’s motion and my motion is that Don’s motion requires the item to come back before the Church looks into it’s feasibility, and whether or not the Church decides to go forward with the panels. This will require noticing the entire neighborhood and interested parties, staff, Church and council time, which will all have been completely unnecessary if the Church goes decide to go through with the project.

    Hence, Don’s motion is more burdensome than mine.

    Was the “requirement” unfairly “last minute”? No. This application was a for a general plan amendment, zoning change and conditional use permit. Customized requirements are standardly imposed in such cases, and council frequently imposes these requirements at the final hearing. In fact, council has recently required solar panels on another such project.

    I have occasionally talked with staff about allowing the council to informally weigh-in on these staff reports before such cases go to planning commission, in order allow the applicants to have more informed expectations before the final hearing. The City has tried this in the past, but it has proven cumbersome.

    Staff is now going to inform all applicants that solar feasibility study requirements are a possibility to plan for.

    Finally, my initial motion was constructive and valuable. The Church had thought solar panels to be more expensive than they are, and was not aware that tax credit transfer mechanisms are currently being worked out.

    The pastor of the Church told me that he wants to be a good steward of the environment, and the Church is looking more seriously at economics of installing solar panels sooner rather than later. This was the intent of my motion. I wish that pre-election grandstanding had not soured the process.

    P.S. Steve Souza could have taken the high road, and pointed out that clarifying the original motion would have sufficed. Instead, he sided with the council majority in the political maneuver. I was disappointed.

  52. anonymous 9:15AM

    sue greenwald – Thank you for clarifying the original intent of the council.

    As a resident living in the area, I really do think that the church has gone out of their way to try and resolve the issues of the neighbors in the surrounding community. I tend to be a bit protective of the church as they have had a huge effect on cleaning up the neighboring park which used to be a great hangout for all of the drunks that were getting their 40s from the 7-11.

  53. anonymous 9:15AM

    sue greenwald – Thank you for clarifying the original intent of the council.

    As a resident living in the area, I really do think that the church has gone out of their way to try and resolve the issues of the neighbors in the surrounding community. I tend to be a bit protective of the church as they have had a huge effect on cleaning up the neighboring park which used to be a great hangout for all of the drunks that were getting their 40s from the 7-11.

  54. anonymous 9:15AM

    sue greenwald – Thank you for clarifying the original intent of the council.

    As a resident living in the area, I really do think that the church has gone out of their way to try and resolve the issues of the neighbors in the surrounding community. I tend to be a bit protective of the church as they have had a huge effect on cleaning up the neighboring park which used to be a great hangout for all of the drunks that were getting their 40s from the 7-11.

  55. anonymous 9:15AM

    sue greenwald – Thank you for clarifying the original intent of the council.

    As a resident living in the area, I really do think that the church has gone out of their way to try and resolve the issues of the neighbors in the surrounding community. I tend to be a bit protective of the church as they have had a huge effect on cleaning up the neighboring park which used to be a great hangout for all of the drunks that were getting their 40s from the 7-11.

  56. anonymous 9:15AM

    sue greenwald – Thank you for clarifying the original intent of the council.

    As a resident living in the area, I really do think that the church has gone out of their way to try and resolve the issues of the neighbors in the surrounding community. I tend to be a bit protective of the church as they have had a huge effect on cleaning up the neighboring park which used to be a great hangout for all of the drunks that were getting their 40s from the 7-11.

  57. anonymous 9:15AM

    sue greenwald – Thank you for clarifying the original intent of the council.

    As a resident living in the area, I really do think that the church has gone out of their way to try and resolve the issues of the neighbors in the surrounding community. I tend to be a bit protective of the church as they have had a huge effect on cleaning up the neighboring park which used to be a great hangout for all of the drunks that were getting their 40s from the 7-11.

  58. anonymous 9:15AM

    sue greenwald – Thank you for clarifying the original intent of the council.

    As a resident living in the area, I really do think that the church has gone out of their way to try and resolve the issues of the neighbors in the surrounding community. I tend to be a bit protective of the church as they have had a huge effect on cleaning up the neighboring park which used to be a great hangout for all of the drunks that were getting their 40s from the 7-11.

  59. Another Idea

    Before the city launches into another unthought out “green manuever”, I would suggest doing a bit of research first. New technologies are coming up, that may make solar panels obsolete. One such idea appeared in the Cal Aggie recently (e.g. micro-solar panels, solar heated glass). If the city decides to think about passing some type of “solar ordinance”, they should do some investigation first and foremost.

    Ill thought out resolutions from the dais are not helpful. As we saw, it results in “take-backs” when things have not been researched enough. Too often some city staff members (not all) do not do their homework, make ill advised suggestions, and line up political support for their ideas prior to discussion, so there is no meaningful discussion.

    I am actually glad both ideas were taken back, for whatever reason. Both really need to be better thought out, with some serious public discussion taking place. I am truly fed up with “Bill Emlen’s staff” figuring out “what is best” without a thorough investigation, then foisting it on an ill informed council (and public), with back room dealing having occurred prior to the city council session chosen for voting on the issue.

    The same sort of double dealing went on at the School Board level, and look where that got us!

  60. Another Idea

    Before the city launches into another unthought out “green manuever”, I would suggest doing a bit of research first. New technologies are coming up, that may make solar panels obsolete. One such idea appeared in the Cal Aggie recently (e.g. micro-solar panels, solar heated glass). If the city decides to think about passing some type of “solar ordinance”, they should do some investigation first and foremost.

    Ill thought out resolutions from the dais are not helpful. As we saw, it results in “take-backs” when things have not been researched enough. Too often some city staff members (not all) do not do their homework, make ill advised suggestions, and line up political support for their ideas prior to discussion, so there is no meaningful discussion.

    I am actually glad both ideas were taken back, for whatever reason. Both really need to be better thought out, with some serious public discussion taking place. I am truly fed up with “Bill Emlen’s staff” figuring out “what is best” without a thorough investigation, then foisting it on an ill informed council (and public), with back room dealing having occurred prior to the city council session chosen for voting on the issue.

    The same sort of double dealing went on at the School Board level, and look where that got us!

  61. Another Idea

    Before the city launches into another unthought out “green manuever”, I would suggest doing a bit of research first. New technologies are coming up, that may make solar panels obsolete. One such idea appeared in the Cal Aggie recently (e.g. micro-solar panels, solar heated glass). If the city decides to think about passing some type of “solar ordinance”, they should do some investigation first and foremost.

    Ill thought out resolutions from the dais are not helpful. As we saw, it results in “take-backs” when things have not been researched enough. Too often some city staff members (not all) do not do their homework, make ill advised suggestions, and line up political support for their ideas prior to discussion, so there is no meaningful discussion.

    I am actually glad both ideas were taken back, for whatever reason. Both really need to be better thought out, with some serious public discussion taking place. I am truly fed up with “Bill Emlen’s staff” figuring out “what is best” without a thorough investigation, then foisting it on an ill informed council (and public), with back room dealing having occurred prior to the city council session chosen for voting on the issue.

    The same sort of double dealing went on at the School Board level, and look where that got us!

  62. Another Idea

    Before the city launches into another unthought out “green manuever”, I would suggest doing a bit of research first. New technologies are coming up, that may make solar panels obsolete. One such idea appeared in the Cal Aggie recently (e.g. micro-solar panels, solar heated glass). If the city decides to think about passing some type of “solar ordinance”, they should do some investigation first and foremost.

    Ill thought out resolutions from the dais are not helpful. As we saw, it results in “take-backs” when things have not been researched enough. Too often some city staff members (not all) do not do their homework, make ill advised suggestions, and line up political support for their ideas prior to discussion, so there is no meaningful discussion.

    I am actually glad both ideas were taken back, for whatever reason. Both really need to be better thought out, with some serious public discussion taking place. I am truly fed up with “Bill Emlen’s staff” figuring out “what is best” without a thorough investigation, then foisting it on an ill informed council (and public), with back room dealing having occurred prior to the city council session chosen for voting on the issue.

    The same sort of double dealing went on at the School Board level, and look where that got us!

  63. Another Idea

    Before the city launches into another unthought out “green manuever”, I would suggest doing a bit of research first. New technologies are coming up, that may make solar panels obsolete. One such idea appeared in the Cal Aggie recently (e.g. micro-solar panels, solar heated glass). If the city decides to think about passing some type of “solar ordinance”, they should do some investigation first and foremost.

    Ill thought out resolutions from the dais are not helpful. As we saw, it results in “take-backs” when things have not been researched enough. Too often some city staff members (not all) do not do their homework, make ill advised suggestions, and line up political support for their ideas prior to discussion, so there is no meaningful discussion.

    I am actually glad both ideas were taken back, for whatever reason. Both really need to be better thought out, with some serious public discussion taking place. I am truly fed up with “Bill Emlen’s staff” figuring out “what is best” without a thorough investigation, then foisting it on an ill informed council (and public), with back room dealing having occurred prior to the city council session chosen for voting on the issue.

    The same sort of double dealing went on at the School Board level, and look where that got us!

  64. Another Idea

    Before the city launches into another unthought out “green manuever”, I would suggest doing a bit of research first. New technologies are coming up, that may make solar panels obsolete. One such idea appeared in the Cal Aggie recently (e.g. micro-solar panels, solar heated glass). If the city decides to think about passing some type of “solar ordinance”, they should do some investigation first and foremost.

    Ill thought out resolutions from the dais are not helpful. As we saw, it results in “take-backs” when things have not been researched enough. Too often some city staff members (not all) do not do their homework, make ill advised suggestions, and line up political support for their ideas prior to discussion, so there is no meaningful discussion.

    I am actually glad both ideas were taken back, for whatever reason. Both really need to be better thought out, with some serious public discussion taking place. I am truly fed up with “Bill Emlen’s staff” figuring out “what is best” without a thorough investigation, then foisting it on an ill informed council (and public), with back room dealing having occurred prior to the city council session chosen for voting on the issue.

    The same sort of double dealing went on at the School Board level, and look where that got us!

  65. Another Idea

    Before the city launches into another unthought out “green manuever”, I would suggest doing a bit of research first. New technologies are coming up, that may make solar panels obsolete. One such idea appeared in the Cal Aggie recently (e.g. micro-solar panels, solar heated glass). If the city decides to think about passing some type of “solar ordinance”, they should do some investigation first and foremost.

    Ill thought out resolutions from the dais are not helpful. As we saw, it results in “take-backs” when things have not been researched enough. Too often some city staff members (not all) do not do their homework, make ill advised suggestions, and line up political support for their ideas prior to discussion, so there is no meaningful discussion.

    I am actually glad both ideas were taken back, for whatever reason. Both really need to be better thought out, with some serious public discussion taking place. I am truly fed up with “Bill Emlen’s staff” figuring out “what is best” without a thorough investigation, then foisting it on an ill informed council (and public), with back room dealing having occurred prior to the city council session chosen for voting on the issue.

    The same sort of double dealing went on at the School Board level, and look where that got us!

  66. Anonymous

    Re: “I tend to be a bit protective of the church as they have had a huge effect on cleaning up the neighboring park which used to be a great hangout for all of the drunks that were getting their 40s from the 7-11.”

    Why does the area around the church always look littered every Sinday and Wednesday? Sometimes the Koreans don’t tightly shut their dumpsters. Sometimes the litter just gets dropped before it gets to the dumpster. Either way, the Koreans don’t have to worry about the scene after they leave the vicinity: they don’t live in the neighborhood.

  67. Anonymous

    Re: “I tend to be a bit protective of the church as they have had a huge effect on cleaning up the neighboring park which used to be a great hangout for all of the drunks that were getting their 40s from the 7-11.”

    Why does the area around the church always look littered every Sinday and Wednesday? Sometimes the Koreans don’t tightly shut their dumpsters. Sometimes the litter just gets dropped before it gets to the dumpster. Either way, the Koreans don’t have to worry about the scene after they leave the vicinity: they don’t live in the neighborhood.

  68. Anonymous

    Re: “I tend to be a bit protective of the church as they have had a huge effect on cleaning up the neighboring park which used to be a great hangout for all of the drunks that were getting their 40s from the 7-11.”

    Why does the area around the church always look littered every Sinday and Wednesday? Sometimes the Koreans don’t tightly shut their dumpsters. Sometimes the litter just gets dropped before it gets to the dumpster. Either way, the Koreans don’t have to worry about the scene after they leave the vicinity: they don’t live in the neighborhood.

  69. Anonymous

    Re: “I tend to be a bit protective of the church as they have had a huge effect on cleaning up the neighboring park which used to be a great hangout for all of the drunks that were getting their 40s from the 7-11.”

    Why does the area around the church always look littered every Sinday and Wednesday? Sometimes the Koreans don’t tightly shut their dumpsters. Sometimes the litter just gets dropped before it gets to the dumpster. Either way, the Koreans don’t have to worry about the scene after they leave the vicinity: they don’t live in the neighborhood.

  70. Anonymous

    Re: “I tend to be a bit protective of the church as they have had a huge effect on cleaning up the neighboring park which used to be a great hangout for all of the drunks that were getting their 40s from the 7-11.”

    Why does the area around the church always look littered every Sinday and Wednesday? Sometimes the Koreans don’t tightly shut their dumpsters. Sometimes the litter just gets dropped before it gets to the dumpster. Either way, the Koreans don’t have to worry about the scene after they leave the vicinity: they don’t live in the neighborhood.

  71. Anonymous

    Re: “I tend to be a bit protective of the church as they have had a huge effect on cleaning up the neighboring park which used to be a great hangout for all of the drunks that were getting their 40s from the 7-11.”

    Why does the area around the church always look littered every Sinday and Wednesday? Sometimes the Koreans don’t tightly shut their dumpsters. Sometimes the litter just gets dropped before it gets to the dumpster. Either way, the Koreans don’t have to worry about the scene after they leave the vicinity: they don’t live in the neighborhood.

  72. Anonymous

    Re: “I tend to be a bit protective of the church as they have had a huge effect on cleaning up the neighboring park which used to be a great hangout for all of the drunks that were getting their 40s from the 7-11.”

    Why does the area around the church always look littered every Sinday and Wednesday? Sometimes the Koreans don’t tightly shut their dumpsters. Sometimes the litter just gets dropped before it gets to the dumpster. Either way, the Koreans don’t have to worry about the scene after they leave the vicinity: they don’t live in the neighborhood.

  73. Mike Harrington Comments ....

    Dear Don,

    I just wanted to give you a bit of feedback about my experience with solar on a large master metered building.

    The church is a large master-metered facility. THere is a huge benefit to the owner to have solar.

    In contrast, Chuck Roe’s building is split into various tenants who each pay the PGE eletric meter. CHuck spent serious money to make the building envelope very tight and efficient, but the tenants will pay their own electric. Large collectors on that building make no sense, unless there is another economic model that I have not heard about.

    In contrast to Chuck’s buildings, my commercial tenants at Harrington Place, 430 D Street, are not individually metered. I pay the bills, and the large panels I bought from Dean Newberry, now at Talbot Solar, greatly reduce the bills that I have to pay, as owner.

    I think it’s apppropriate for the City to require these large institutional and commercial users with a master meter set up to install solar. There are very good upfront tax credits, accelerated depreciation, and long term benefits from the panels.

    I would recommend that staff or the church contact Talbot Solar and ask them for some price quotes and pay-back schedules, and put that information into the staff report. Talbot’s solar installations have saved me a lot of money these past 4 years.

    I think this CC reconsideration is a good thing, in that it is prompting additional discussion and CC agenda time on how the city can work with building owners to increase the efficiency and overall environmental sustainability.

    Good for Sue to ask for it in the first instance, and good for Don in asking for more discussion.

    To all of you on the City Council: keep up the good work, and bless all of you for sitting up there!

    Best,

    Mike Harrington
    Member, Davis CC 2000-04

  74. Mike Harrington Comments ....

    Dear Don,

    I just wanted to give you a bit of feedback about my experience with solar on a large master metered building.

    The church is a large master-metered facility. THere is a huge benefit to the owner to have solar.

    In contrast, Chuck Roe’s building is split into various tenants who each pay the PGE eletric meter. CHuck spent serious money to make the building envelope very tight and efficient, but the tenants will pay their own electric. Large collectors on that building make no sense, unless there is another economic model that I have not heard about.

    In contrast to Chuck’s buildings, my commercial tenants at Harrington Place, 430 D Street, are not individually metered. I pay the bills, and the large panels I bought from Dean Newberry, now at Talbot Solar, greatly reduce the bills that I have to pay, as owner.

    I think it’s apppropriate for the City to require these large institutional and commercial users with a master meter set up to install solar. There are very good upfront tax credits, accelerated depreciation, and long term benefits from the panels.

    I would recommend that staff or the church contact Talbot Solar and ask them for some price quotes and pay-back schedules, and put that information into the staff report. Talbot’s solar installations have saved me a lot of money these past 4 years.

    I think this CC reconsideration is a good thing, in that it is prompting additional discussion and CC agenda time on how the city can work with building owners to increase the efficiency and overall environmental sustainability.

    Good for Sue to ask for it in the first instance, and good for Don in asking for more discussion.

    To all of you on the City Council: keep up the good work, and bless all of you for sitting up there!

    Best,

    Mike Harrington
    Member, Davis CC 2000-04

  75. Mike Harrington Comments ....

    Dear Don,

    I just wanted to give you a bit of feedback about my experience with solar on a large master metered building.

    The church is a large master-metered facility. THere is a huge benefit to the owner to have solar.

    In contrast, Chuck Roe’s building is split into various tenants who each pay the PGE eletric meter. CHuck spent serious money to make the building envelope very tight and efficient, but the tenants will pay their own electric. Large collectors on that building make no sense, unless there is another economic model that I have not heard about.

    In contrast to Chuck’s buildings, my commercial tenants at Harrington Place, 430 D Street, are not individually metered. I pay the bills, and the large panels I bought from Dean Newberry, now at Talbot Solar, greatly reduce the bills that I have to pay, as owner.

    I think it’s apppropriate for the City to require these large institutional and commercial users with a master meter set up to install solar. There are very good upfront tax credits, accelerated depreciation, and long term benefits from the panels.

    I would recommend that staff or the church contact Talbot Solar and ask them for some price quotes and pay-back schedules, and put that information into the staff report. Talbot’s solar installations have saved me a lot of money these past 4 years.

    I think this CC reconsideration is a good thing, in that it is prompting additional discussion and CC agenda time on how the city can work with building owners to increase the efficiency and overall environmental sustainability.

    Good for Sue to ask for it in the first instance, and good for Don in asking for more discussion.

    To all of you on the City Council: keep up the good work, and bless all of you for sitting up there!

    Best,

    Mike Harrington
    Member, Davis CC 2000-04

  76. Mike Harrington Comments ....

    Dear Don,

    I just wanted to give you a bit of feedback about my experience with solar on a large master metered building.

    The church is a large master-metered facility. THere is a huge benefit to the owner to have solar.

    In contrast, Chuck Roe’s building is split into various tenants who each pay the PGE eletric meter. CHuck spent serious money to make the building envelope very tight and efficient, but the tenants will pay their own electric. Large collectors on that building make no sense, unless there is another economic model that I have not heard about.

    In contrast to Chuck’s buildings, my commercial tenants at Harrington Place, 430 D Street, are not individually metered. I pay the bills, and the large panels I bought from Dean Newberry, now at Talbot Solar, greatly reduce the bills that I have to pay, as owner.

    I think it’s apppropriate for the City to require these large institutional and commercial users with a master meter set up to install solar. There are very good upfront tax credits, accelerated depreciation, and long term benefits from the panels.

    I would recommend that staff or the church contact Talbot Solar and ask them for some price quotes and pay-back schedules, and put that information into the staff report. Talbot’s solar installations have saved me a lot of money these past 4 years.

    I think this CC reconsideration is a good thing, in that it is prompting additional discussion and CC agenda time on how the city can work with building owners to increase the efficiency and overall environmental sustainability.

    Good for Sue to ask for it in the first instance, and good for Don in asking for more discussion.

    To all of you on the City Council: keep up the good work, and bless all of you for sitting up there!

    Best,

    Mike Harrington
    Member, Davis CC 2000-04

  77. Mike Harrington Comments ....

    Dear Don,

    I just wanted to give you a bit of feedback about my experience with solar on a large master metered building.

    The church is a large master-metered facility. THere is a huge benefit to the owner to have solar.

    In contrast, Chuck Roe’s building is split into various tenants who each pay the PGE eletric meter. CHuck spent serious money to make the building envelope very tight and efficient, but the tenants will pay their own electric. Large collectors on that building make no sense, unless there is another economic model that I have not heard about.

    In contrast to Chuck’s buildings, my commercial tenants at Harrington Place, 430 D Street, are not individually metered. I pay the bills, and the large panels I bought from Dean Newberry, now at Talbot Solar, greatly reduce the bills that I have to pay, as owner.

    I think it’s apppropriate for the City to require these large institutional and commercial users with a master meter set up to install solar. There are very good upfront tax credits, accelerated depreciation, and long term benefits from the panels.

    I would recommend that staff or the church contact Talbot Solar and ask them for some price quotes and pay-back schedules, and put that information into the staff report. Talbot’s solar installations have saved me a lot of money these past 4 years.

    I think this CC reconsideration is a good thing, in that it is prompting additional discussion and CC agenda time on how the city can work with building owners to increase the efficiency and overall environmental sustainability.

    Good for Sue to ask for it in the first instance, and good for Don in asking for more discussion.

    To all of you on the City Council: keep up the good work, and bless all of you for sitting up there!

    Best,

    Mike Harrington
    Member, Davis CC 2000-04

  78. Mike Harrington Comments ....

    Dear Don,

    I just wanted to give you a bit of feedback about my experience with solar on a large master metered building.

    The church is a large master-metered facility. THere is a huge benefit to the owner to have solar.

    In contrast, Chuck Roe’s building is split into various tenants who each pay the PGE eletric meter. CHuck spent serious money to make the building envelope very tight and efficient, but the tenants will pay their own electric. Large collectors on that building make no sense, unless there is another economic model that I have not heard about.

    In contrast to Chuck’s buildings, my commercial tenants at Harrington Place, 430 D Street, are not individually metered. I pay the bills, and the large panels I bought from Dean Newberry, now at Talbot Solar, greatly reduce the bills that I have to pay, as owner.

    I think it’s apppropriate for the City to require these large institutional and commercial users with a master meter set up to install solar. There are very good upfront tax credits, accelerated depreciation, and long term benefits from the panels.

    I would recommend that staff or the church contact Talbot Solar and ask them for some price quotes and pay-back schedules, and put that information into the staff report. Talbot’s solar installations have saved me a lot of money these past 4 years.

    I think this CC reconsideration is a good thing, in that it is prompting additional discussion and CC agenda time on how the city can work with building owners to increase the efficiency and overall environmental sustainability.

    Good for Sue to ask for it in the first instance, and good for Don in asking for more discussion.

    To all of you on the City Council: keep up the good work, and bless all of you for sitting up there!

    Best,

    Mike Harrington
    Member, Davis CC 2000-04

  79. Mike Harrington Comments ....

    Dear Don,

    I just wanted to give you a bit of feedback about my experience with solar on a large master metered building.

    The church is a large master-metered facility. THere is a huge benefit to the owner to have solar.

    In contrast, Chuck Roe’s building is split into various tenants who each pay the PGE eletric meter. CHuck spent serious money to make the building envelope very tight and efficient, but the tenants will pay their own electric. Large collectors on that building make no sense, unless there is another economic model that I have not heard about.

    In contrast to Chuck’s buildings, my commercial tenants at Harrington Place, 430 D Street, are not individually metered. I pay the bills, and the large panels I bought from Dean Newberry, now at Talbot Solar, greatly reduce the bills that I have to pay, as owner.

    I think it’s apppropriate for the City to require these large institutional and commercial users with a master meter set up to install solar. There are very good upfront tax credits, accelerated depreciation, and long term benefits from the panels.

    I would recommend that staff or the church contact Talbot Solar and ask them for some price quotes and pay-back schedules, and put that information into the staff report. Talbot’s solar installations have saved me a lot of money these past 4 years.

    I think this CC reconsideration is a good thing, in that it is prompting additional discussion and CC agenda time on how the city can work with building owners to increase the efficiency and overall environmental sustainability.

    Good for Sue to ask for it in the first instance, and good for Don in asking for more discussion.

    To all of you on the City Council: keep up the good work, and bless all of you for sitting up there!

    Best,

    Mike Harrington
    Member, Davis CC 2000-04

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for