Town Square

The PUSD spin on solar panels and what they didn't tell you

Original post made by John, Another Pleasanton neighborhood, on Feb 24, 2009

PUSD has a category called Budget FAQs. Below is a question regarding solar panel installations and PUSD's response. The question, which I'm beginning to wonder if it was edited by PUSD so they could frame a positive response, was probably the result of the question about the $100K the board voted to pay for the re-location of solar panels at FHS.

This story contains 380 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.


Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 24, 2009 at 12:24 pm

What a surprise the district misleads the community! More credibility issues for PUSD.

Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 24, 2009 at 1:10 pm

What PUSD doesn't seem to realize is that their credibility is what plays into the whole parcel tax discussion.....if they withhold the truth in one situation, how can we believe they don't do the same in other situations?

Like this comment
Posted by Bernie
a resident of Birdland
on Feb 28, 2009 at 9:06 am

Hmmm, I question the issue of ridge view obstruction. Give me a break!

Like this comment
Posted by wineman
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 2, 2009 at 10:10 am

If this is true--that the PSUD or their contractor spent money to move panels in order to appease the aesthetic disturbance to a neighbor--then needless money was spent to correct a non-problem. I have even thought of declaring private attorney general status to oppose such accomodations.

I work in the solar field, and find in my work that most city and county officials are ignorant of the CA Solar Rights Acts. These series of laws, extending first back to 1979, and recently added to, EXPRESSLY exclude solar projects from environmental reviews (sorry John--you are wrong). Nothing more than the stautory building permit can be required of a solar project, and extra costs foe aesthetic issues cannot be imposed.

See Solar Rights Act amended by AB 2473.
"This law became effective on 1/1/2005. It is the intent of this law that “local agencies not adopt ordinances that create unreasonable barriers to the installation of solar energy systems, including, but not limited to, design review for aesthetic purposes.” Local authorities shall approve applications through permit issuance and can only restrict solar installations based on health and safety reasons. It is thus intended to encourage installations by removing
obstacles and minimizing permitting costs. Additional key changes limit aesthetic solar restrictions to those that cost less than $2,000 and limits a building official’s review of solar installations to only those items that relate to specific health and safety requirements or local, state and federal law."

Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Mar 2, 2009 at 10:34 am

Interesting, but it seems that the solar panels weren't being unreasonably restricted from installation. An unreasonable restriction would be that which precludes the panels from being installed at all. The concern was the placement of them.