May 25, 2022 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

SMa.r.t.-Santa Monica’s Early Adoption of Solar Ordinance is a “Shady Deal” for Residents

By Thane Roberts

If you are considering a major remodel, or building a new home this year, you should prepare yourself for additional costs. Although the State has mandated that all new residences in California must be “Net Zero” by 2020, Santa Monica’s City Council has voted to move this deadline up by two years to 2018. To assist residents comply with the new ordinance, the City will make consultants available to them at City Hall. What the City will be unable to provide, however, are the additional laws necessary to protect the rights of those residents who do comply. Here is an ominous warning from the Energy Policy Initiatives Center in San Diego:

“California’s Solar Shade Control Act provides limited protection to solar energy system owners from shading caused by structures, trees and shrubs on adjacent properties.”

When the Solar Access law was passed in 1978, it included the “California Shade Control Act” to protect newly installed solar systems from shading. While well intentioned, this statute ultimately provided few specifics to protect single-family residences. The only recourse for a homeowner to protect their solar access was to purchase solar “easements” from adjacent property owners. In some cases, the expense of doing so might render their systems cost prohibitive.

I assume the reason that solar easements cannot be mandatory is because they would devalue the adjacent land-owners property and constitute the “taking of property” without just compensation. Could a similar case be made, however, if a city mandated that residents install costly solar systems that later became shaded, and hence obsolete? Who would be responsible if these city-mandated solar systems were rendered unusable due to the same codes that allowed for a neighbor’s additional height? Since Santa Monica City allows significantly higher commercial buildings adjacent to their lower, residential neighbors, this is a likely scenario. Legal issues aside, is it fair and reasonable to force residents to invest in an unsecured asset – a solar collector with no legal protection from potential shading by adjacent structures or trees?

In any case, the City’s rush to adopt the mandated Net Zero policies is premature. While it may be good public relations, it is poor policy before the necessary safeguards are in place. Santa Monica is not alone. Since the Solar Access Act’s enactment over 20 years ago, most municipalities are still struggling to determine how to address ‘detrimental shading’, and the legal remedies. Hence, “solar access rights” for residents with solar systems remain vague and unenforceable in most municipalities. A few cities have grappled with this issue, with modest success. Now is the time for Santa Monica to do the same.

Santa Monica could take a proactive approach by providing some form of protection, financial and otherwise, for mandated solar systems that might later be negatively impacted by adjacent, new construction. If this were the case, it is likely that these assurances could accelerate the adoption of solar energy for two reasons: 1) one’s investment would be protected, and 2) first adopters could establish their solar rights early. To date, the only way to protect your solar rights is to draft an easement with your neighbor and compensate him accordingly.

Santa Monica should not require that all residents install solar systems two years early with so many unresolved issues. The goals of the Solar Rights Act are clear but the laws necessary to achieve those goals are more elusive. Our City, that has been a leader in many other areas, can do so again by enacting new laws that are fair to both the early adopters of solar energy as well as those who might block their sunlight. Perhaps, instead of rushing to enact an imperfect law, the City should amend the Solar Act to address its lack of specificity as regards shading between neighboring properties. If they were able to solve this “fatal flaw”, the laws successful implementation could extend far beyond our City’s boundaries- perhaps to the entire State.

The City could use the next two years to adopt the necessary ordinances to insure the rights of residents, their neighbors, and developers. To do otherwise would be a disservice to both those who risk having their panels rendered useless from shading, as well as to builders that could be libel for causing it. If the “rollout” is done hastily, it could create a “dark cloud” over Solar Energy that could hinder its future prospects. On the other hand, a successful implementation of this policy, that treated all parties fairly, could assure its future success. If so, it would be a win for the City, those who look to Santa Monica to set an example and possibly California as a whole.

For SMa.r.t. (Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow)

Thane Roberts AIA, Robert H. Taylor AIA, Daniel Jansenson Architect, Building and Fire-Life Safety Commissioner, Ron Goldman FAIA, Samuel Tolkin Architect, Mario Fonda-Bonardi AIA, Planning Commissioner, Phil Brock, Arts Commissioner. SMa.r.t. is a group of Santa Monica Architects concerned about the city’s future. For previous articles, please see: www.santamonicaarch.wordpress.com/writing.

Related Posts

​​Doubt Removed: Oil Refiners Gouging Us

May 23, 2022

May 23, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist There was some room for doubt back in February, when gasoline prices rose precipitously: Until the...

Is the Big Housing Crunch Mostly Fiction?

May 20, 2022

May 20, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist In some parts of California, there is definitely a housing crunch: small supplies of homes for...

Is Gelson’s Our Future? Bigger Is Not Better & Not Necessary! – Part 2

May 20, 2022

May 20, 2022

The dream of our beachfront city is about to become a nightmare! Just imagine a tsunami of these projects washing...

Column From Santa Monica Mayor Himmelrich: We Walk the Talk

May 12, 2022

May 12, 2022

By Sue Himmelrich, Santa Moncia Mayor  I like the SMa.r.t. architects. I often agree with them. But in allowing Mark...

Is Gelson’s Our Future? Bigger Is Not Better!

May 12, 2022

May 12, 2022

It’s appalling to see what’s happening in our city – projects recently built or about to be approved – in...

Renting Your Second Home

May 6, 2022

May 6, 2022

If you are among the many Americans who own a second home that you occasionally use as a vacation getaway,...

Column: Cities Fight to Maintain Distinctive Characters

May 6, 2022

May 6, 2022

By Tom Elias, Columnist Anyone who knows California well will realize that Palo Alto does not look much like nearby...

SMa.r.t. Column: Gelson’s, Boxed-In

May 6, 2022

May 6, 2022

This week we are re-visiting an article from 2018 regarding the Miramar project, by simply replacing the word “Miramar” with...

Column: Are You Talking Yourself Out of Saving for Retirement? Here’s How to Break the Habit

May 5, 2022

May 5, 2022

Saving for retirement can be an abstract concept. It’s something we all know we should do, but the farther away...

SMa.r.t. Column: Failure to Plan…

April 30, 2022

April 30, 2022

Over the last approximately two years your City has been busy trying to respond to new California laws that are...

Letter to Editor: Your “Standing Firm With Santa Monica” Initiative

April 25, 2022

April 25, 2022

The following is an open letter to Councilmember Sue Himmelrich from Santa Monica resident Arthur Jeon regarding a proposed transfer...

SMa.r.t. Column: Planning The Real Future

April 24, 2022

April 24, 2022

In the 1970s, renowned USC architecture professor Ralph Knowles developed a method for planning and designing cities that would dramatically...

SMa.r.t. Column: New City Financial Plan: The Resident Homeowner Bank

April 15, 2022

April 15, 2022

Part II: Who pays the proposed transfer tax and where does the money go? Last week, we introduced the proposed...

Column: NIMBYs Getting a Bad Rap

April 8, 2022

April 8, 2022

By Tom Elias Rarely has a major group of Californians suffered a less deserved rash of insults and attacks than...

SMa.r.t. Column: New City Financial Plan – The Resident Homeowner Bank

April 8, 2022

April 8, 2022

Part 1 of 2 In this two-part article, we will discuss both the proposed transfer tax ballot initiative and the...