News
Courtesy of CAST Architecture
A view underneath the solar array in CAST Architecture's Big Roof Scheme for a possible power-generating park on the site of the former City Light substation on Sunset Hill.
Sunset Hill Substation designs unveiled
On March 24, CAST Architecture presented three design schemes for the solar power-generating park neighborhood residents are hoping to build on the site of the former Sunset Hill City Light substation.
CAST Architecture's three designs were built around trying maximize the power-generating ability of the site without sacrificing community space as well neighborhood input from two previous meetings.
The Big Roof Scheme includes a 15-foot-high solar array covering the entire site, which is located on Northwest 65th Street and 32nd Avenue Northwest behind Ristorante Picolinos.
Dark solar panels would be spread out on the array to let light through. A central community plaza would be protected from rain by solar panels and glass panels.
There would be a community building in the southwest corner of the park and a storage shed in the northeast corner. Shade gardens would be located east and west of the central plaza.
The Pair Scheme is laid out much like the Big Roof Scheme, except there are two solar arrays, one in the northeast corner and one in the southwest corner, instead of one.
This scheme allows for the most solar panels without losing public space.
In the Wedge Scheme, the solar panels are packed together on one array in the center of the site. The array, 27 feet tall at its highest point, slopes toward the southeast corner and turns into a large staircase where the public can sit.
There is a covered plaza underneath the solar array. A community building underneath the stairs could open onto the plaza with garage-style doors.
All three schemes included seating, green space and a water feature.
The Big Roof Scheme is the most expensive, estimated at $775,000, followed by the Wedge Scheme at $730,000 and the Pair Scheme at $660,000.
Meeting attendees said they liked the Wedge Scheme for its flexibility of use, the Pair Scheme because it seemed open and inviting, and the Big Roof Scheme because it could allow for more solar panels.
Neighbors remained concerned over the relationship between the park and Picolinos, increased traffic in the adjacent alley, homeless people sleeping in the park and a lack of sight lines.
Despite the design process moving forward, the existence of the park is up in the air.
City Light owns the substation land. Typically in order for a park to be built there, Seattle Parks and Recreation would have to purchase the land from City Light, a cost that was not included in the estimated costs of the schemes.
By planning a park that would also generate enough solar energy to power two to three homes annually, residents are hoping City Light will allow the park to be built while maintaining ownership of the property.
CAST Architecture conducted a solar study of the site to figure out what its energy-generating potential is.
The study showed that the site has 90 to 98 percent solar access, which is very good and proof that it is a viable site for solar generation, said Forrest Murphy of CAST.
CAST will synthesize the ideas and feedback from the March 24 meeting into one design, which will be presented to the community in April.
In the meantime, neighborhood resident Dave Boyd is preparing an application for the Parks and Green Spaces Levy Opportunity Fund for the potential Sunset Hill substation park.
For more information and details on all three designs and to give feedback on them, visit the Sunset Substation Blog.
We encourage our readers to comment. No registration is required. We ask that you keep your comments free of profanity and keep them civil. They are moderated and objectionable comments will be removed.
Submissions
Please send us your news tips, photos or ideas of how we can better cover your neigborhood.
Email us at tips@ballardnewstribune.com
Follow Us On Twitter!
Receive updates on news and events in the Ballard neighborhood via Twitter!
Comments
The Proposal Should Have An Ecomonic Reality Test
A small park behind a commercial building, with limited access and a potential Nirvana for homeless, youth indulging in "less appropriate behavior" and other problems attendant to a low visibility locale....and all at a cost of only $1,000,000! (Land, plus the solar canopy...assuming the estimates are near the mark!)
No parking, no toilets, no play equipment.
It does produces 22,000 KW or $2,200 a year in electricity at City Light rates of 10 cents/kw hour. So the pay back period, assuming no interest being charged is 454 years!
Maybe we can find some of those $500,000 self cleaning toilets the city discarded to enhance this proposal.
Umm...maybe we should have a reality check?
Park in the dark....
hmmm.. a park covered with solar panels to protect us from the rain? sounds great!
I guess it does not matter how dark could be with those panels over the park visitor's heads, Seattle is dark anyway... and who wants sun bathing in an alley....
What about maintenance? I guess solar panels are forever... Another great Seattle's idea at no matter cost! I guess they already have those funds.. don't forget, the cost to build anything it is usually the double; remember the seahawks stadium in downtown? or the monorail project, just 200 millions in studies to decide not to build it...
Sunset Solar park
Both guest comments express valid concerns, and the purpose of this feasibility study is to encourage such discussion. The community has a great idea: maybe it's feasible, maybe it isn't. The entire study and design exercise is intended to be a reality check, and its conclusions will be honest and will not be sugar-coated. My responses to the particular points the guests make are:
The issue of visibility has always been a concern, and I'm looking forward to seeing how the refinement of the design addresses this. There were design suggestions from the participants at this week's community meeting that may help.
There are many parks is Seattle that do not have toilets, or parking, or play equipment, and are vital parts of their neighborhoods. None of these components have been high on the list of priorities from the community members who have participated in the design.
Further stages of the study will investigate funding sources, including state tax credits and community participation. Recent legislation may help; we’re studying it now.
The matter of shading vs. shelter has come up in our discussions, and the community's preference for one or the other will drive the design. The solar modules that are manufactured in Washington State are more translucent than the article implies, and even below a continuous canopy the light will be dappled, not dark.
The next community meeting will be on April 20th at the Sunset Hill Community Association, 3003 NW 66th Street, at 6:30pm, and I encourage all interested neighbors to attend. Your ideas and opinions and concerns will be taken into account as we study the feasibility of the idea.
The final report is expected later this summer.
balance between pure design, functionality & feasibility
In reading the comments, it seems there is a serious disconnect between the various components of the proposal.
While the design, community input etc is important to the success of a community based project, it would seem that there should have been far more attention paid to the feasibility of the project. The price tag is staggering!
A pay back period of 454 years. If the Pilgrims had started paying when they first landed on Plymouth Rock in 1621 there would still be a balance due.
Design for design sake is all well and good, but at the onset, It seems that some realistic budget guidelines should have been adopted. If this project is being paid for by public funds, some reasonable costing or estimates should have been discussed at the inception. Initial costing or an estimate for solar panels, (like a cost per foot) should have been reasonably available.
Now after blowing $15,000 of hard to find Neighborhood grant funding we find out this project has a horrifying cost and feasibility and good old fashion practicality have been left destitute and homeless.
I feel like not only is the park in a blind alley, but we've been lead down there as well.
City Light
As a City Light rate payer, City Light is responsible to me. sunsethillsubstation.org is a special interest group. They are not responsible to me.
. I would rather CL sells the property to come up with the money to fix street light by my house than invest in this boondoggle.
Thank you for listening.
Bob
PS: When you clean up after your dog please dispose of it at home. Don't use the public waste can on the corner near the substation property. It's nasty.
solar rates
With the tax credits that will be available, the rate at which the power generated will be purchased is about $1.08 per hour, not ten cents, meaning the solar component of the park will be paid off within 15 years.
solar rates and the tax credit myth
"Tax Credits" are not available for "not for profit" agencies! In reading the mandate for this project, it would appear that the committee has deemed this to be a public entity, which is to say a not for profit agency.
Simply put to use a tax credit the entity would have to pay taxes. Not for profit agencies do not produce profits and therefore do not pay taxes. A tax credit, as the name clearly implies is a credit against taxes.
No tax due, no tax credit available. Therefore, it would appear using a tax credit in the rate computation is not only misleading, it would be irrelevant.
Backing out the misleading "tax credit" effect, it appear we are back to 10 cents per KW hour and the payback period would be 454 years!
Crazy Light Bills
Who would pay $1 per KW for electricity? No way! That's crazy man. Thats like $22,000 for two houses. Thats crazy man! Who is getting all this money? A million dollar park, $15,000 in consulting fees...i wonder who got all that money, a big light bill for a park in the alley. Holy Cow. If this takes 5 minutes to pay back or a 1000 years to pay back its totally bogus.
"production incentive" and tax credits
I should have been more specific--it is a production incentive to increase demand for solar and help develop the alternative energy industry in Washington.
see link:
http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=WA27F&re...
The model is 'community solar' which allows multiple community members to aggregate their contribution toward a larger system and reduce cost. There wouldn't be a light bill--it would benefit the people who invest in the system. If you donate a panel and help build the park, you would receive that revenue over the life of the panel, sold to City Light at the higher rate (at least until 2020 when the current credit sunsets).
Here is a link to a good introduction with 5 case studies, including two in Washington:
http://nwcommunityenergy.org/solar
Here is more information on the one in Ellensburg:
http://nwcommunityenergy.org/solar/solar-case-studies/chelan-pud
Common sense
I vote the property be sold and the proceeds go towards my City Light's 70 million dollar debt. Currently, the owner pays one hundred fifty seven dollars and 20 cents in property taxes a year. If someone bought this property and built a house for their family it would generate a lot more revenue to fund, among other things, schools. If this solar plant is built it will generate zero dollars in tax revenue.
Better to build the thing on some undeveloped park department property or Port of Seattle property.
Sheesh
So its not a tax credit but
So its not a tax credit but a new twist where a special insider group invests in a "solar community" and reaps profits off the backs of hard working folks known as the taxpayers.
Get the hard working taxpayer to buy the land, pony up public money from the parks department and dept of neighborhoods all so a choice group of insiders can "invest" and sell back power at highly inflated rates to City Light--10 times the cost of the regular rates for electricity.
Any wonder why a solar canopy figured so prominently in the design of this project?
A million dollar park, a solar canopy which blots out the sky and a nice little profit stream for 10 years, all at taxpayer expense for the insider investor group to be known as the "solar community".
How about a nice simple park, with swings, open sky and no special interest.
Public lands in public hands...and not in the hands of a select group of inside investors!
I absolutely agree--public
I absolutely agree--public lands should remain in public hands, and this is one way to that end.
Since the donations for the solar panels would help pay for the park itself, it is very prominent element of the park. City Light needs a compelling vision for the property, otherwise they will sell it off to a private developer, and there will be condos there, not swing sets.
It is not a special interest group or a 'choice group of insiders'--it would be community members who want to support the park, do something good for the environment, help the Washington's economy by creating green alt. energy jobs. And since ownership of the parcel would remain in public hands, donations would help preserve open space in the city, accessible for all.
Park?
When this whole thing started me and my wife signed a petition because everybody said the whole block was going to be turned into one big giant condo. That didn't happen because the old doctor’s building wasn’t torn down. It was restored and they did a good job. That corner looks real nice now.
Then there was supposed to be something for artist. Why they get a rent free studio paid for by the taxpayer is a different matter, but what the heck, let's support the arts.
Next thing we hear is about this weird solar park on the drawing boards that cost over a million bucks. Now we find out there is some type inside deal with private groups of investor in the wings. These rich cats take our tax money, public land and neighborhood grants to make a killing by selling back solar power to us at inflated rates. Ten times what we pay for now! This isn’t what we were told and it isn’t what we signed up for.
This isn’t worth a million dollars and we don’t like the idea of a bunch of investors making profits on public works. Drop the solar thing. Let’s just have a park like we were supposed to have.
More donations?
First, donations to make studies, then more donations to buy the land, then more donations to design a personal project, then more donations to build the solar panels roof (yes, one person can donate a panel), then donations for what? maintenance? tax breaks from a non profit?
what would be the name of the park? who will collect the money and who can get electricity from this project?
And yes, who is getting paid to study, design and now to build this thing, this project has been changed so many times by spreading false rumors and manipulation to obtain support just for the interest of a few..
Studies, studies and more studies. at what cost?