Sustainability Task Force to discuss new “green” building requirements

30 Aug

From: MStemen
To: chicotaxpayers
Subject: FW: City of Chico STF agenda 9/11/14
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 01:08:43 +0000

Take care,


From: Jessica Henry
Date: Friday, August 29, 2014 4:36 PM
Subject: City of Chico STF agenda 9/11/14

Please see attached agenda and attachments for the next City of Chico Sustainability Task Force meeting on 9/11/14. This has also been posted on the City’s website,

Have a great holiday weekend everyone!

Jessica Henry, ARM-P
Administrative Analyst II
City of Chico, Community Development
530-879-6820 phone, 530-895-4726 fax
PO Box 3420, Chico, CA 95927
411 Main Street, Chico, CA 95928

41 Responses to “Sustainability Task Force to discuss new “green” building requirements”

  1. Juanita Sumner August 30, 2014 at 7:03 am #

    I’d like to remind this committee, when Ann Schwab set this up, she included a “social equity” component. Where’s the “social equity” in making houses so expensive the average family can’t afford one? And don’t forget, landlords have to cover their costs, and rent goes up.

    At their last meeting, STF members actually discussed actions that will make garbage collection more expensive, instead of pressuring the city of Chico to come up with a plan to subsidize low-income families when the city requires every household to have separate trash collection. The News and Review did an interesting piece on this matter – the headline complained about how the costs will be passed onto the ratepayers, but the article itself came off positive. The author didn’t discuss the mandatory trash service requirement, nor did he quote Joe Matz saying rates would triple. The rates they’ve brought in from other cities show that the price is hiked as much as $52 a month for a 96 gallon container – I currently share one of those with my neighbor, that will be illegal under this ordinance as discussed last year. So, now we are both required to have a bin, pay more for it, and have a truck stopping twice in front of our house instead of once. Wow, that’s so sustainable.

    As far as I’m concerned, the STF is still working AGAINST the citizens of Chico.

  2. Mark August 30, 2014 at 8:50 am #

    The energy efficiency recommendations benefit everyone in Chico and, if incorporated into the design of the project, cost VERY little compared to the long-term returns.

    The solid waste recommendations are different and address a very small portion (<1%) of GHG reductions.

  3. bob August 30, 2014 at 6:15 pm #

    Yup, the cost of housing in Chico is going up due to regulations and bureaucracy. The Agenda 21 people would have it no other way.

    • bob August 30, 2014 at 6:18 pm #

      And don’t Hennesy and Brinkley live in Paradise? What do they care if the cost of housing is unaffordable in Chico? They will still get their salaries and pensions. The sucker taxpayers will make sure of it. 🙂

    • Juanita Sumner August 31, 2014 at 4:57 am #

      I don’t believe the costs will be recovered in lower energy bills either, PG&E just keeps raising their rates.

      I’d like to see the STF do something to keep PG&E rates under control, so that when people save energy they get some reward for it. The bills just keep getting higher and higher – where’s the social equity component?

      • Mark August 31, 2014 at 5:43 am #

        Juanita, You are right. Efficiency can’t keep up with rising rates, but I can’t imagine anything the STF could do to keep PG&E from raising rates.

      • Juanita Sumner August 31, 2014 at 4:34 pm #

        Of course I won’t blame you for the actions of the previous STF, but they cooperated with PG&E in raising our rates. They accepted a $390,000 grant made up of our money, with two members of the committee actually taking some pretty hefty chunks of that cash into their own pockets. The RECO ordinance brought PG&E real time meters into people’s homes, by which their rates can be adjusted by the hour – ha ha – “you’ll have to get up in the middle of the night to do your laundry Juanita!”

        Isn’t there still a “social equity” dimension to the STF? You could write a formal protest as a committee over the recently announced “15-20% increase” we’re about to get stuck with. That money is going into pensions and benefits, and it’s going to shareholders.

      • bob August 31, 2014 at 8:59 am #

        “I’d like to see the STF do something to keep PG&E rates under control, so that when people save energy they get some reward for it.”

        The goal of the Agenda 21 folks is too make energy as expensive as possible so less will be used. I think they know that solar and wind will only make up a tiny portion of available energy for decades to come so the only way to reduce unacceptable forms of energy (any energy from carbon based forms or nuclear) is to a level they find acceptable is to jack up the price as much as possible even if it means sacrificing the poor and middle class.

        There was a recent effort to postpone AB 32 and even some Democrats backed it because it will jack up fuel costs and prices of anything using it which is everything. It was pointed out that this would hurt the poor and middle class but the majority of DemoNcrats refused to budge.

        There were actually a couple of Demoncrats who admitted the whole point of AB 32 was to jack up the price of fuel as much as possible so people would use less.

        When these people talk about sustainability they are NOT talking about sustaining people like you and me.

        Why the middle class and poor accept this and even support it by voting in politicians who shove this down our throats is a mystery to me. Again, the chickens voting for Colonel Sanders.

    • Mark August 31, 2014 at 5:39 am #

      Agenda 21? Really, that is all you have?

      • bob August 31, 2014 at 6:55 pm #

        You remind me of a watermelon…green on the outside, red on the inside.

      • bob August 31, 2014 at 7:05 pm #

        So you do not support Agenda 21? And those who do do not support AB32? And AB 32 will not raise the cost of fuel?

      • bob September 1, 2014 at 12:45 pm #

        California produces about 1% of the worlds co2 emissions and this is before AB32 kicks in. Yes, AB 32 will lower co2 emissions by increasing the price of fuel but by an insignificant amount when you add up what all the other countires in the world produce and all the other states in the US produce.

        So besides raising our fuel costs, killing jobs and lowering our standard of living, what will AB 32 accomplish?

      • bob September 1, 2014 at 1:30 pm #

        The price of gas will go up between 8 and 12 cents a gallon in January due to AB 32. And that is just the beginning. It will go up every year after that due to AB 32.

        As I am paying 8 to 12 cents more in January for gasoline and as I see the price of everything that uses or is created with fuel rise I will remember this:

        “US physics professor: ‘Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life”

        For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
        It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

  4. Mark September 1, 2014 at 7:40 am #


    I find your reference to a twenty-year old UN proposal laughable.

    Yes, I do support AB 32. So do a majority of Californians. So do a majority of the voters in Butte County. Are you telling me that THEY also part of a grand socialist plot?

    There are genuine unknowns when it comes to climate science, and what we do about climate change is very much up for debate. I appreciate Juanita’s concerns about equity.

    Calling me a watermelon, however, and claiming the STF is part of Agenda 21 demonstrates, in my opinion, that you have nothing of substance to say on the subject.

    As respectfully as I can,


    • Juanita Sumner September 1, 2014 at 9:55 am #

      Just for clarification, here’s the rundown on AB 32 and subsequent Prop 23 which was aimed at suspension of AB 32.,_the_Suspension_of_AB_32_(2010)

    • bob September 1, 2014 at 12:28 pm #

      So you are saying you don’t support Agenda 21? And the STF does not support Agenda 21? The fact that it is 27 years old does not mean it is not being implemented.

    • bob September 1, 2014 at 1:48 pm #

      Are you telling me that THEY also part of a grand socialist plot?

      No, they are ignorant. They do not know that global warming is a fraud and that science has been corrupted. (See above post.)

      Even if CO 2 emissions were causing global warming, if Colliefornia (as Ahnode calls it) reduced emissions to 0 it would make no difference because Colliefornia only amounts to one percent of all the CO 2 emissions put out by all the countries of the world.

      The voters did not know this and did not understand that the price of fuel would jump due to AB 32.

      • Juanita Sumner September 1, 2014 at 3:02 pm #

        I agree. After AB 32 was passed by the legislature, the campaign against Prop 23 was pretty loaded full of misinformation. The Prop 23 opponents went overboard on their rhetoric, insinuating that even a delay of AB 32 would result in blackened skies over our state, polluted rivers, etc. And, I really get disgusted with the voters – they don’t do research, the let themselves be led by the nose by people who use hyperbole.

        I think we here in Northern California get a bum rap – our air quality is actually quite good. According to the American Lung Assoc, Redding is in the top 10 cleanest air cities, I can’t believe Chico is far behind.

        I do believe there is an agenda here, a shift of wealth is taking place. They are trying to drive small business out, the bigger corporations didn’t make a squeak about AB 32, because they knew it would drive a lot of the “Mom and Pop” businesses under.

        I also do believe Agenda 21 is a real scheme to transfer land ownership from people who have owned it so long they haven’t been reassessed. Making water and energy so expensive, everybody is forced onto smaller and smaller plots of land, they can’t grow their own food, there’s no yard for their kids to play, no real life. They become completely dependent on the state – which is great for the public worker machine. Everybody goes to their little jobs like they’re supposed to, they come home and pay their utility bills and their taxes like they’re supposed to, they send their kids to the public education system so they will grow up to be great workers like their parents, no individualism, no independence, just cities full of little lemmings doing what they’re told.

        I don’t mean to be a pill, or be negative, but there’s two kinds of people. There are people who can and must live off the teat, and then there are the people who must have the teat. The people who need the teat need the rest of us to supply it, they’re helpless, they need servants, they need all of us to “chip in” to make their fantasy a reality. That’s what AB 32 is about, getting everybody with the program, so a few at the top will benefit.

      • bob September 1, 2014 at 4:16 pm #

        Most voters aren’t aware of what is going on. And you are right that our rulers want us living in the Doe Mills of the world where everyone is cramped together like sardines in tiny duplexes, no one owns a car and everyone is stuck with public transportation. Fuel costs will be sky high (like Europe) and the taxes would be used for politicians to reward their friends and punish their enemies. And the voters just go along as this gradually takes place.

      • bob September 1, 2014 at 5:05 pm #

        The way things are going the state seal ought to be changed to this

      • Juanita Sumner September 2, 2014 at 5:08 am #

        I need this on a t-shirt.

      • bob September 2, 2014 at 8:49 pm #

        Some years ago I put this on a t-shirt. Wore it a couple of times and got a lot of funny looks.

  5. Mark September 1, 2014 at 5:22 pm #

    The STF is not involved in Cap and Trade and has no opinion on Agenda 21. The STF is tasked by the Council to recommend measures that can reduce greenhouse gas production. Say what you will about them, but California voters have expressed a desire to act in the face of climate change and reduce the state’s contribution of GHGs by 25% by 2020. The City of Chico decided to do its part in reducing greenhouse gasses with the belief that communities around the world are doing the same. It doesn’t matter that Bob doesn’t believe in climate change and he can continue with his silly conspiracy theories.
    Fuel prices are subject to supply and demand and they have been rising as supply has peaked and demand increases. Nothing in the the City’s Climate Action Plan will affect the price of fuel. What the City can do is require reflective roofing (cool roofs), increased energy efficiency, drought tolerant landscape requirements, and offer incentives for residential solar installation. Those items will be up for consideration at the meeting.

    • Juanita Sumner September 2, 2014 at 5:13 am #

      California already has some of the strictest housing standards out there. I insulated my house, I put in dual pane windows – I think the reflective roofs (which work in summer but what about winter?) and drought tolerant landscaping are going to far. How long before we’re restricted from gardening (like your friend with her Ghost Farm) and forced into garden coops if we want to grow a decent tomato? You’re trying to legislate people’s lifestyle and behavior. I’ve had enough of that.

      Why can’t you mind your own business? I’m being sincere – you could help your friends who want this information, start your own consulting business even, but trying to force everybody onto your bandwagon is fascism Mark.

      • Mark September 2, 2014 at 7:00 am #

        It is not just me Juanita. The majority of voter want action on climate change. The City has called for a Climate Action Plan. I offered to help draft one. I wish the original STF had not wasted six years working on everything BUT a climate action plan, but that is how it is. Now the current STF is moving forward on just that, nothing else.
        I hate to say it, but you sound like Sorenson. The general plan does not specify the door nob you must use, and nothing in the CAP legislates how you live your life. It does legislate how people build houses, because while the house is yours now, it will belong to someone else down the line. Your house is also part of the Chico “housing stock” and the community has an obligation to make sure they are up to community standards. With climate change, the community standards are rising.
        And I am not forcing anyone to do anything. We are simply making recommendations. You are welcome to come to the meeting and state your case. Any recommendations we do make will go to the PC and then to the Council. Only then will the community standards be changed.


        ps. As I understand it, Ghost Town Farm is still legal, but with a baby and all, she got rid of the livestock and is now just growing some vegetables.

      • Juanita Sumner September 3, 2014 at 5:38 am #

        Here’s my recommendation – as long as I’m paying for health care on you public employees, I get to say, “hey, as part of the employee stock, you need to lose weight/quit smoking/stop eating pork….” I get to come in and look in your refrigerator once a year. I get to say, “clean this mess up.”

        My property is my own, private, not public. Nobody pays my bills, nobody helps me with maintenance, if I need to fix my roof I have to ask the city for permission and pay a shake-down fee. And now I have to let them pick my shingles. Mark, this is demoralizing, you treat people like they’re too stupid to do for themselves.

        As I understood it, city of Oakland told Ghost Farmer she couldn’t have fruit trees in her back yard.

      • bob September 2, 2014 at 7:54 am #

        Why can’t you mind your own business?

        People like Mark think they know what’s best for everyone and that we should be thankful there are people like him who will tell us how to live our lives.

      • bob September 2, 2014 at 7:45 pm #

        The majority of voter want action on climate change.

        I don’t think that is true at all, especially when people see what it is going to cost them. Just wait until January when the cost of fuel starts going up due to AB 32.

        The American public routinely ranks dealing with global warming low on its list of priorities for the president and Congress. This year, it ranked second to last among 20 issues tested.

      • bob September 2, 2014 at 7:48 pm #

        It does legislate how people build houses, because while the house is yours now, it will belong to someone else down the line.

        Well, using that logic you might as well get rid of property rights entirely. The list of items that “belong to someone else down the line” is pretty much infinite.

    • bob September 2, 2014 at 6:22 am #

      “Fuel prices are subject to supply and demand and they have been rising as supply has peaked and demand increases.”

      Actually US fuel demand peaked in 2007 and has been falling since and supply has been increasing due to new technologies such as horizontal drilling.

      • Mark September 2, 2014 at 7:09 am #

        Oil is a global commodity. World oil supply has plateaued and world demand keeps rising. Horizontal drilling does not make new oil, it just allows existing reserves to be extracted faster. The North Sea is the textbook example. Major discoveries in the 1960s were said to last 100 years. Advances in technology, like horizontal drilling, allowed for greater and greater pumping in the deep water. The North Sea oil fields peaked in 1999 and it is estimated well over half of the reserve has been depleted so far.

      • bob September 2, 2014 at 7:35 pm #

        Yes, supply has plateaued but only because Middle East production is down due to political turmoil. Increased US production has made up for all of that and slightly more. If it wasn’t for the political turmoil supply would not have plateaued. What really counts is recoverable oil reserves and the cost of recovery. New technologies are resulting in more reserves being discovered and also making recovery economically feasible of existing reserves that were not.

  6. Mark September 3, 2014 at 6:52 am #

    –Well, using that logic you might as well get rid of property rights entirely. The list of items that “belong to someone else down the line” is pretty much infinite.–

    Hey Bob, I hate to break it to you, but “you can’t take it with you . . . “

  7. Juanita Sumner September 3, 2014 at 9:41 am #

    Okay, we’re closing this discussion, let’s all just agree to disagree. I think we all stated our points half to death, let’s move along, nothing to see here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: