Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies neighbors’ jurisdiction request over unusual rooftop solar array
Summary
Neighbors asked the Board to take jurisdiction over permits for an unusual, near-vertical rooftop solar installation at 56 Presidio Avenue, citing visual and safety concerns. The Board found no timely-appeal basis nor city fault in the permit process and denied the jurisdiction requests 5–0.
Members of a Presidio Avenue neighborhood asked the San Francisco Board of Appeals to take jurisdiction over an electrical and a building permit for rooftop solar at 56 Presidio Avenue, saying the panels were installed “standing almost upright” and were visible above the parapet wall.
Brian Soriano, representing the requesters, told the Board the panels were configured in a way he described as unusual and perhaps spiteful, that at least one neighbor had photographed the installation, and that a petition of nearby homeowners supported their request for review. He asked the Board to have the city examine whether a less intrusive installation was feasible.
Counsel for the permit holders (identified in the hearing as Mister Emlich) and department witnesses disagreed. Emlich said the owners secured the proper permits and hired a contractor who installed the panels to “maximize the solar generation capacity.” Planning Department representative Scott Sanchez said solar panels are generally exempt from notification and certain height restrictions under local code and that state policy encourages solar installations. Joseph Duffy of the Department of Building Inspection confirmed the contractor (Pesano Electric) was licensed and that the installation appeared within normal parameters; DBI’s inspector who reviewed the permit described the work as a typical installation and noted electrical and structural inspections were completed.
After discussion about timeliness and whether the city had misled neighbors, the Board found the appellants had knowledge that made a timely appeal possible and that no evidence showed a city error prevented that appeal. Commissioner Huang moved to deny both jurisdictional requests; the motion passed 5–0.
The Board’s action denies the request to take jurisdiction over the permits; the underlying permits remain in effect and, by the Board’s finding, are code‑compliant based on the evidence presented.
