Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission approves 675 Arkansas addition despite neighbors—oncerns over solar access
Summary
The Planning Commission denied neighbor discretionary review requests and approved a 31-foot vertical addition at 675 Arkansas Street; neighbors argued the addition will shade planned rooftop solar panels but commissioners noted there is no citywide solar-envelope policy and urged private negotiation.
The San Francisco Planning Commission voted to deny neighbor discretionary-review (DR) requests and to approve a vertical addition at 675 Arkansas Street that raises the building from roughly 20 feet to around 31 feet, despite sustained neighborhood objections that the third-story addition will block planned rooftop solar panels and reduce daylighting.
Neighbors testified that they had applied for solar permits and incentives (citing combined incentives and tax rebates they estimated at roughly $18,000) and said story poles made the impact clear. Phil McKenna and Janine Vaughn described potential loss of daylight to living rooms and gardens and urged the commission to require the owner to alter the design or set the mass back to preserve solar access.
Project architect Sean Fritz and supporters, including a letter from owner Kelly Dermody read into the record, said the addition was reduced in height and set back 15 feet from the front façade; the sponsor—ontended the design meets planning guidelines, reduced ceiling heights to minimize bulk, and that community meetings had been held. Supporters provided photographs and argued the addition is consistent with nearby 2- and 3-story houses.
Commission discussion focused on the underlying policy gap: commissioners acknowledged solar access and rooftop solar are becoming common but repeatedly stated the city lacks a codified solar-envelope or comparable protection that would provide a regulatory basis for denying an otherwise code-compliant height increase. Commissioner Moore suggested pursuing supervisor-led policy work while the panel examined the current code; Commissioner Segaria explained the difficulty of crafting a citywide rule given dense, lot-line development.
On a roll call motion not to take discretionary review and to approve the project as proposed, Commissioners Antonini, Lee, Moore, Sugaya and Commission President Miguel voted 'Aye'. The commission approved the addition, and staff noted that supervisors and other city offices have been working on solar policy but that no binding code standard currently governs the situation.
