Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Solar Permits topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board denies jurisdiction over 23 Belmont solar permit, citing state law

San Francisco Board of Appeals · September 14, 2011
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Board of Appeals declined to take jurisdiction over a March 8 electrical permit for rooftop solar at 23 Belmont Ave., finding no neighborhood‑notice requirement under local practice and the California Solar Rights Act; denial was 4‑0.

The San Francisco Board of Appeals declined to take jurisdiction over a March 8 electrical permit to install a nine‑panel rooftop solar PV system at 23 Belmont Avenue, ruling that the permit did not require neighborhood notice under current administrative practice and state law.

Dirk Stenek, representing a nearby homeowner who asked the board to reopen the appeal period, said the neighbor at 176 Edgewood Avenue was not notified and that some form of notice should apply in a historic district. "She would like to re open the appeal to have a chance to have her concerns addressed," Stenek said.

Permit holder Nigel Chen and contractor Janine Cutter said the project followed Department of Building Inspection procedures; Cutter cited the California Solar Rights Act and noted the permit was issued and inspected. Tony Greco of DBI confirmed the electrical permit was issued 03/08/2011 and passed a final inspection.

Scott Sanchez of the Planning Department explained that an amendment to state law and local practice limits planning review and that small rooftop solar installations that conform to the electrical division's form typically do not trigger planning notice under Planning Code section 3.11. Sanchez said solar panels are generally exempt from that section and that prior panel cases came to the board as appeals of electrical permits.

Given the record and legal constraints cited by departmental staff, a motion to deny jurisdiction carried 4‑0.

The board recorded the denial and moved on to the next item.