Board of Appeals upholds three Page Street rooftop solar permits after neighbors object to tilt and height

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Nov. 4, 2009 voted 5–0 to uphold three electrical permits for rooftop solar mounted at 1219, 1221 and 1223 Page Street, rejecting neighbors' appeals that the installations block light, harm neighborhood character and pose safety risks.

Appellants Rohit Verma and Maureen Gannon told the board the installations ‘‘substantially encroach on our living space’’ and asked that the tilt of the racks be lowered. Verma said the panels are visible from the living room, kitchen and bedroom and that the couple had attempted to resolve the matter directly with the permit holders before filing an appeal. ‘‘All we have asked for is a lowering of the tilt,’’ Verma said.

The permit holders, Doug and Karen Kitt, and their installer presented engineering and production analyses and said the systems were permitted, installed under DBI guidance and meet GoSolar San Francisco objectives. Doug Kitt told the board the fixed racking system used is common, would require complete disassembly to change the tilt and that reducing tilt from about 20 to 15 degrees would reduce annual production only marginally: the installer’s PVWatts-based calculation showed a drop of roughly 240 kilowatt-hours per year on one sub-array, or a modest percentage of lifetime generation. "We have met all permitting requirements," Kitt said.

Lawrence Kornfield, Deputy Director and Chief Building Inspector, described DBI’s bulletin of standards developed with industry input and said the department reviews structural anchoring and wind/load issues for newer or nonlisted systems; for listed racking systems DBI accepts manufacturer listings and inspects on site. He said state law (Government Code section 65850.5) restricts local review to health and safety issues for solar installations, limiting the Board’s power to regulate aesthetics.

Several neighborhood speakers urged caution and urged the Board to adopt "good neighbor" guidance for rooftop solar; others, including representatives of Vote Solar and local solar advocates, warned that overturning permits on aesthetic grounds would chill local rooftop installations encouraged by city policy. Public commenters who supported the installations said rooftop solar is an important tool for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions and that the city’s expedited GoSolar permitting program was designed to balance safety and rollout speed.

The board’s discussion focused on two questions: whether the installations posed a health or safety risk and whether the Board could legally impose design controls that go beyond state preemption. Commissioners generally expressed sympathy for the neighbors’ aesthetic concerns but concluded the record did not show health or safety defects in the installations. Several commissioners urged better neighbor notice for future projects but said they lacked authority to impose broad design constraints without evidence of safety problems.

President Frank Fung moved to uphold all three permits; the roll call recorded aye votes by Commissioners Goh, Garcia, Vice President Peterson, Commissioner Mandelmann and President Fung. The Board’s decision preserves the permits as issued; the appellants may pursue any further administrative remedies specified by law.

Outcome: 3 electrical permits for 1219–1223 Page Street upheld, vote 5–0. The Board flagged neighborhood notification and prospective "good neighbor" guidance as topics worthy of separate policy consideration but did not alter the permits.