Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Shading topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals upholds permit for neighbor's addition despite solar-panel shading complaint
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted 4–1 to uphold a building permit for a two‑story addition that an adjacent homeowner said would shade her rooftop solar panels, after planning staff presented GIS shading analysis and commissioners weighed precedent, mitigation options and the scope of General Plan policy 16.1.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on Wednesday upheld a permit for a neighboring vertical addition that an appellant said would impair the output of her rooftop photovoltaic system, voting 4–1 to leave the permit in place.
Appellant Irene Carter, represented by attorney Donald Simon, argued that the addition approved for Tau Nguyen would be inconsistent with General Plan policy 16.1 and CEQA because it would cast shade on her existing solar array. Simon asked the board either to continue the matter to allow a licensed solar contractor’s study at the permit holder’s expense or to require mitigation or compensation. "If new development impairs the performance of existing systems, compensatory or mitigation measures should be taken," Simon read from policy 16.1 during his presentation.
Planning staff countered that a GIS-based solar-transit analysis showed the approved configuration would not affect the panels’ prime production times (roughly 10 a.m.–2 p.m. solar time) and that the Planning Commission had already reduced the scale of the addition in discretionary review. Craig Nikitas, the planner who presented the technical graphic, said his conservative model counted any shadow touching any part of a panel and still showed the addition would not significantly reduce prime‑hour production.
Commissioners discussed both precedent — whether protecting existing panels could be used repeatedly to block reasonable additions — and the practical economic impact on the panel owner. Commissioner Michael Garcia moved to uphold the permit "with no new conditions," and the board approved that motion 4–1 (Commissioner Kendall Goh opposed). During deliberations Commissioner Michael Garcia said he found the effects minimal and that the board had not been shown a compensatory scheme the board could impose.
The decision leaves the underlying building permit in place. The board did not specify further mitigation; parties may pursue other administrative remedies if they choose.
