Local

[Print] [Email]

Solar array causes conflict with neighbors

By: John Upton
Examiner Staff Writer
October 20, 2009

Not in my ’hood: Douglas and Karen Kitt say they are “ready to flip the switch” on their solar panels, but two of their neighbors are appealing the installation with The City. (cindy chew/the eXaminer)

SAN FRANCISCO — Douglas Kitt and his wife spent four years saving nearly $90,000 and planning to install solar panels on their house in the Upper Haight, but a neighbor is halting their dream of a green-powered home.

After installation of the panels for the three-unit building, and before they were able to hook up wiring that would flow electricity back into the power grid, nearby homeowners filed an appeal with The City against the plans. The neighbors are arguing that the panels are dangerous and could harm the character of and property values in the neighborhood.

Solar panels are on the verge of becoming a common sight in San Francisco, with a bevy of local, state and federal incentives available for installing them. In early 2008, fewer than 700 panels graced San Francisco rooftops, but the programs have helped to nearly double that number to more than 1,300 today.

Applications to install solar panels on 1,084 properties have been filed since The City began a multimillion-dollar subsidy program, including 76 in the Upper Haight and nearby Cole Valley neighborhoods, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission figures show.

The project at the Kitts’ home on Page Street near Baker Street, however, is being opposed by Maureen Gannon and Rohit Verma, owners of a nearby home.

“The solar panels erected ... are egregiously not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and are now embarrassingly visible landmarks to pedestrians,” Gannon and Verma wrote in the appeal. “This significantly detracts from the character of the neighborhood.”

Gannon and Verma have urged the Board of Appeals — which rules on filings against permits or licenses issued, revoked or suspended by The City — to order the panels to face more directly upward. The couple says that change would protect passers-by from falling panels in strong winds or during an earthquake.

Tilting the panels would also improve the view for the objecting pair. Verma told The Examiner that view impacts from the panels are important, but the issues outlined in the appeal are equally or more important.

California’s building code generally prevents cities from rejecting solar panel installation applications unless the panels create health and safety concerns.

Gannon and Verma also asked the Board of Appeals to consider longer-term implications to San Francisco of similar panel installations, arguing that they lower the value of surrounding properties.

The Kitts, who paid $87,594 up front for the installation, have been ordered to not electrically connect the panels before an appeal hearing, which is scheduled for Nov. 4.

“We have this great solar system and we can’t even use it,” Douglas Kitt said. “We were ready to flip the switch.”

Green incentives

People who go solar in The City can benefit from subsidies.

16 months Time since solar panel subsidy program, GoSolarSF, was launched
$1,000 Maximum residential GoSolarSF subsidy
$500 Possible future maximum
$2,500 Additional subsidies available if certain installers are used
$7,000 Maximum subsidy for some low-income residents
1,084 Applications filed for GoSolarSF subsidies
$8.5 million Subsidies requested
$7.4 million Subsidies approved
$9.5 million Funds available

Source: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

jupton@sfexaminer.com

More from John Upton

To view this site, you need to have Flash Player 8.0 or later installed. Click here to get the latest Flash player.

Reader Comments

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Examiner or its staff. Comment box is limited to 250 words.

Gee3

Oct 20, 2009

Ironic that the hippie neighborhood is against going green. As for property values... have the two objecting to the solar panels seen the housing market lately?

Gee3

Oct 20, 2009

Forget that telephone poles, trees, stop lights, as well as parts of old Victorian buildings can fall down on you during a quake. Those dangerous, secured and solidly mounted solar panels could kill you. Let alone kill my view of... ummm, the roof.

Jacko

Oct 20, 2009

Only in San Francisco....nut cases run lose like mule deer in a forest. Can anyone explain to me how solar panels lower property value? What kind of logic makes investing in your property with green technology cause it to decline? My guess is that the board of appeals will listen to the NIMBY's and then politely dismiss to appeal.

sfcuir

Oct 20, 2009

San Francisco is number one at stopping any kind of progress. The City can't do anything well except slow and stop progress. Gannon and Verma are typical San Francisco 'progressive' NIMBY's who want to keep the City from changing in any way no matter how bad it is now. They could care less about the environment. They care only about their 'view' and their private property value. They would have voted for Chris Daly if they could have!

Timmo

Oct 20, 2009

I think all the drunk people allowed to freely roam the city and pee on sidewalks hurt property values more than solar panels on a rooftop. I wonder if the Kitt's will allow their neighbors to use their electricity after the next earthquake knocks out power to the city?

Tim

Oct 20, 2009

This is ridiculous (in the only way San Francisco residents can deliver, I should know, I am one) and not to mention hypocritical of the whole san francisco mantra. These things CAN'T come off the roof, trust me. But also I doubt this will even last in city appeals for too long. Like the article says, California building codes prevents cities from rejecting solar panel installations.

To the neighbors, I say, "deal with it."

Gary

Oct 20, 2009

this is the same as those people holding up the new libraries in North Beach and the Sunset because they don't like the new architecture---next stop, no solar for you!

bigboy

Oct 20, 2009

San Francisco, the most conservative city in the United States. Truth hurts, doesn't it?

solar_rules

Oct 20, 2009

The neighbors are going too far, and who's to say what the "character" of the Haight is? It was built before electricity, phones or cars. Does that mean that electrical wires and paved streets go against its character? I doubt anyone whined about those elements when they came to be. Solar panels and decentralized energy are, hopefully, another step in human progress. If not, and we continue the fossil addiction, then it's unlikely any of us will be around to enjoy the pretty views of the city for very much longer. Rooftop solar is the best, most efficient, and least impactful form of renewable energy technology. The City should approve the panels, and while they're at it, give these pioneers a special commendation for forking over their own cash to go solar.

hippies suck

Oct 20, 2009

Once again, San Francisco liberals show what lying hypocrites they are. They vote for liberal politicians and sign petitions, but now here's someone doing some real good to fight global warming on their own dime, and all it takes is two jerk neighbors to tell others what they can and cannot do. These two hippies need to be told in no uncertain terms they are kicking Mother earth in the teeth and to STFU.

adrained

Oct 20, 2009

it's odd this comment stream has become a diatribe about liberals stopping progress. the two installing the solar panels are likely the progressive liberal hippies in this story? not everyone who lives in sf is liberal, and I doubt many who could afford a home in the haight are hippies.

MizKim

Oct 20, 2009

Actually, contrary to the whole point on which the argument of these ignorant neighbors hindges-- an article in the Appraisal Journal states that "A home’s value is increased by $20,000 for every $1,000 reduction in annual operating costs from energy efficiency." So, being that this solar system will be a huge measure to reduce the building's operating costs, the solar system will INCREASE the property value of this building. Take that, NIMBY neighbors!

chris

Oct 20, 2009

I agree with adrained... I think this may end up being a case of two nimby neighbors. Likely has nothign to do with progressive or conservative, etc. NIMBY is a disease that affects both sides of the spectrum and everywhere in between. They have been delayed but the board of appeals will hear the case and very likely approve the permit. The process sucks but is there for a reason. Wind and Earthquake concerns are bogus imho. I am not a fan of the Examiner- I guess I am too liberal.... however I must say this article was suprisingly complete, well written and absent of a political tilt. Refreshing.

No Go Gary

Oct 20, 2009

To compare this to the North Beach and Sunset Library building frenzy where SFPL is determined to shove millions of dollars unnecessarily down the drain is ridiculous.

make some noise

Oct 20, 2009

ask the SF Board of Appeals not to accept the hearing.

Doug and Karen Kitt

Oct 20, 2009

Wow, these comments are great!! Thanks for your support. We invested in our three solar systems because of the threat posed to our city and planet from increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. The USA is way behind many countries in the world in dealing with global warming. The California Solar Initiative and the San Francisco Go Solar program are a good beginning but we all have to do much more to limit CO2 emmisions.
Thanks again,
Doug and Karen

lalocamissiongirl

Oct 20, 2009

Wait just a minute. Let me see if I understand this; two hardworking people who own their own property, save up 90K to install solar power on the property that they worked for and own, but neighbors can prevent them from using the solar panels because the "panels are dangerous and could harm the character of and property values in the neighborhood?" But the stench laden, vermin infested, disease carrying homeless and degenerate addicts of every description are allowed to roam free in this city, the world's largest open air asylum, and pee in your driveway and God forbid anybody says or does anything about that. San Francisco, get over yourself! To the Kitts: More power to you! (Solar, that is)

Atomic

Oct 20, 2009

Another example of liberal NIMBYs promoting green technology as long as it doesn't impact their view!

L'Femme

Oct 20, 2009

Go Doug and Karen you're doing a great thing! I hope more people follow your lead. Shame on Gannon and Verma! Solar Rules is right...if we don't do something about our fossil fuel guzzling/disposable culture (there's a floating island of trash the size of Texas in the Pacific ocean), there will be no views to enjoy and no property of any value. If we don't level out our emissions by 2015 (that's five years guys!!) we'll have passed the point of no return for Global Warming and be underwater in less than 50 years. That's fact people...America's age of bigger is better needs to end. If the whole world consumed the way we did we would need 7 more planet earths to fuel our consumption. Go see "The Age of Stupid" it's all concrete data. Please don't ignore what we know as fact...

Peter Vaernet

Oct 20, 2009

Good news Douglass & Karen Kitt: Solar installers all agree now that solar panels do not become less efficient from lying down flat, and the wind rip-away problem is reduced to boot...lay them flat and all is good!

Jim and Bobbi Barrett

Oct 21, 2009

More power to you both for your efforts to Save The Planet. As native San Franciscans we believe that there are far worse things to worry about in our beautiful City than a homeowner who is honestly trying to make a difference.

Georgia Nielsen

Oct 21, 2009

Karen and Doug Kitt--your efforts to install solar energy is the responsible thing to do. I am confident the city officials will endorse your efforts along with so many of your progressive neighbors.

Brendan Lange

Oct 21, 2009

Wow! This is the most ridiculous thing ever... great comments, I second nearly all of them. Bring on the panels, windmills, geothermal, urban organic gardens, bike lanes, LEED buildings, and get these crazies out of the way!

Lou Kess

Oct 21, 2009

Kitts, I'm dying to know what Gannon and Verma are like. Are they mildly psychotic upper-Haight types? The type that take extra long to cross the street because they relish the feeling that the crosswalk is theirs and the momentary power they feel over the cars waiting for them? Or are they just old conservatives who moved in in the 50s or something. To argue solar panels lower property value is INSANE.

Solar Rights Act Violation

Oct 21, 2009

California State Law says that solar installations shall not be restricted for any aesthetic reason. Solar can only be restricted for pre-existing health and safety reasons.

Check out the dispute that occurred in Los Gatos when the Town tried to restrict solar installations for aesthetic reasons:
http://www.akeena.com/news/articles.php

No Solar Violation

Oct 21, 2009

Sorry Charlie, but California Civil Code section 714 allows us to regulate solar installations, even for aesthetic reasons, as long as there is timely review through the Board of Appeals or Historic Preservation Commission, if necessary. Solar is fine but not if it threatens the look and feel or historic character of a community such as the Haight.

Oct 21, 2009

Good for the Kitts. i think your new 'green' home and your neighborhood look beautiful.

tell Gannon and Verma to stuff it.

Kirsten Hagfors

Oct 22, 2009

I am about as big of a renewable energy fan as they get.

But, I have to give Gannon and Verma my support.

Earlier this year, my neighbors erected solar panels at a severe angle. What was once a tranquil, serene, and sunny view toward Bernal Heights (I'm on the hill above Dolores Park) is now like a cement wall. I literally cannot see over the back side of these panels. After approaching my landlord (mostly his concern because when my lease is up, he's going to have trouble finding renters for this decent apartment with a very unattractive view), the rent board, and a very sympathetic District Representative Bevan Dufty, I gave up the battle.

By having some respect and appreciation for your community before installing panels in a way that severely obstructs views or impacts others, you could save the planet and your relationships with your neighbors. I just have to laugh when their outside lights are on all day long! Thanks for your energy conservation!!

Hooray for Dufty!

Oct 22, 2009

Hooray for Supervisor Dufty, squashing your NIMBY concern about the "severe angle" of your neighbor's solar panels! How about some respect for the planet, and for communities that will suffer the most if we don't stop climate change by doing everything we can to stop it (e.g. solar panels). Why don't you offer to pay for a new angle and the lost efficiency of the solar panels as you ask the neighbors to give you a better angle and view of the hill?

Mehmet

Oct 23, 2009

While I tend to hesitate to choose sides without facts, I go with Kitts on this one as a SF solar owner.

Safety: we too wanted to know they were safe with last year's storm and all. Brackets are bolted to the roof, panels bolted to brackets. I also haven't heard panels just flying off. Electricity cables that broke off is what I am more concerned with in a storm

Extreme Angle: depending on where you are, maximum angle tends to be 20* and unless there are many many rows, this isn't too bad. Many installers recommend around 10* to avoid neighborhood concerns.

Value: solar definitely increased our value and am not sure why it would decrease the objectors' unless they used to se GGB and now they can't.

Liberals objecting??? How do you people figure out people's political views to claim judgement I have no idea.

I hope neighbours can vw neighbourly. Good luck.

anyfreeman

Oct 30, 2009

This is an example of failed leadership. The neighbors should sue the City of SF for encouraging investment in residential real estate. My pet peeve for eyesores are the dishes parked willy nilly all over the landscape, many dangling cables, poorly fastened - some with nylon cable ties from ancient rusting metal railings. Not just an eyesore, but a true 'non-engineered' safety issue for all.

Kenc

Nov 1, 2009

I completely agree with the neighbors who object to the unsightly panels. There should be some review before solar panels are installed since they sometimes increase the size and shape of the building. This is similar to a permit to add a room or modify the outside of a house. This should go to planning before a permit is issued.

BHA

Nov 4, 2009

It is obvious the plaintiffs are throwing out an extremely weak 'safety' argument since they have no legal basis with regard to their view. I suspect the BoA is required to look at their complaint but will throw it out (today!). The Kitts can 'throw the switch' this afternoon or tomorrow.

It would be interesting to have more pictures of the buildings and neighborhood. The plaintiffs claim the panels are "embarrassingly visible landmarks to pedestrians". I believe the OnPoint story today said the tallest is about 5'. If the building is 2 or 3 stories, I seriously doubt the pedestrians view of the sky will be adversely affected, if they even look up at all.

John Walkup

Nov 6, 2009

Karen and Doug,
We are in your corner on this! We hope to see some news of your victory soon.
You have taken the lead in going up against the some very tired ideas of community value.
Good luck!