Board denies appeals challenging 2455 Harrison Street permits; commissioners urge policy review on solar protections

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on July 26, 2023 denied two appeals from Albert and Patricia Yurudia challenging demolition and site permits issued for 2455 Harrison Street, upholding Planning and DBI findings that the project complies with UMU zoning and the city’s urban design review.

Appellants told the board the project would block light to existing property-line windows and cast shadows on rooftop photovoltaic panels. Their attorney argued the planning staff had not adequately mitigated massing and urged setbacks, light wells or upper-floor stepbacks to preserve light to the neighboring residential unit and rooftop solar arrays.

Planning Department staff and the Department of Building Inspection said property-line windows and rooftop solar panels do not enjoy express protection in the planning or building codes and noted staff worked with the project team to reduce impacts where practicable (including relocating rooftop mechanicals and moving the stair/elevator penthouse). Planning staff and the project team emphasized the project is code-compliant in its UMU zoning district and consistent with the Eastern Neighborhoods plan and urban design guidelines.

Commissioners acknowledged the public-policy concerns raised about preserving rooftop solar and protecting older lot-line windows, but said changes to protect solar would require legislative or code amendments rather than administrative action. After discussion the board voted 4–0 to deny the appeals and uphold the permits.

DBI and Planning noted that property-line openings may be required to be closed or protected if an adjacent property is developed, and that some redevelopment options exist for owners seeking to legalize older units or upgrade windows; DBI also said property-line openings cannot be used as required egress or for ventilation if they are fixed as part of a rated assembly.

The board’s action leaves the permits in effect; appellants and project sponsors were advised of existing administrative pathways (discretionary review, design exceptions, or planning commission review) if further modifications are sought.