Board upholds Collingwood reroofing permit but removes “in kind” language

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on April 30, 2025 denied an appeal by neighbor Radu Roman of a Department of Building Inspection permit to reroof 378 Collingwood Street, but required a change to the permit text removing the term “in kind.” The board voted 4 to 0.

Roman raised multiple concerns in his appeal, including an assertion that past work involved an illegal dwelling‑unit merger and unpermitted electrical and mechanical connections on the roof. He also asked that any replacement be “in kind” to preserve appearance and to limit reflectivity for adjacent properties. Roman said the rooftop work has safety issues and that if the permit holder intended a material change he would expect documentation: “I would kindly ask DBI to issue notices of violation. Now if the owners really want a different design, I would kindly ask them to submit the necessary drawings.”

Jeremy Paul, attorney for the permit holders, said the work before the board was a reroofing permit and that past minor repairs did not require a permit. He said the property was legally converted to a single-family dwelling under prior permits and that planning had approved the merger at the time. Paul told the board: “There is no permit required for a minor roofing repair. That's all that's been done in the past.” He added that the owners intend to repair leaks and ensure a watertight roof.

City staff told the board the roofing permit (recorded as permit number 202503172403, issued March 17, 2025) was submitted through the online roofing process; DBI staff noted a technical rule that minor roof repairs that affect less than 25% of the roof surface do not require a permit, but the application before the board was a full permit that will require inspection and final sign‑off.

Commissioners discussed the term “in kind” in the permit text. Roofing contractors testified the contractor intends to use a TPO (thermoplastic polyolefin) membrane — a non‑gravel surface commonly used where rooftop equipment and frequent access are expected. DBI staff confirmed TPO is an acceptable roofing material. Commissioners worried that leaving “in kind” in the permit could create confusion if contractors later install a different material without clear documentation.

Commissioner Lopez moved to deny the appeal and to require elimination of the words “in kind” from the permit so the permit holder must either revise the permit to specify materials or proceed under a permit that does not constrain material choices to an ambiguous “in kind” standard. The motion carried 4 to 0. The board recorded that DBI will inspect the finished roof and that the permit holder may file a revision permit to document the chosen roofing system and materials.

Planning staff clarified that the dwelling‑unit merger at the property was legally finalized under earlier approvals and is not at issue for this roofing permit. The board urged neighbors with separate safety or electrical concerns (for example, an alleged unsafe PG&E connection) to file complaints with DBI so the department can investigate those items outside the roofing permit review.