Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Roofing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Francisco commissioners continue debate on ban of torch-applied roofing after heated public testimony
Summary
A proposal to ban propane-torch installation of bituminous roofing on combustible (wood) roofs — cited by sponsors as a public-safety measure after several destructive fires — drew emotional testimony from affected residents and sharp pushback from roofing contractors; the Building Inspection Commission voted to continue the item for more industry data and enforcement planning.
The Building Inspection Commission on July 21 considered a supervisor-sponsored ordinance that would prohibit use of propane torches to install certain rolled roofing materials on combustible roofs, citing public-safety concerns and a pattern of roofing fires.
Jeremy Pollock, legislative aide to Supervisor Mercurini, told commissioners the ordinance targets "torch-applied roofing systems" on wood roofs and cited the Fire Department's estimate of "about 7 to 10 roofing fires happen a year." Pollock said New York City enacted a similar ban in 1999 after a multi-unit fire and that the measure is intended both to reduce fires and to remove a competitive advantage enjoyed by some contractors who use the torch method.
Quentin Mackey, a resident and the constituent who brought the issue to the supervisor, described the personal toll of a neighboring roof fire that he said "destroyed my apartment" and estimated the building's damage at roughly "$500,000." He urged the commission to back the ban regardless of putative additional cost to owners. "The question before you and before the Department of Building Inspection is whether or not this practice is a practice that San Francisco wants to allow or not allow regardless of cost," he said.
Speakers representing local roofing contractors and trade groups warned the commission that the statistic and enforcement strategy need more detail. Luca Bryan of CRG said the problem may be misuse rather than the material or tool: "It is the user applying the torch and using the device," he said, urging stronger permitting or certification rather than an outright prohibition. Other industry speakers said alternatives (hot-mop, hot-glue) exist but could raise costs and be harder to apply on some older, ornate San Francisco roofs.
Commissioners pressed staff and the sponsor for firmer data — how many torch-applied jobs occur each year, and how many of the cited fires were permitted versus unpermitted work — and discussed enforcement options such as targeted permitting, mandatory fire watches, or increased inspection capacity. Several commissioners said an outright ban without clearer data or an enforceable pathway would be premature.
After extensive public comment and debate, the commission voted to continue the item and asked DBI and the sponsor to work with the Code Advisory Committee and roofing industry to develop clearer statistics and enforcement options before returning with recommended language. The sponsor said staff would pursue additional information from the Fire Department and industry before the next hearing.
