Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Roof Use Permit Rehearing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals denies rehearing request over 'living roof' vs. roof-deck dispute at 706 Vermont Street
Summary
The Board of Appeals voted 5–0 to deny a rehearing request from neighbor Angela Kim, who argued planning staff provided 'material misinformation' by treating a proposed living roof and a roof deck as interchangeable. Planning and DBI said the permit was reviewed appropriately; commissioners asked departments to improve public explanations of technical distinctions.
Angela Kim asked the San Francisco Board of Appeals on Wednesday to rehear its July 27 decision on permit 202002184616 for 706 Vermont Street, saying planning staff gave the board incorrect information about the difference between a green (living) roof and an occupiable roof deck and that the permit’s text therefore included work that had not been approved. "Living roofs and roof stacks are 2 different structures with different notice requirements and design guidelines," Kim said, arguing the permit should not list a roof deck when planning had approved only a living roof.
The permit holder’s attorney, Steve Williams, and Planning Department deputy zoning administrator Tina Tam told the board the two documents Kim cited come from planning and largely describe the same approval procedure in this circumstance. Williams said the plans were reviewed as if the roof could someday be occupied and that the application received neighborhood notice and discretionary review where appropriate. DBI acting chief Matthew Green told the board the submitted plans label the green roof as unoccupied and said a future conversion to an occupied deck would require a separate revision to the building permit.
Commissioners asked detailed questions about the technical difference between green roofs and roof decks and about enforcement options should neighbors report improper use. Several members said that while the departments’ review appears to have followed policy, departments should be clearer when explaining technical distinctions to the public. "The public deserves fuller and complete explanations," one commissioner said during the discussion.
After hearing the parties and department staff, the board voted 5–0 to deny the rehearing request on the basis that the appellant had not presented new evidence or shown that a manifest injustice occurred at the July hearing. The record shows planning and DBI will continue to apply the city’s rules that a conversion to an occupied roof deck would require a future permit and public notices.
The ruling leaves the issued permit in place. Planning and DBI told the board they would clarify public materials and be more explicit about notice and review differences when similar projects come before the departments.
