Angela Kim appeals for rehearing on Vermont Street's roof deck permit dispute

The San Francisco Board of Appeals convened on July 4, 2025, to discuss a rehearing request concerning a permit for a property at 607 Vermont Street. The primary focus of the meeting was to address claims of manifest injustice related to the classification of a roof structure as either a living roof or a roof deck.

The meeting began with a presentation from Angela Kim, representing the appellant, who argued that the original hearing on July 27, 2022, was flawed due to misinformation regarding the definitions and requirements for living roofs and roof decks. Kim asserted that these two structures are distinct and subject to different regulations, emphasizing that the approved plans only indicated a living roof. She contended that the planning department's mischaracterization of the roof structure led to an incorrect permit classification, which could result in unapproved work being allowed without proper review.

Following Kim's presentation, Steve Williams, the attorney for the permit holder, countered the claims, stating that there were no new facts or evidence to warrant a rehearing. He maintained that both the living roof manual and the residential deck guidelines published by the planning department outline similar procedures for approval, thus refuting the appellant's argument of conflicting guidelines.

Tina Tam, the deputy zoning administrator, supported Williams' position, clarifying that the planning department had consistently referred to the structure as a roof deck in all relevant documentation. She explained that the planning commission had placed conditions on the permit to mitigate potential impacts on neighboring properties, reinforcing that the distinction between a living roof and a roof deck was not significant in this case.

Matthew Green from the Department of Building Inspection also weighed in, confirming that the permit in question was for a site plan that labeled the green roof as unoccupied. He noted that any future conversion of the green roof to an occupied roof deck would require a revision permit, which would be subject to appeal.

The board members engaged in discussions regarding the definitions and implications of the classifications, with some members questioning the clarity of the planning department's communications during the original hearing. Ultimately, the board was tasked with deciding whether to grant the rehearing request based on the arguments presented.

In conclusion, the board's deliberations highlighted the complexities surrounding building permits and the importance of clear communication between departments and stakeholders. The outcome of the rehearing request remains pending, with implications for future construction projects in the city.