Board denies appeal on 706 Vermont addition; planning and DBI say guardrail setback addresses neighbor privacy

The San Francisco Board of Appeals on July 27 denied Angela Kim’s appeal of a permit for a vertical addition and associated green roof/roof deck at 706 Vermont Street, voting 3‑0 to uphold the permit. The appellant had argued that the permit record and physical permit language were inconsistent and that elements of a green roof—guardrails and stair access—could create an occupiable roof deck that would harm her light, air and privacy.

Angela Kim, who lives south of the project, told the board she did not object to a green roof but objected to elements that make the green roof occupiable and to what she said was a mistake on the physical permit that referenced a roof deck instead of a green roof. “We just want the permits to accurately be clear in saying that it’s a green roof, not a roof deck,” she said, and asked that the green roof be set back to align with the guardrail on the south side.

Project counsel Steve Williams and planning staff said the project complies with the residential design guidelines and the planning commission considered the green roof/roof deck question during discretionary review. Tina Tam, deputy zoning administrator, explained the planning commission took discretionary review, approved the project with a condition that guardrails at the green roof be set back 5 feet from the south property line, and that the plans are consistent with that decision. DBI’s Matthew Green confirmed the site permit (No. 202002184616) was issued on 06/09/2022 and that the approved plans show a green roof with an access stair and a guardrail; DBI staff noted guardrail setbacks are commonly used to discourage occupancy at the property line but cannot physically stop someone from stepping over the rail to perform maintenance.

Commissioners asked whether relabeling a permit from “roof deck” to “green roof” on the physical permit would change the project’s scope; planning and DBI staff said such an administrative relabeling could be treated as a change to the permit and might require four votes if it were handled as a revision. Commissioners concluded the substantive mitigation—the guardrail setback imposed by the planning commission—addresses the privacy concern and that the permit was properly issued. Commissioner Tina Chang moved to deny the appeal; the motion carried 3‑0 (Commissioner John Transvenia: Aye; President Rick Swig: Aye; Commissioner Tina Chang: Aye).

The board denied the appeal and left the underlying permit and planning commission conditions in place; staff advised that enforcement or if the owner later seeks to convert the green roof to an occupied deck by removing green roof elements would require separate approvals.