Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Zoning administrator’s rejection of vinyl windows upheld after board vote falls short of charter threshold

San Francisco Board of Appeals · August 6, 2008
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Board of Appeals considered an appeal by owners of a 1928 Mediterranean‑style building who installed 52 vinyl windows. The board was split 3‑2 in favor of overturning the zoning administrator, but the city charter requires four votes to overturn departmental determinations, so the zoning administrator’s letter of determination was upheld.

The Board of Appeals reviewed an appeal from Sherman and Robin Wan seeking to legalize the replacement of 52 original wood‑frame windows with vinyl units at a 1928 Mediterranean Revival building at 730 First Avenue. Planning Department staff recommended upholding the zoning administrator’s May 13 letter of determination, arguing the new vinyl frames do not replicate the original six‑over‑one wood sash windows and thus detract from the building’s character.

Tina Tam of the Planning Department told the board the replacement windows "failed to replicate the pattern of the 6 light over 1 light wood sash windows, resulting in a loss of visual depth and texture to the building façade." The owners said they chose double‑pane vinyl for energy savings and reduced noise; they provided cost estimates showing substantial expense to restore or replicate original wood units.

A majority of three board members favored overturning the zoning administrator and allowing the windows to remain, conditioned on painting frames to improve visual compatibility; two members dissented. Because the City Charter requires four affirmative votes to overturn a department action, the zoning administrator’s determination was sustained and the appeal denied.