Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Vallejo Remodel Historic topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board upholds permit for Vallejo Street remodel despite preservation objections

San Francisco Board of Appeals · February 24, 2010
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

Neighbors appealed a major remodel and dormer/penthouse at 2750 Vallejo Street citing potential loss of historic features and district impact. The board voted 3–2 to uphold the Planning Department and Planning Commission determinations that the project complies with residential design and Secretary of Interior standards.

The Board of Appeals on Feb. 24 upheld a building permit for a substantial renovation at 2750 Vallejo Street, including a penthouse/dormer and wraparound deck, rejecting neighbor appeals that argued the work would strip historic materials and alter character‑defining features.

Appellant Bob Byram and preservationists pointed to multiple changes — new dormers, altered fenestration, removal of chimneys and changes to cladding — and argued the project violated the Residential Design Guidelines and the Secretary of Interior’s preservation standards for character‑defining features. Historic‑resource evaluations submitted in the record noted the property as a contributor to potential historic district status, and experts in the public record urged caution.

Planning Department staff, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors had previously reviewed related environmental and design questions; planners concluded the project’s changes were consistent with the Secretary of the Interior standards and the City’s design guidelines, and that character‑defining features would be preserved or mitigated. Several commissioners on the Board of Appeals said the project had been thoroughly vetted through Planning processes. After deliberation the board voted 3–2 to uphold the permit.