Feature

San Francisco's Proposal on Window Replacement and the Infamous Windshield Survey

By Stuart Matlow

The typical scenario goes like this: an older San Francisco apartment building is plagued by drafty, leaky windows, and the owner decides to fix the problem. Reviewing the literature and talking to window contractors, the owner is pleased to learn that modern windows will quickly pay for themselves by eliminating maintenance, saving energy and muffling street noise. When applying for the permit, however, the owner is surprised to learn that the building is designated as historically significant, and the likely result will be additional delay and expense.

There is little argument against the need and desirability of protecting the city’s architectural heritage. However, there is a growing feeling among some building owners, managers and contractors that the permit process for window replacements and other exterior modifications is too vague. The results can turn into surprises like the one above with accompanying bureaucratic delays and unexpected extra costs.

The heart of the issue is a building’s historically significant status. Buildings acquire historic status through a number of ways. The San Francisco Planning Department commissioned a survey back in 1976 known informally as “The Windshield Survey,” in which Junior League members drove through the city and picked buildings they deemed architecturally significant. Other surveys include: The North Beach Survey, The Hayes Valley Survey, The Inner Richmond Survey, San Francisco Architectural Survey, Chinatown Survey, The Central Waterfront Survey and the North Mission Survey. Then there’s the National Register of Historic Places and still other surveys.

“Property owners were denied due process when their buildings were included in the Windshield Survey,” observes Tom Katz, co-owner of Tom and Bob’s Windows, and a contractor who has publicly complained about San Francisco’s window replacement policy. “No one was notified about the survey, and this means that owners have probably been missing out on tax incentives, too.”

Katz was referring to the Mills Act, a California law that grants property tax reductions to owners of qualified historical properties in exchange for preserving and maintaining those properties according to certain standards.

Building owners and other interested parties can check on some city-designated landmark buildings and historic districts online at www.sfgov.org/planning. This information, however, is not comprehensive, and Planning Department officials advise a visit to their offices at 1660 Mission Street to look up properties on their public computer. Like many types of construction in the city, the duration and outcome of window replacement projects appear to hinge on locating the right people within the Planning Department.

Art Swanson of Lightner Property Group recently upgraded the windows of two apartment buildings. He discovered that both were historically significant when he filed for permits with the Planning Department. “We had to work with quite a few people before our permits were finally approved,” Swanson notes. “There are different opinions among the various people you talk with, and it takes a lot of perseverance and experience to get this type of project approved.”

The Window Specialists, another window contractor, devotes a great deal of effort to presenting details of each project to the Planning Department. Owner Tom From says the system is workable, though ponderous. “It takes a lot of time to get the permits, and this is time we don’t get paid for,” From observes. “I go in with 8 x 10 photos of projects, and I bring clients with me, so we’re prepared with all the facts. We also make a point of using windows that blend in with the building’s design. But this process is time-consuming, and we’ve started charging clients a fee for this service. Once they see what’s involved, they don’t complain.”

Not Anti-Vinyl Per Se
Currently, San Francisco’s Planning Department is in the process of setting official policy on window replacements. Senior Planner Craig Nikitas explained the current thinking within the department: “If you’re replacing old windows with the same type of window—for example, double hung with double hung, and the same material, for example, wood with wood—we’ll issue the permit over the counter. If you want to change the material, to vinyl from wood, for example, it will have to go upstairs for further review. This should take about four days.” Nikitas adds that “Some people think we don’t like vinyl windows. Actually, we don’t like cheap vinyl windows that give a building a ‘shrink-wrapped’ look.”

He points out that there are many designs of vinyl windows that feature milled-looking frames and deep-enough shadow lines on multi-pane windows to satisfy architectural requirements of older buildings. The Planning Department is willing to look at them, albeit a little more closely.

“It’s very important to protect the quality of buildings, particularly those that are 50 years old or older, and also to protect the quality of the city’s neighborhoods,” Nikitas emphasizes. This is a sizeable mandate. San Francisco contains approximately 346,600 housing units, and nearly half are 60 years old or older.

Building owners are finding compelling reasons to upgrade to vinyl windows, provided the architectural issues can be worked out. One of the biggest benefits is the complete elimination of maintenance, including the major expense of painting. The Window Specialist’s Tom From points out that the latter can often pay for half the cost of installing the new windows.

Improved sound and thermal insulation can also yield substantial benefits to building owners and tenants. Again Art Swanson of Lightner Property Group explains that his firm was able to raise asking rents by about 20 percent in apartments facing a busy street because of the sound-muffling properties of modern window design.

The system is not perfect, as evidenced by Tom Katz’s ongoing complaints with the City and a separate dispute between the City and a different contractor that caused a seven-month delay of reconstruction of the Raymond Hotel on Howard Street over a misunderstanding about window materials. Nikitassays,however,thatthePlanning Department is putting window-related issues on the front burner. Hopefully, as the Planning Department attempts to codify regulations for window replacements, property owners, contractors, neighborhood preservationists and planners can come together and agree on a policy that works for everyone.

City and County of San Francisco Planning Department Draft Window Replacement program for multi-unit buildings

The following are proposed regulations for window replacements. In the coming weeks and months, it the Planning Commission is expected to review and vote on this proposal.“In general, the Department will approve window replacements in like and kind, that is, where the new windows are:

The same size (height, width, and frame and sash thickness)
The same materials, if appropriate (e.g., wood frame to wood frame, steel to steel, aluminum to aluminum)
Have the same sash operation (fixed to fixed, sliders to sliders, double-hung to double-hung, casement to casement, etc.)
Have the same appearance and character of the original windows, in terms of dimensions, glazing, reveal (horizontal distance from the sash)

If the proposed replacement does not meet these requirements, then the review is more complex. If the building is an historic resource, a landmark, a rated building, part of an historic or conservation district, et al, then there are more levels of review. The latter case will require review by one of the Department Preservation technical specialists.

The Department would prefer that existing windows be replaced with identical units; if the match is good, then only windows needing replacement would be changed, without the entire building or façade having to undergo simultaneous replacement.

Managers of multi-unit buildings, and condominium associations representing the owners of individual units, can set up a “window program” with the Department, which would review a proposed window replacement, or several, if different window types are present. There would be kept on file an approved window specification, with detailed drawings and cut sheets from the manufacturer. When future replacements were proposed, if the proposal meets the window program criteria, the permit could be approved over the counter.

If the original manufacturer no longer supplied the approved window, a substitute could be proposed that would undergo review for compatibility with the existing windows and with the previously approved window replacement. The Department’s Parcel Information Database would track approved window programs for each property, with commentary and references to the approved design on file.”

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the SFAA or the San Francisco Apartment Magazine. Stuart Matlow writes on a variety of topics, including biotechnology, engineering and logistics. Copyright © 2004.