Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board adopts written findings for 1033–1037 Washington after debate over historic and planning issues
Summary
The Board adopted written findings addressing a site‑permit appeal for 1033–1037 Washington Street (application 2016‑2018496S), after hearing the appellant's historic‑preservation objections and the permit holder’s and Planning Department’s defense including that environmental review and a categorical exemption were conducted.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on July 25 adopted written findings for an appeal over a site permit at 1033–1037 Washington Street, concluding the record supports the Board’s prior decisions while incorporating edits requested by Planning staff.
Appellant Lydia Wojtak argued the building is a historic 'structure of merit' in an Edwardian neighborhood, asserted the proposed vertical addition and roof deck would be out of character, and raised code and environmental review questions including references to setback and open‑space provisions cited from building and planning codes. She said no preservation report or geotechnical/soil report had been prepared and that the proposed addition would violate applicable provisions for non‑complying lots.
Project sponsor Todd Mavis and partner Kevin Chang defended the project, saying Planning reviewed environmental impacts and determined that the proposed vertical addition is substantially set back and therefore minimally visible from the street. Mavis emphasized the project adds housing, would enable seismic and safety upgrades (enclosed back stairs, sprinklers), and that sponsors have followed required processes over a two‑year review.
Scott Sanchez of the Planning Department clarified that environmental review was conducted (the department granted a categorical exemption for the proposed scope of work) and advised the Board on the proper use of the term 'non‑complying' under Planning Code §188. He noted that a variance decision does not bind later permitting decisions and urged wording changes in the draft findings to reflect accurate code references.
After discussion, Vice President Swig moved to adopt the draft findings with verbiage changes suggested by Planning. The Board recorded votes (President Fung Aye; Commissioner Lazarus Aye; Commissioner Honda No; Commissioner Wilson Aye) and the motion carried; the Board adopted the proposed written findings with the indicated edits.
The Board also discussed, but did not decide, a rehearing request that would permit the parties to explore design adjustments to reduce impacts on light and air for neighboring properties. Any further design changes or rehearing would require separate procedural steps.
