Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Permit Denial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals upholds Lydia Wojtek appeal, revokes site permit for 1033–1037 Washington Street
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Appeals voted to uphold an appeal by Lydia Wojtek and deny a site permit for vertical and horizontal additions at 1033–1037 Washington Street, finding the proposed work would exacerbate a nonconforming building and is out of character with the neighborhood. The decision follows extensive testimony about notice, code sections and neighborhood impacts.
The San Francisco Board of Appeals on March 7 upheld an appeal by Lydia Wojtek and denied a site permit that would have allowed a vertical and horizontal addition at 1033–1037 Washington Street.
Wojtek, an occupant and neighbor, told the board that the proposal would worsen a nonconforming building and violate multiple planning-code protections she cited in testimony, including provisions meant to limit bulk and protect light and privacy. "Everybody has a right to sunlight," she said during her presentation, and argued the project failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances or a practical difficulty that would justify expansion of the nonconforming structure.
Permit counsel responded that the project had undergone pre-application review and adjustments following feedback from the Residential Design Advisory Team and that the site permit was processed consistent with Planning Department procedures. Planning staff and the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) confirmed that the permit documents and reviews were on file and that, before the hearing, the permit had not been modified from the site-permit approval.
In deliberations the Board focused on whether the approved work was consistent with prior variance findings and the planning code’s limits on expansions of nonconforming buildings. After a failed motion to deny the appeal, the Board adopted a subsequent motion to uphold the appeal and deny the permit on the ground the additions would make the building more nonconforming and out of character with its block. The motion carried by recorded vote.
The decision means the permit will not proceed as issued. The board did not direct a specific alternative remedy (such as remand to the Planning Commission), so the next procedural steps for the permit holder will follow the usual appeal and permit processes; the Board’s action is the final disposition in this hearing.
The Board took other matters up later in the evening and did not revisit this permit.
Speakers quoted in this report spoke at the hearing; all attributions are taken from the Board transcript.
