Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board leaves variance for 1033–1037 Washington intact after divided vote; neighbors raise preservation, CEQA concerns
Summary
A proposed vertical addition and rooftop deck at 1033–1037 Washington Street drew neighbor objections over historic character, light and air, and CEQA; a motion to grant the appeal and deny the variance fell short of four votes, so the zoning administrator’s decision stands and the variance is upheld by default.
The Board of Appeals considered a variance appeal for 1033–1037 Washington Street seeking to add a one‑story vertical addition and roof deck that would add a dwelling unit to a small Nob Hill lot.
Neighbor Lydia Wojtak, representing nearby owners at 1041 Washington Street, said the row of Edwardian buildings forms an historic block and argued the project would create cumulative historic and light‑and‑air impacts that would make a categorical exemption inappropriate. “This building is 100 years old... This is a gorgeous work of art,” Wojtak said, urging the board to require more rigorous environmental review.
Architect Abraham Jason and Planning staff described multiple rounds of review, a 10‑foot front setback negotiated with preservation staff and residential design team changes intended to protect adjacent light wells. Planning Zoning Administrator Scott Sanchez said the addition was reviewed, found categorically exempt under CEQA classes I and III after preservation input, and would bring the lot to allowed density for the zoning district.
Commissioners debated the five findings required for a variance under Planning Code §3.05C; a motion to grant the appeal and deny the variance received three affirmative votes but failed to reach the four‑vote threshold required for that outcome. With no prevailing motion to overturn the zoning administrator, the zoning administrator’s decision stands and the variance remains in place.
The board noted the project will proceed through building‑permit processing and that any permit decisions or related discretionary determinations could be appealed in the usual process.
