Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance 11 Gladys topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds variance for Gladys Street addition over neighbor objections
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied appeals against variances for a vertical addition at 11 Gladys St., finding planning and zoning findings supported the variance despite neighbor objections about privacy, light, and potential de facto demolition; the motion to deny the appeal passed 4–1.
The Board of Appeals on April 3 upheld variances allowing a vertical addition at 11 Gladys Street, denying neighborhood appeals that argued the project would injure adjacent properties by blocking light and airflow and risk a de facto demolition in the field.
Appellant David D'Onofrio and multiple neighbors said the proposed addition — an increase of several feet above the existing nonconforming structure — would create substantial privacy intrusions and economic harm to adjacent properties. Neighbors and an engineer raised concerns about a tall retaining wall at the rear of the lot and warned that excavation or methods to add a floor could trigger a 3.17 de facto‑demolition review if building‑department work in the field exceeded the permitted scope.
Project counsel and the architect said the site is an unusual lot configuration in Bernal Heights (wide by short depth), that the planning commission and Board of Supervisors had previously reviewed the proposal, and that staff found the five variance findings satisfied given the small lot and limited buildable area. Architect Mason Kirby and counsel Jody Knight explained design choices to step back the top floor and limit deck dimensions to reduce neighborhood impacts.
Planning Department representative Scott Sanchez told the board the subject lot is a legal nonconforming site with unique constraints, that prior discretionary review and neighborhood notices occurred, and that staff found the variance findings met; he pledged the building‑department plan check would evaluate means and methods and will watch for any de facto demolition triggers under section 3.17.
Commissioners debated the competing concerns — neighbors' privacy and structural warnings versus the applicant's hardship claims based on the lot’s configuration and prior approvals. Commissioner Rachel Tanner moved to deny the appeal and uphold the variance; the motion passed with President Frank Fung voting No and Commissioners Lazarus, Honda, Tanner and Vice President Swig voting Aye. The appeal was denied and the variances remain in effect.
