Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Demolition Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission sends 45 Grattan demolition/new‑build back for discretionary review after neighborhood objections
Summary
Neighbors and preservationists urged the Planning Commission to block demolition of a century‑old Coal Valley house and reject a proposed modern, four‑story replacement. After extensive testimony the commission voted to take discretionary review and deny the demolition/new‑construction proposal.
San Francisco — The Planning Commission voted Feb. 17 to take discretionary review and disapprove proposals to demolish a 96‑year‑old single‑family house at 45 Grattan and replace it with a contemporary multi‑story home.
Neighbors, preservation advocates and long‑term residents said the existing residence is structurally sound and characterful and argued the replacement would be out of scale with Cole Valley. "Why are we destroying a perfectly good, beautiful home?" asked John Crandon, a resident across the street. Dozens of neighbors signed a petition opposing demolition and a four‑story replacement; many requested the commission require a more modest three‑story design if any redevelopment proceeds.
Project architect Kerry Bernstein and supporters argued the existing house lacks modern, code‑required bedroom egress and accessibility and that a carefully designed new building would increase sidewalk planting area and address sustainability goals. The applicant said the proposed design reduces the house footprint compared with the maximum allowable volume for the lot and meets the residential design guidelines.
Commissioners repeatedly stressed that discretionary review standards require "exceptional or extraordinary" circumstances to deny code‑compliant projects, but noted the demolition question and consistency with neighborhood character warranted further review. After a motion to take discretionary review and to disapprove the demolition/new construction, the commission recorded a majority action directing additional review rather than immediate approval.
What’s next: The commission directed staff to process the discretionary‑review requests and return with findings and possible modifications; the sponsor may revise the proposal in response to neighborhood concerns and historic‑resources issues.
Representative quote: "For this process to work you have to be able to rely on the information you receive from the project sponsor," said a neighborhood speaker, summarizing neighbors’ concerns about notice and consistency of project materials.
