Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Discretionary Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves demolition and two‑unit replacement at 45 Montclair Terrace despite neighbor opposition (4–1)
Summary
The Planning Commission voted 4–1 on Nov. 13 to approve a full demolition and construction of a new two‑unit residence at 45 Montclair Terrace under the Housing Accountability Act, after a lengthy public comment period that raised concerns about massing, setbacks, geology, heritage trees and street impacts.
After a multi‑hour public hearing with broad neighbor opposition, the San Francisco Planning Commission on Nov. 13 voted 4–1 to approve plans to demolish an existing single‑family residence at 45 Montclair Terrace and replace it with a two‑unit building.
Staff architect David Winslow said the project complies with applicable planning code standards and the Housing Accountability Act (SB 330) rules that applied when the developer filed its application. The project sponsor’s architect, Yaku Askew, said the proposal is code‑compliant and described the scope as a demolition and new construction of two units.
Neighbors — including residents directly across the street and others from the Russian Hill area — urged the commission to take discretionary review and reject or revise the proposal. Speakers raised multiple concerns: the front setback and bulk appear to be pushed to the maximum envelope on a narrow one‑lane street; construction logistics and large excavations could threaten adjacent homes and heritage trees; and the accessory dwelling unit was characterized by opponents as potentially a pretext for bypassing rules.
Deputy City Attorney Austin Yang explained that if a project is code‑complying and consistent with the Housing Accountability Act, the commission’s discretion to require reductions in density or to deny the project is limited to findings about public health and safety supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Several commissioners acknowledged the neighbors’ concerns and urged the sponsor to continue working with adjacent residents on design and construction mitigation. Commissioner Brown moved to not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed while encouraging the sponsor to incorporate neighbor input; the motion passed 4–1 with Commissioner Imperial voting no.
The approval allows the project to proceed through building‑permit and geotechnical review; commissioners noted DBI and other departments will review structural and excavation plans for public‑safety compliance.
