Planning Commission approves 217 Hugo Street project over business-owner objections

The San Francisco Planning Commission on a unanimous 7-0 vote approved a discretionary review allowing a developer to demolish an existing one-story commercial building at 217 Hugo Street and construct a three-story over-garage structure with two dwelling units, after staff and the applicant agreed on design modifications to reduce impacts on neighboring properties.

The project prompted an extended public-comment period in which business owners, residents and neighbors urged the commission to preserve the existing businesses and community space. ‘‘Two to three years of construction 15 feet away from my business could really just sink me,’’ said Belv Weddy, owner of Body Philosophy, a vintage clothing store that sits three doors down from the site. Multiple callers said the project would displace immigrant- and queer-owned small businesses that serve as neighborhood hubs.

Planning staff told commissioners the applicant adjusted the third-floor pop-out, provided a privacy screen for the roof deck and added frosted glass at light wells; staff recommended taking the discretionary review and approving the modified project to memorialize the negotiated changes. David Winslow, staff architect, summarized the modifications as shifts in massing and screening intended to preserve light and privacy for adjacent properties.

The project sponsor and design team told the commission they considered keeping commercial space but concluded parking constraints and the desire to provide on-site parking pushed the design toward residential units with an internal garage. The sponsor’s representative said earlier discussions considered retaining part of the ground-floor commercial space but that accommodating two parking spaces made that infeasible.

Commission debate centered on balancing the city’s housing goals with the neighborhood harms described by commenters. Commissioner Diamond, urging approval, said he ‘‘has a hard time seeing under those circumstances where there are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances that would justify denying the project,’’ noting the project is code-compliant and that staff and the neighbor had reached agreement on modifications. Commissioners acknowledged the community’s concerns about construction impacts and displacement but concluded the project met code and design guidelines.

The commission’s motion to ‘‘take the discretionary review and approve the project with the modifications and conditions read into the record by staff’’ passed unanimously, with each commissioner recorded as voting aye.

Next steps: the action was a discretionary-review approval; the sponsor still must obtain building permits from the Department of Building Inspection before construction can begin, which staff said will add further time before ground-breaking and may provide an interval for neighborhood conditions to change.