Planning Commission signals intent to disapprove CorePower Yoga at 619 Divisidero after heated testimony

The San Francisco Planning Commission voted 4–3 on Sept. 6 to register an intent to disapprove a conditional-use authorization for CorePower Yoga to operate at 619 Divisidero Street, after more than two hours of public testimony that split neighborhood groups and business owners.

Planning Department staff told commissioners the project was located in the Divisidero neighborhood commercial transit district and, on balance, met planning objectives, citing letters and petitions that included both support and opposition. Staff said the record then included roughly 25 letters of support and 65 letters of opposition and recommended approval. “Staff finds that the project, on balance, is consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan, and recommends approval of the project,” planning staff said.

Stephanie Rubinstein, representing CorePower Yoga, described the studio as a neighborhood-oriented, 2,500–3,100 square-foot studio with locker rooms and retail, emphasized local artist mural plans and discounted memberships, and said the company’s Bay Area locations reflect neighborhood demand. “So approximately 63% of our members nationwide and 67% of the members in the Bay Area receive an average discount of 20% off their monthly membership fee,” Rubinstein said.

Opponents and supporters filled the public-comment period. Neighbors and merchant associations including Alamo Square Neighborhood Association and Affordable Divis cited concerns about formula retail’s effect on local character and small-business displacement; Affordable Divis representatives said CorePower’s proposal came with multiple neighborhood association oppositions. “We believe that this chain business is not needed and is not wanted in the Divisidero corridor,” said Tess Welborn of Affordable Divis.

Supporters, including several small-business owners and relatives of the property owner, said the Nasser family had long served the community and that CorePower would bring daytime activity and jobs. Ted Nasser, the former tenant-owner of the location, spoke about his decades of local service and financial hardship since the property sat vacant.

Commissioners weighed competing concerns: whether a fitness studio in this instance functions as a community-serving business or as formula retail that accelerates displacement. Multiple commissioners referenced recent reporting about CorePower’s labor and wage practices; Commissioner Coppell told colleagues she had seen reporting on unpaid wage settlements that influenced her view. “I saw that and I’m a construction worker by trade. I come from a labor background,” she said.

After debate, Commissioner Richards moved an intent-to-disapprove; the motion passed 4–3. Commissioners Fong, Melgar and Hillis voted against that motion. The commission continued the item to Sept. 27 (the commission noted the previously proposed Sept. 20 date was canceled).

Next steps: the item will return to the commission on the scheduled continuance date with further materials and possible conditions or a final vote. The commission’s action at this hearing was an intent-to-disapprove rather than a final denial.