Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Formula Retail topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission signals intent to disapprove Crunch Fitness permit for 1723 Union Street; final action set for Feb. 1
Summary
After hours of public testimony and commissioner debate about neighborhood character and parking, the Planning Commission voted a motion of intent to disapprove Crunch Fitness’s conditional-use permit for 1723 Union Street; the commission will take final action Feb. 1, 2007.
The San Francisco Planning Commission moved toward formal disapproval of a proposed Crunch Fitness at 1723 Union Street on Nov. 3 after residents and business owners told the panel the 11,300-square-foot gym would harm Union Street’s neighborhood character and worsen parking congestion.
Neighbors described the corner site as close to senior housing, playgrounds and family services and argued the gym would duplicate existing Crunch locations nearby. “There is no greater change of use possible than to take a preschool for underserved children and turn it into a shelter for 105 homeless men,” one earlier public speaker told commissioners about a different item; for the Crunch hearing, merchants and residents warned similarly that a large formula gym could displace smaller, independent retailers and draw long-stay visitors who drive and compete for on-street parking.
Crunch representatives defended the project. Joel Yodowicz, representing Crunch, told the commission the company did not own the building but sought to occupy an otherwise vacant property. “Crunch wants to move into that site so it can occupy it and serve a demand that currently exists,” Yodowicz said, adding Crunch’s other local facilities were overcrowded and that the company expects many members to walk or take transit to the new location.
After a lengthy public comment period and deliberation, a motion to approve the conditional-use permit failed on a 2–4 vote. Commissioners debated whether the necessary finding that the use is both “necessary and desirable” could be made given the proximity of two existing Crunch facilities and the scale of the Union Street storefront.
Commissioner procedural motions followed. A proposal to continue the item to Feb. 1 failed, and the commission instead passed a substitute motion of intent to disapprove the project by a 4–2 vote. The chair announced that the motion of disapproval will come back for final action on Feb. 1, 2007.
What happens next: the commission’s stated intent to disapprove is not a final disapproval; the item will return to the commission’s calendar on Feb. 1 for a formal vote and any further motions. The transcript records Adriana Antonini and Commissioner Lee voting against the intent-to-disapprove motion; four other commissioners supported it.
