Plans to level the five-acre Bayview site at 1550 Evans Avenue, at the corner of Third, are in the works. And as envisioned and rendered below, a new Southeast Community Facility (SECF) will rise across the site, with a 40,000-square-foot community center and adjacent 5,000-square-foot pavilion; a 45,000-square-foot classroom and workforce development building; and over 100,000 square feet of public open space, play areas and gardens.

Championed by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), the new facility will replace the existing SECF and Greenhouses which were built in the 1980s, “to mitigate the adverse environmental and social impacts of the mandatory expansion of the Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant, which occurred during the 1970s and 1980s.”

The ground for the three-story community center and pavilion, which will provide co-working space for community-based organizations, large multi-purpose spaces and affordable childcare for those working or training in the future educational building, is expected to break ground next year and open by 2021.

The SFPUC is planning to seek an educational partner to build and operate the academic building, with the intention of it breaking ground in 2020.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Bobby Mucho

    What if… the structures and verticality were aligned along the main thoroughfare and the seemingly private open space was mid-block? Obviously, this is not a high-density neighborhood, but you’d think that developing a full block would yield a wee bit more square-footage (and maybe even a few units of residential space for good faith).

    • Posted by Kraus

      Exactly, this proposed SFPUC design is extraordinarily wasteful of precious urban land — right adjacent to the Muni T rail line nonetheless!

      The Community Center and Park are great, but all that exposed surface parking is terrible. At a minimum they should put a significant amount (affordable) Housing above the parking lot — and perhaps even all along Third Street. This would have the added benefit of making the Park safe 24/7.

      The SFPUC needs some serious programming and design help here.

      • Posted by SocketSite

        Keep in mind that the current zoning for the 1550 Evans Avenue parcel (PDR-2) explicitly “prohibits new housing” (as well as “large office developments, large-scale retail, and the heaviest of industrial uses, such as incinerators”).

        • Posted by Rick

          So change the zoning. This kind of open space located right at a key stop for the T-line is ludicrous given our housing needs. Incorporate the public buildings on the site and build up. The entire Evans corridor should be significantly upzoned and a branch of the T-line extended out it to Hunter’s Point. SFMTA says they plan to turn half of the Central Subway trains around in Dogpatch when the subway opens…instead of that, run them out Evans, serving new high density housing with views of downtown…

        • Posted by Kraus

          They’re going to have to change the zoning to get the Community Center and public Park in there anyways — so its’ no big deal to add Housing.

          • Posted by Kraus

            What, specifically, is incorrect?
            That the zoning needs to change?
            Or that it is a “big deal” to add housing?
            Or were you referring to something else?

          • Posted by SFrentier

            Affordable housing up/down 3rd st. Screw that. There is enough affordable housing going into all the new dev- shipyard, candlestick, etc. How about some office space conversion instead? More high wage office space in the immediate area. Why have that only in DP and mission bay?

  2. Posted by Sierrajeff

    Wow, suburban density much? (Replete with enormous surface-level parking lot.) Ugh.

    • Posted by Frisco

      The parking lot is surprising, but it’s not really a residential neighborhood so people are unlikely to walk?

      • Posted by Alai

        If it’s not a residential neighborhood, what’s the sense of building a community center there?

        Honestly.

        • Posted by Bayview_Rising

          Good point — perhaps a better spot would be the reclaimed part of the plant South of Jerrold that will be decommissioned by ~2024 and has no plans for what to do with it. At least it’s further away from the Darling facility that spews odors or burning flesh.

          • Posted by 94124OG

            You must have missed the part where SFPUC is completely upgrading the treatment plant to eliminate these odors.

          • Posted by Pablito

            New magic technology that eliminates all odors from treating the raw sewage of 400,000 plus people that this plant serves? Hmmmmm…

          • Posted by SocketSite

            Some might call it magic, or perhaps even witchcraft, but believe it or not…there have been a number of technological advancements in waste treatment over the past 40 years.

            And as we previously reported and linked above, “once the 10 outdated digester tanks along Phelps are decommissioned, plant odors could be limited to within the plant’s fenceline, assuming everything performs as designed and intended.”

          • Posted by Alex Lantsberg

            Darling made a whole lot of promises when getting it’s expansion approved 15(?) years ago. Still stinks 20-30 days/year, especially in the late summer early autumn.

          • Posted by Alex Lantsberg

            So yea…they’re making improvement to the SE and they’re promised to be the best ever and leave no trace of odor outside the plant’s fenceline.

            The SFPUC has been screwing up land uses and foulding the air quality in Bayview Hunters Point for years. When pushed to move the plant to the Port’s totally underutilized backlands and free up the land in the heart of the neighborhood they whined it’d increase their operating expenses $1M/year or something like that.

            Their credibility is thin and their response here isn’t helping.

        • Posted by Sierrajeff

          Exactly – it’s a *community* center, so presumably people can walk to it … or take the T-Third, which goes literally right up the contiguous street. There’s virtually *no* need for parking here (and I say that as someone who’s usually on here defending parking for, say, residential developments).

  3. Posted by Curious

    This is a really terrible site plan. To top of the profligate wasting of space, they’re even introducing a new curb cut on Third. Why not, I dunno, make the buildings be next to the light-rail station instead of cozying up to the parking lot?

  4. Posted by Petroc

    It’s a much needed neighborhood park with a community building in it, enough with the armchair architect/urbanist freak outs. Hiding the open space behind buildings at the corner would make it feel too private and not public/visible/welcoming.

  5. Posted by Ed

    The very welcoming and visible open space is going to be behind a berm on 3rd and a fence on Evans.

    • Posted by Petroc

      Yes, bc in San Francisco no other parks are fenced or have topography changes… Look at 17th and Folsom Park or Hayes Valley Playground. Still better than being behind a building.

  6. Posted by hmmm

    who exactly is going to use all this park space in the middle of an industrial area?
    Seems like a vast underutilization of the property.

    • Posted by Bayview_Rising

      Agreed! Except for the meditation garden. When I meditate, I seek out places with lots of traffic (there’s 8+ lanes that go by this corner) and offensive odors (which you get in spades here, given wind patterns and proximity to the only wastewater treatment plant in North America across the street from housing + the Darling rendering facility that regularly spews offensive, burning-flesh odors). I find traffic, exhaust, and offensive odors challenge me when meditating like few other combinations can that bring my meditations to a whole new level.

    • Posted by Marcus Harvey

      It may come as a surprise to you, but there are many, many residences in this “industrial area”.

  7. Posted by Bayview_Rising

    Despite pretty renderings, there’s so many problems with this: (1) the existing SECF has essentially turned into commercial office space for non-profits managed by the SFPUC — community members/organizations cannot even use the facility without paying $500+ rental fees. And this new site essentially has the same plan, with the addition of a cafe (and a nicer daycare than what currently exists at the ‘old’ site). (2) What does our Bayview community need? Affordable housing, a properly stocked/priced/targeted grocery store (e.g., Trader Joe’s), a place for the community to gather w/o having to pay for space, and a place for all kids to play, not just the ones enrolled in the daycare. None of these are included (except for outdoor space).

    There’s a movement afoot by Build Inc and its henchmen to repurpose this site as an off-site location for its affordable housing obligations at their waterfront site, just East of here, but that’s not the right use either — diversity breeds resilience — there should be mixed use at both sites. A better use would be mixed use WITH an integrated community center that has conference/meeting rooms residents and local orgs could use for free (when not in use by tenants). On this size of a site, there could easily be several hundred units of housing, a cafe, community center, grocery store, workforce education center (although there’s one at City College down the street) AND open space.

    All of that seems way better than what is currently proposed. To arrive at this design, the SFPUC surveyed the community on what they would like to see in a new community center, not what they’d like to see with this 5.5 acre parcel. Seems disingenuous to me. Furthermore, in what fantasy land is this going to be completed in 2021? Especially when BUILD Inc has managed to halt their permitting process?

    And what’s with the giant parking lot? Duh! Design something that has safe access to the curb and MAYBE underground parking, if any. The future will not tolerate individual ownership of cars, they will be a shared resource. How about a foot-bridge to the light rail platform that could also be used as signage for those entering the newly announced African American Cultural District on 3rd, immediately South of this location? C’mon. Y’all can do WAY BETTER.

  8. Posted by haighter

    “Meditation gardens” – on the corner of two four-lane roads and a light rail line…

  9. Posted by 94124OG

    Missing from all of these comments is an understanding of and respect for the history, legacy, and memory of historic Bayview community leaders Espanola Jackson, Eloise Westbrook, Ethyl Garlington, Alex Pritcher, Harold Brooks, Shirley Jones, and many others who have fought for this community facility. Or respect for the voice of tens of thousands of Bayview residents who participated in the outreach. But I’m sure yall know what’s better for the Bayview community since you looked at a couple drawings of the proposal on a computer screen or something. SMH

    • Posted by Kraus

      The Community facility is great — adding affordable housing will only make it better for Bayview residents wishing to remain in the Bayview! Why would you have a problem with that?

      • Posted by 94124OG

        Sounds like you’re parroting the misleading petition that tries to hijack the memory of Espanola Jackson.

        The actual Bayview community knows this whole attempt to delay (how long would it take just to rezone this site? then a whole new EIR and community process?) and ultimately block the project is being led by the likes of Dan Dodt, Michael Hammond and others who claim to speak for our community. I hear they’re trying to recruit the help of Aaron Peskin and some pawn name Alex Lantsberg too. Not on our watch.

        • Posted by Kraus

          Again, why don’t you answer the question? Why are you against having affordable housing on this site as well as the community center and park? You sound like a mouthpiece for the SFPUC.

          • Posted by Kraus

            Furthermore, I just looked and the Planning Dept website indicates that an EIR process hasn’t even begun.

            It indicates that you — the SFPUC — has only just recently submitted for a “Preliminary Project Assessment” (about a week ago) — which means that the process has only just begun and you’re a long, long ways off from changing the zoning for this site, much less breaking ground on any construction.

            Accordingly, it would be no problem at all — other than to the bureaucratic inertia of the SFPUC — to add significant amounts affordable housing to this project along with the community center and park.

            This would be a huge opportunity for Bayview families and their kids to continue to live in the Bayview.

            Again, why would you want to pass on such a great opportunity for the Bayview?

          • Posted by SocketSite

            While the current zoning doesn’t permit for residential use, as we previously noted, it does allow for the development of a Community Facility, Social Services and Trade School.

          • Posted by Kraus

            And PDR-2 specifically prohibits “Child Care Facilities” — which is the primary use that is indicated on the ground floor of the Community Center.

            So without a change in Zoning, both the proposed Care Facility (and its dedicated outdoor play area) would not be allowed.

            Additionally, the Education Center — if it contains what could be considered a “School” use or any “Philanthropic Administration Services” — that goes for the Community Center as well — are Not Permitted in the PDR-2 Zoning.

            Accordingly, a Zoning Change will be required to approve this project as presently proposed.

          • Posted by SocketSite

            There are certainly arguments to be made, but the primary use remains a Community (versus Child Care) Facility, a permitted use “that includes community clubhouses, neighborhood centers, community cultural centers, or other community facilities not publicly owned but open for public use in which the chief activity is not carried on as a gainful business and whose chief function is the gathering of persons from the immediate neighborhood in a structure for the purposes of recreation, culture, social interaction, health care, or education…”

            And while a “School” (which actually refers to a K-12 use) would not be allowed, Job Training and Trade School are permitted as well.

          • Posted by Kraus

            Actually, “arguments can’t be made” as the law is crystal clear –Child Care Facilities are not permitted in PDR-2 Zoning.

            Unless SFPUC plans on eliminating this rather significant part of the project that they’ve promised to the community, then a zoning change will be required — plain and simple.

            (Additionally, PDR-2 Zoning also prohibits any “Post-Secondary Educational Institutions”. On this point as well, why limit the Bayview community to merely “Trade School” opportunities on this site?)

          • Posted by SocketSite

            Luckily, with the formal application for a Preliminary Project Assessment having been filed, we’ll have the City’s official take on the accessory day care use and direction within the next 90 days.

            And in terms of the focus on workforce development, the mandate for the SECF’s educational component was to provide “meaningful economic and workforce development opportunities through educational programs, hands-on training and job opportunities,” as referenced above.

          • Posted by 94124OG

            You sound like you’re probably Dan Dodt, Michael Hammond, Aaron Peskin, or some other member of the crew. Sorry, did I blow your guys’ cover? Can’t hide behind your poorly written petition to trick the community anymore?

          • Posted by Kraus

            And you sound like the project manager at the SFPUC that’s only concerned with ramming this thing through.

        • Posted by Alex Lantsberg

          Because nothing speaks to the legacy of a leader who fought for jobs, health, & housing than a gigantic surface parking lot on nearly 5 acres at a transit hub & gateway. Start thinking..

          And c’mon now…if you’re gonna try to slander me at least try to do some googling.

    • Posted by Sierrajeff

      How does criticizing an enormous surface parking lot disrespect “history, legacy, and memory of historic Bayview community leaders Espanola Jackson, …”? Serious question.

      Most people on here are *not* criticizing the need or idea of a community center generally – just the folly of using so much of the land for parking, the folly of putting a “meditation garden” next to a busy road, etc. I’m very supportive of a community center here – but let’s make it a *good* community center.

    • Posted by ItMe

      TBH I don’t know those community leaders but this is a terrible design even if they drew it up personally. “Tens of thousands” of Bayview residents wanted a surface parking lot next to the T station instead of affordable housing? I googled Espanola Jackson, and nowhere in her “legacy and memory” do I see a demand for more parking lots instead of places to live.

  10. Posted by Pablito

    “45,000-square-foot classroom and workforce development building”?

    Isn’t that City College’s job? Isn’t that SFUSD’s job? Is it going to be a center to train for a SFPUC job? That would make sense. But another generic “45,000-square-foot classroom and workforce development building” – especially one without a clear program mission from the get-go will not solve neighborhood social issues and seems like a waste of money.

  11. Posted by Goodmaab50

    Light rail loop the T-line down Evans or cargo way and with all the other India basin and SE sector development this will fit nicely and provide some urban park zone with surrounding buildings in other underutilized sites. The jobs and community buildings are a plus as the area needs “entry” like the nearby strip mall that needs a refresh…

    But build the transit link or it’s more gridlock sadly on t-line

  12. Posted by Alex Lantsberg

    There is an incredible opportunity to get hundreds of new Affordable Housing for working families in Bayview Hunters Point on more than 4 acres of underutilized public land!
    Bayview Hunters Point needs more affordable housing. With neighborhood preference, transit-oriented Affordable Housing with community benefits, 3rd and Evans could be an incredible tribute to the life and work of Espanola Jackson.

    The SF Public Utilities Commission has announced its intention to build a 45,000 square foot community center to replace the Southeast Community Facility and inviting a 50,000 square foot educational institutional to co-locate at the 4.35 acre site at 1550 Evans.

    This is not enough

    The community recognizes this as an unprecedented opportunity to realize a key element in the decades-long planning in Bayview Hunters Point. The site at our community’s gateway is a prominent Bayview transit hub along the T-Third light rail, and can meet the diverse needs the existing neighborhood, the growing population at the Hunters Point Shipyard, and the thousands of new residents who are on their way.

    While the SFPUC bases its decision on “an extensive community planning process,” a review of the final outreach report show the planning was tailored to determine whether to retain the existing Southeast Community Facility at its current location as it is transformed in SFPUC offices or move it. Much-needed housing and retail uses were never put on the table as co-location options for the 1550 Evans Site!

    The community wishes to seize this opportunity to realize a smarter and forward-thinking investment for this publicly owned location. Development of this site as described also serves to honor the legacy of important and historic community leaders, such as the late Espanola Jackson, the community leader this project is intended to be named after.

    Espanola Jackson’s decades of community organizing focused on the wellbeing and empowerment of the Bayview Hunters Point Community. In her final years she fought for good jobs and affordable housing for the community’s predominantly African American residents. Polls of BVHP residents have consistently shown the desire for a conveniently located full-service supermarket, and the need has only grown as the community’s population has increased in recent years.

    The site provides a large and unique opportunity and hope for retaining local people to reside along the Third Street corridor. No other project in the pipeline can serve as a catalyzing boost the way this site does. Taking full advantage of this publicly owned site can help achieve all these goals and bring life to Espanola Jackson’s legacy.

  13. Posted by Sean Karlin

    It feels like a waste of space. Open, outdoor parking lots? That’s crazy in San Francisco where we need affordable housing, not concrete parking spaces. With the T-Line and bus service moving right through 3rd & Evans, this would be a great place for housing, stores and a community center. We have to start thinking like a city and not a suburb.

  14. Posted by JB94124

    The outdoor parking spaces are there to placate all the ppl who show up at every possible community meeting to whine ceaselessly about how being able to park their private vehicles for free in public/shared spaces is a privilege divined unto them by the all-mighty. It’s absolutely absurd, but them wheels they squeak loud + often, so they’re the first to get greased.

    • Posted by Alex Lantsberg

      i think what’s happening is that the SFPUC is reverting to type as a top-down infrastructure agency that cannot plan and engage with the public until it gets a swift kick in the rear end. The’ve long been stuck about 30 years behind the times and this case is no different.

  15. Posted by Francisco Da Costa

    It is a shame with a few well know sellouts backing SFPUC – led by Dwayne Jones and Juliet Ellis – this half-baked – 1550 Evans Project is now put to bid. There are serious soil assessments that have to be done – the poor infill is prone to serious liquefaction and flooding. There has NOT been on single public meeting – with meaningful dialog. I attend one meeting where the Project Manager – had NO clue what is was talking about.

    Malia Cohen the District 10 Supervisor is being termed out this November, 2018. She is pushing for this project – taking bribes and making hay while the sun shines. The General Manager Harlan Kelly has no transparency and even less accountability. The SF City College in public that stated that they do not trust SFPUC – yet at the meeting at 1800 Oakdale – those representing SF City College – wanted to work with SFPUC – an entity that has failed miserably.

    If SFPUC decides to move to 1550 Evans Avenue – all the benefits connected with 1800 Oakdale the Southeast Community Facility Commission Building will cease – at 1550 Evans Avenue – a completely new set of rules will apply and the community exploited. The ploys, machinations, and shenanigans executed by corrupt folks like Juliet Ellis and Dwayne – and well known – this time the community at large must stand up and represent. Enough of the nonsense. The project is located on a toxic hotspot – the area is well known for its dense particulates. The area has long suffered from residents suffering from tumors, respiratory disease, and more – yet a bid has gone out.

    As I said the zoning does not meet standards right now – to build a brand new recreation center, offices, and for sure not housing. An open space space is planned – in the middle of a toxic hotspot. Go figure.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *