Board affirms EIR and approves conditional use for Booker T. Washington project; special-use district passes first reading

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on June 21 affirmed the final environmental impact report (EIR) for the Booker T. Washington Community Center redevelopment at 800 Presidio Avenue, approved a conditional-use authorization for the project with added conditions, and passed the related Presidio-Sutter Special Use District ordinance on first reading.

The project would replace the existing community center, build a new gym and supportive community facilities, and create up to 50 residential units of which a portion are set aside as affordable housing and supportive units for transition-age youth. Opponents in the immediate neighborhood argued the scale, height and parking plan would harm neighborhood character and light; supporters, including youth-service agencies, Affordable Homes developers and the city’s youth commission, said the project will provide needed services and housing for vulnerable young people.

Supporters said the project combines a rebuilt community center with affordable housing and on-site supportive services for transitional-age youth. Julian Davis, chair of the Booker T. Washington board, told the board the center has served the neighborhood “for nearly a hundred years” and that the housing-plus-services approach aims to keep youth in San Francisco rather than displaced to other counties.

Appellant Steve Williams, representing neighbors organized as Neighbors for Fair Planning, told supervisors the EIR and the public process were tainted by early city commitments and funding agreements and by what he called “bureaucratic and financial momentum,” and asked the board to remand the environmental review. Williams also challenged the baseline data in the EIR and said the building would be “so monumentally out of place” at the proposed height and bulk.

Planning staff and the project sponsor disputed those claims. Michael Jacinto and Ann Marie Rogers of the Planning Department said the record shows the mayor’s office of housing provided predevelopment funding but did not alter the city’s independent discretion or the environmental analysis. They said the EIR analyzed alternatives, historic-resource issues and shadow impacts, and that the visual and land-use analyses considered the varied, mixed-use context of the block and adjacent uses including the Muni bus yard.

Architect Steve Perry described design choices intended to break down massing, step back upper levels and limit impacts on public viewpoints and adjacent yards. Project representatives and nonprofit partners including First Place for Youth and Larkin Street and other youth-service organizations outlined experience operating transitional-age-youth supportive-housing programs and said the proposed on-site services would improve outcomes for formerly fostered youth.

The board voted first to affirm certification of the final EIR (motion by Supervisor Mark Farrell; second by Supervisor Mirkremi). Roll call: 11 ayes, 0 noes; the EIR was affirmed unanimously.

On the conditional-use authorization (CU) the board approved the Planning Commission’s authorization but added conditions requested by supervisors and neighbors addressing noise and construction mitigation, coordination on certain exterior treatments and landscaping for properties immediately adjacent to the site, and other implementation commitments. The motion to approve the conditional-use authorization with added conditions carried on roll call with an affirmative vote count recorded by the clerk as 11 ayes.

The related ordinance to create the Presidio-Sutter Special Use District (SUD) and amend the zoning map to permit the project’s height and density passed on first reading. The SUD ordinance passed first reading on a separate roll call (9 ayes, 2 noes).

Supervisors and members of the public repeatedly emphasized the project’s competing public goals: preserving neighborhood scale and character versus producing affordable housing and wraparound services for vulnerable youth. Supervisor Mark Farrell, the district supervisor, said he had worked with neighborhood groups to seek compromises; other supervisors stressed the citywide shortage of units for transition-age youth and the policy preference for locating services near transit and community resources.

The board’s approval includes explicit conditions directing the project sponsor and planning staff to address noise insulation and to work with immediate adjacent residents on colors, fencing and landscaping; the board also required review and mitigation of gym operating hours and other uses to reduce neighborhood impacts. The final building permits and any further code changes will be subject to administrative review and any subsequent necessary hearings.

If the project proceeds, the SUD ordinance must return for a second reading and final ordinance vote before it becomes law; the CU approval and EIR certification are effective now as actions of the Board. Further implementation steps — including building permits, final financing commitments and execution of service contracts for transitional-age-youth units — remain to be completed.

Votes at a glance: on item 40 (EIR certification), the board voted 11–0 to affirm the EIR. On item 45 (conditional-use authorization), the board approved the CU with added conditions (clerk recorded 11 ayes). Item 5 (Presidio-Sutter Special Use District) passed first reading 9–2 and will return for final enactment.

Implementation and next steps: project partners plan to finalize financing and execute service provider agreements for the transition-age-youth units; planning staff and the sponsor must satisfy the board’s added conditions and coordinate with immediate neighbors as directed.

The board’s action ends the consolidated appeal hearing before the supervisors; the record shows robust public testimony on both sides and a multi-part city review that included the Planning Commission and multiple public meetings.