good morning, everybody. this meeting will come to order welcome to the january 10th, 2021 regular meeting of the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. i'm joined by vice chair dean preston and supervisor aaron peskin. the committee clerk is erica major and i would also like to acknowledge leo from sfgov tv for staffing this meeting. thank you very much. america, do we have any announcements? >> clerk: yes, madam chair. to protect board members and the city, the legislative chamber and committee room are closed.

however, members will be participating in the meeting remotely. this precaution is taken pursuant to statewide stay-at-home orders and all orders, declarations and directives. committee members will attend the meeting through video conferencing and participate in the meeting to the same extend as if they're physically present. public comment will be available on each item on this agenda either channel 26, 78 or 99. and sfgovtv.org are streaming the public call-in number across the screen. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. comments are opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available via phone by calling the number (415)655-0001 again that number is (415)655-0001 the meeting i.d. is 146 355 3896. then press pound and pound again. when connected, you will hear the meeting discussion, but you

will be muted and in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, please dial star and then 3 to be added to the speaker line. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly. and turn down your television or radio. all p-alternatively, you may submit public comment in either of the following ways. email myself, the land use and transportation clerk at erica.major @sfgov.org. if you submit public comment via email, it will be forwarded to the supervisors and be part of the accomplish file. written comments may be sent via u.s. postal service to city hall. finally, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda of january 26th, 2021, unless

otherwise stated. madam chair. >> chair melgar: thank you so much, madam clerk, for all of those announcements. and now will you please call items 1 and 2 together. >> clerk: yes. item number 1 a hearing on the comprehensive parnassus heights plan, proposed by the university perform california at san francisco, as well as the draft m.o.u. item number 2 is a resolution urging the california regents to move consideration of the proposed university of california at san francisco parnassus expansion plan e.i.r. members of the public, who wish to provide public comment on items number 1 and 2 should call the number streaming on the screen. the meeting i.d. is 146 355 3896. press pound and pound again. if you have not done so already, please press star 3 to line up

to speak for these items. madam chair. >> chair melgar: thank you, america. i want to start by thanking supervisor preston for putting these items on the agenda. ucsf is an institution that's very important to our city and it straddles both our districts, the ambulatory care structure and the parking structure in district 5, across the street in parnassus and the hospital. and the other structures are in district 7. so, you know, it's important to both of our constituents. i thank you for your leadership in bringing this forward. so i wanted to give you the opportunity to say a few words before we have the preparations and also to my colleague supervisor peskin, if yesterday like to as well. >> thank you so much, chair melgar. and let me just say since this is our first agenda item, just welcome. excited to serve with you on this committee.

and appreciate -- i will say just in looking at this committee, just collectively having worked with supervisor peskin as chair over the last year and just looking at we have a lot of incredible land use experience and your experience on planning commission and in the community is very much appreciated. i'm very much looking forward to serving with you chair and serving with supervisor peskin on this committee. on these items before us today are -- the two related items, related to ucsf proposed expansion plan at parnassus. first, the informational hearing on the plan and the proposed m.o.u. the second is the resolution urging the california regents to move consideration of this project to the march 2021 meeting, rather than hearing it

next week, as it's currently scheduled. and given that the items are so closely related, i just want to thank you for calling them together. also thank you to both of you, chair melgar and supervisor peskin for this being heard on the such short notice today. i want to offer a little context before we get into hearing the presentations. the comprehensive parnassus heights plan, upwards of 10 million square feet to be added of new office, medical and research space, bringing the total footprint to more than 5 million square feet for the campus. the planning department and the mayor's office i know will provide greater detail in their forthcoming presentation. but i think it's fair to say by any measure, this is a major expansion that will impact not only the campus and the surrounding neighborhoods, but

all parts of the city. a private development of this scale would require substantial review and approval by city departments and by this board of supervisors. but because ucsf is a state agency, our normal city processes, that provide for public input and feedback, don't really apply to this plan. so in the absence of the processes that would require approval before this board and then in the interest of providing greater transparency, i had called for the hearing today. there are a number of interrelated issues, the expansion plan on its merits, the e.i.r., the environmental impact report, and the proposed memorandum of understanding between the planning department, acting on behalf of the city, and ucsf. and then the timeline of approval for these various policies and documents. the planning department, the mayor's office and ucsf i believe are here today to

present on the plan and the m.o.u. so in the interest of time, i'll be brief on the overall plan, but i would like to speak a little bit to the m.o.u. before we get started. by its own terms, the m.o.u. seeks to align the proposed expansion with the city's priorities for housing, open space and transportation and knit into the surrounding neighborhoods. the intent of, as i understand, to ensure that the expansion, not only delivers for the needs of ucsf, but also does no harm to the housing, transportation, and related needs for the community. and it's our hope that it will actually provide a net benefit for the public. there have been several public meetings regarding the proposed m.o.u. first was held on september 29th, in which members of the public were invited to share ideas about the community investments and benefits. the second was held on

december 9th, in which a slide show mar summarizing the terms of an earlier draft m.o.u. was presented. the third was held on wednesday last week, january 6th, five days after the draft m.o.u. was made available to the public. eight days from today, i believe it's eight days from today, the ucsf intends to ask the california regents to approve the expansion plan e.i.r., as well as an amendment to their 2014 long-range development plan. when folks in the public hear lrdp that's what we're talking. expanding dramatically beyond the existing space cap and beyond their decades-long commitment to permanently abide by that space cap. i have some serious reservations around the timeline. it is my hope that conversation today will help shed light on for the public on the process.

but i have no illusion that given the very short window the public has had to consider this m.o.u., that we will be in a position to have this item moved forward on the proposed timeline, at the regents next week, which is why the resolution asks for the regents to move consideration to their march meeting. timelines aside, in the brief period since the m.o.u. has been made public, a number of issues have surfaced among stakeholders, neighbors and advocates. i'll briefly preview them here. and you may have questions as i'm sure my colleagues will, as we get into the presentations. first, the housing commitments appears inadequate to achieve the stated goals. according to the jobs housing balance data, compiled by our city, and i want to specifically recognize and thank the role of groups like council community housing organization, and others

for centering this analysis. the proposed housing contribution, compared to the overall workforce growth, would satisfy only an estimated 28% of the increased demand. so that's a problem and one that, unless mitigated, will be shouldered disproportionately by the surrounding neighborhoods. second, the housing contribution expressly intended to accommodate the ucsf workforce is set at a.m.i. levels that will leave, unfortunately, much of the workforce out. and at this point it's really been underscored in my conversations with labor groups, including afcsme local that represents so many workers on the campus, who made clear a lot of the workers that they represent would be shut out of the proposed housing, whose affordability is really set to

allow up to six-figure annual incomes. last thing on housing, the terms of the m.o.u., by defining u.c. affordable unitses a both new and existing housing, make it unclear to me exactly how much of the affordable housing will be built by ucsf, as opposed to how much of the existing student housing, much of which by ucsf's own statements is already rented below market, will simply be converted in name, but not in actual affordability to satisfy many of the affordability commitments in the m.o.u. so i'm also concerned about the fact that in contrast to the standard practice for city-approved affordable house, the m.o.u. is quite limited, only lasting for a period of approximately 30 years. so all of this has raised a number of questions from

affordable housing advocates. i hope to better understand this and other related points in our conversation today. next, the draft m.o.u. proposes a one-time fee to improve transportation in the parnassus neighborhood. it's been asserted that this fee is on par with what a private developer would pay in a commensurate development. and i hope we will hear more about that from the presenters. i think what has been left out and brought up to many folks who reached out to our office is the fact that a private developer, unlike a state agency like ucsf, would be obligated to offset in an ongoing manner their impacts. so, you know, that by, for example, the annual tax obligations to the city, some of which goes to muni. it's something that a private developer would pay on an ongoing basis, but ucsf is exempt from city taxes and exempt from paying. there needs to be a conversation

about how the contribution can really be quantified and make sure that we are offsetting impacts over time, of the increased use. before covid and likely after covid and certainly in my district, in chair melgar's district and actually extending out into supervisor mar's district as well, these are very overburdened transit lines pre-covid. and will likely be overburdened transit lines after covid. and could be, if not managed well, made worse by this development. so we need to have a real plan to offset and mitigate the transit impacts of an extended campus, including some concrete benchmarks to measure and address the impacts on muni. next, we need to make sure that ucsf commits to a strong community workforce agreement for the entire project, that satisfies the demands of workers and delivers union jobs locally.

i know that has been appear priority for our chair and something that is extremely important on this project. that agreement must be comprehensive, enforceable and supported by labor. and, lastly, there are serious questions regarding the enforceability of this m.o.u. in the interest of time, i've gone on for a while, appreciate the time. i'll leave this, you know, more to the q&a. but i think it raises overarching concerns about the whole conversation here, whether the public can rely on the parties to the m.o.u., to follow through on the commitments and what happens if there are breaches of the m.o.u. so all this adds up to what i believe is a reasonable request for the u.c. regents to continue, to consider approval of plan at the march meeting, rather than next week, which is still a pretty aggressive and

speedy timetable. and allows for input and resolution of the outstanding issues. and i also want to say that -- look at the implications of this request. my understanding is the new hospital will require its own e.i.r., which will not even be presented to the regents until the summer. so a short delay in considering the amendment to this space capital, not causing a delay of designing the hospital or commencing the project. so, you know, i think if the regents agree and wish to -- not to approve the plan with so many important unresolved issues, i think it would be providing a real benefit to the public, as we get a better understanding of the m.o.u. and work together to improve it. and, finally, to wrap up, i just would like to thank a lot of folks who have been working hard on this. just want to recognize some and then, first of all, i would like to thank ucsf for engaging with my office on this issue,

specifically thank the chancellor for personally making time to be with us today. i also want to thank the city leaders from planning and the mayor's office, who have really taken the lead on negotiating the m.o.u., that includes and i won't get everyone, the planning director, planning staff, josh, sheila, jeff from the mayor's office and sarah jones from m.t.a. and also want to thank my -- our former colleague supervisor norman yee and my new colleague, chair melgar for their partnership in this effort. and also recognize supervisor peskin for his leadership on many aspects, including protecting the very important history of medicine mural at the parnassus campus through his efforts last year. and outside city hall also a number of people to recognize and thank, advocates who have

taken the time to connect with our office, in favor of and against and agnostic on this project. but to give -- to share their perspective. that includes affordable housing experts at chew chew, ccdc and taco and labor leaders, labor council, c.n.a., afscme local 3299, among many others. and lastly, just the countless neighbors and community leaders who we have been hearing from and worked closely with our office to help us better understand their feedback and their concerns. so thank you for the time to give rather lengthy introductory remarks and i'll turn it back over to chair melgar to introduce our presenters or any other speakers. thank you. >> you're on mute, chair. you're still on mute. >> chair melgar: of course.

thank you, supervisor. you may make comments if you'd like. >> i'm sorry, chair. are you addressing that to me? >> chair melgar: yes, supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, chair melgar. i was going to actually say a few words of transition and then i was going to add a few words, relative to the matters of items 1 and 2 that are before us. and no offense to supervisor preston, but i would have -- that would have afforded me that opportunity. having said that, i would like to welcome chair melgar to her first committee meeting and her first chairpersonship. and i look very much forward to working with both of you over the next two years. and i'll reserve the balance of my comments for later on in this meeting. >> chair melgar: thank you very

much, supervisor. so today we will be hearing a presentation by josh switzi from the planning department and jeff buckley from the mayor's department. sarah jones from the san francisco m.t.a. are also in attendance. and they are available for questions. so welcome and thank you for being here today. and you may proceed with your presentations. >> good afternoon, chair melgar and supervisors preston and peskin. really appreciate the opportunity to present this memorandum of understanding before you. you'll hear in a few moments from josh who will go into detail about the memorandum itself. i just wanted to provide a little bit of context. so back before june of last year, mayor breed, along with president yee and supervisor

preston, sent a letter to the ucsf chancellor, to enter into a m.o.u. about the proposed changes to the parnassus campus. i really want to thank -- i see this as really a team effort. not only between the mayor's office and the different departments, but between the mayor's office and the neighborhood supervisor's offices. i really want to thank, you know, josh and sheila from the planning department, director hillis, sarah jones and kristin michael from matsuda m.t.a. john from oewd who handled the workforce component of this. my colleague in the mayor's office as well who handled a portion of the health piece. and then, of course, supervisors melgar, president yee and supervisor preston and your staff, in particular i want to

thank jen loh and also kyle and from ucsf i also want to thank francesca and brian to putting in countless hours to get to this point. the m.o.u. you have before you is the result of the eight-month negotiation. but it's also a result of the ask that came from you and from us. it has been shaped about the community -- >> madam chair, can i just interrupt for just a second, through the chair? >> chair melgar: go ahead, supervisor. >> supervisor peskin: so the m.o.u. that we have before us, what is the board of supervisors' role, mr. buckley, relative to the m.o.u.? can you please explain or ask the role is as to the m.o.u. i am very clear that the board of supervisors has no jurisdiction over the university

of california. so what is our role over the m.o.u.? >> i can provide you my response. so the enforceability of this agreement is a key component. so i was going to touch on that. ultimately we see the board as a partner in this effort. >> supervisor peskin: i'm not talking about partner. but legal authority, my friend. >> i understand that. so the ability to sign the document as an m.o.u., we are following the prior -- the prior way in which this occurred in the past. and that's both an m.o.u. with san francisco state, as well as with the 1987 m.o.u. with ucsf. those were executed by the department heads for the -- around the surrounding issues and core competency. so that's -- i mean, the answer

is that it's -- you know, the power is invested within the departments, to execute it and to hold it accountable. >> supervisor peskin: so, mr. buckley, through the chair, that's not what i was asking. mr. sullivan, perhaps you can list these three decision makers and relative to u.c.'s sovereign powers. that's not what i'm asking. i'm asking, mr. sullivan, what the authority, the legal authority of this board, relative to the m.o.u. is. >> chair melgar: is mr. sullivan available? >> of course. charles sullivan, city attorney's office. thank you, supervisor peskin, supervisors, for the opportunity to speak. as written currently, the m.o.u. is -- a statement of the party's good faith intent to work together to cause certain things to happen, as you've already heard and people have stated, we

have no authority over ucsf. so as written, the idea is that the parties have stated their intent of the things that they're going to do, working together in good faith and cooperation. but it is not a document that the parties intend to make enforceable in a court of law. and as a result of that, there's no authority of the board of supervisors to approve the m.o.u. >> supervisor peskin: madam chair, through yourself to mr. sullivan, thank you for revealing that. so what are we doing here this afternoon? >> chair melgar: so, supervisor, i was hoping that we could let mr. buckley finish the presentation and then perhaps bring up all of those questions after, since it is an agenda item. >> supervisor peskin: i will reserve those questions and comments until later in the meeting. >> chair melgar: thank you, supervisor.

mr. buckley. >> all right. thank you, chair melgar. so i wanted to highlight i think a recent change that came from ucsf, that i forwarded to your offices, which is they will create a band of affordability between 60% and 90% of a.m.i. on the lower end of their housing commitment, as well as between 90% and 120% a.m.i. on the more moderate bend -- band that was provided in the m.o.u. so that language has been sent to your offices. in addition to that there was language that shows an intention to create a home ownership partnership between various institutions, in order i presume to leverage, you know, the -- their ability as kind of a cross spectrum. i think as supervisor peskin was mentioning, where this comes from is really the history of ucsf in the city. and, you know, that history i

have learned through discussions, not only with ucsf, but also with many, you know, members, community members who have lived in and around ucsf for decades. and at times that history was contentious. it's been brought up at the planning commission hearing on thursday, you know, around the time of the space healing that was created in 1976 by the regents, ucsf was buying temperature apartment buildings with the intention of expanding beyond their footprint, in order to have a larger campus. that was something obviously that neighborhood residents, many of whom are still with us opposed. and that opposition manifested itself in the space ceiling. i'd like to think the city and ucsf have come a long way since those disagreements. certainly what we have before you, as far as enforceability,

really includes the ability to withhold our permits that would be required in this case, if the housing and transit obligations are not met. s, you know, the construct that charles provided for you, the key requirements that ucsf will need. we do not believe that that will be necessary, because we really see this m.o.u. as an agreement between our two institutions, the city and ucsf and, as a result, you know, that's why we chose the form of memorandum of understanding. i want to thank everybody involved in this. i think what you have before you is substantive in nature and addresses the three core impacts that we intended to address. workforce opportunities and housing opportunities. and, you know, we're looking

forward to hearing your questions and looking forward to addressing your concerns. >> chair melgar: supervisor peskin, did you want to say something? >> supervisor peskin: well, now that mr. buckley's presentation is over, i think we totally agree. the issues is enforceability. and i think what you just said is that the city's ultimate leverage is the issuance of certain comments that the university is not subject to, is that correct? >> there are permits that ucsf will seek from us, while doing their development in the densification of their parnassus campus. in the m.o.u., it's specifically allows us the ability to withhold those permits, if ucsf is not substantially meeting its

obligation in two key areas, housing and transit. in addition to that, we'll have annual reporting at the planning commission, that will, you know, keep track of and monitor this. both the housing side, the transit side and also the other components. and the workforce piece. >> supervisor peskin: are you done? >> chair melgar: thank you. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: hold on a second. but the issue here around enforceability, with the m.o.u. is -- says is really around the issuance of local permits, that are under the city's jurisdiction, in the housing and transit arenas. , those are not enforceable either. like the m.o.u. is an agreement to agree. it's not enforceable. that's a question? it's a question to mr. sullivan, because mr. buckley, you're not an attorney. mr. sullivan, do you agree with

that r