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 representation?

>> i agree that it's not -- sorry, charles sullivan, the city attorney's office. it's not forcible in a court of law. it's a long-standing partnership between the city and u.c. and lots of anticipates where i think the parties work together and fail to work together, they'll have additional actions. but you're correct. this is not a contract connect seek to enforce. >> supervisor peskin: let me just state at base. i absolutely understand or hope i understand absolute and honor the hundred-year history plus of the city and county and the university of california san francisco, as well as other relationships that city of san francisco has with the board of regents, that are not under the jurisdiction of ucsf. so i just want to stipulate to

that at the beginning. my real question is of those permits, how many of them, if any of them, are actually under the jurisdiction of this board of supervisors? >> chair melgar: i think that's a question for you, mr. buckley, because you referred to the permits. which permits are you talking about? >> so any major encroachment permit that they would seek or need for the buildout of their campus, would be issued from city departments. >> okay. >> supervisor peskin: encroachment permits need approval by the board of supervisors, every single one of them? >> well, i stand corrected. >> chair melgar: thank you so much, supervisor peskin. supervisor preston, did you have something to add? >> supervisor preston: i did. sorry. i don't know if i cut off?

>> chair melgar: your name is up on the roster. >> supervisor preston: thank you. so i just wanted to -- i did have some questioning on the enforceability issue, since that has come up and wanted to get a little more clarity from the city attorney, because i do think it's a pretty central issue here. so, through the chair, to mr. sullivan. and i believe you've said this. i just want to be really clear. so as currently drafted, my understanding is this m.o.u. is a statement of intent of the parties and is not a legally enforcible agreement, do i have that right? >> yes. >> and then in the event -- so in the event that ucsf violated, and no reason -- stated the

housing commitments, workforce commitments contained in the agreement, the city would not be able to enforce those commitments in a court of law, is that right? >> correct. >> supervisor preston: okay. and then as i think supervisor peskin's questions brought forward, the m.o.u. itself, as it's written, would not be need to be removed or approved in any way by the board of supervisors, but the planning director, mayor's office could sign off, could commit the city to board review -- m.o.u. without board review? >> that's correct. i do think it's worth noting there's not much in the way of the city commitment in this m.o.u., if you read it closely. >> supervisor preston: okay.

okay. and then just following along these lines. so what i would like to know, and understand there are a couple of different charter provision that impact when and to what extent the board can review or must review contracts. so what i want to get clear here is under the charter, if this agreement, the m.o.u., has been drafted or if it were amended to contain legally enforcible rights and obligations, would it then require board of supervisors' review and approval before it could be finalized? >> if the intent of the party was to create a legally enforceable contract, that was more than ten years or involved revenues to the city in excess of $10 million, then it would require board of supervisors' approval under the charter section 9.108. >> to look at the agreements

with commitments that exceed a ten-year horizon, commitments on finances that clearly exceed the $10 million threshold, including a $20 million transportation payment, if the parties were to agree that this should and include a clause stating their intent that this should be a legally enforceable document, then under our charter, that agreement would then be required to come to the board of supervisors before it could be finalized for approval, is that right? >> before it to become effective, right. >> supervisor preston: right. through the chair to mr. buckley or if there are others who can answer it, i'd like to understand was this issue negotiated? like was there a discussion about whether to include a

clause, making this legally enforceable, that would have then triggered board review? was that ever a topic of discussion? i'm trying to understand why do we have an agreement that is not legally enforceable. was that a point in the negotiations that it be written in a way that was not legally enforceable and, therefore, not subject to review by the board of supervisors. >> chair melgar: yes, mr. buckley. >> okay. supervisor preston, i mean, the way i can answer that question is very simple, which is we were consistent in the way that m.o.u.s have been conducted between previous institutions whether it's ucsf or also s.f. state. so we followed that structure as our rationale behind entering into an m.o.u., instead of entering into a contract. that being said, we see the m.o.u. as being enforceable, as

something that we can -- that through the mechanisms at the planning commission, through i think their reporting requirements that are there, through our ability to withhold permits, through, by the way, we're not giving up our ability to sue or appeal any of the future e.i.r.s. we are really not getting, you know, we are getting a great benefit from this. and we are not being asked to do anything really substantive as a result. we are not giving up the right to sue either. and so, as a result, we see this as something that addresses the benefits that we have asked for, which is around housing, transit, and workforce. >> supervisor preston: i'm trying to reconcile mr. buckley's statement that you see it as enforceable and you're citing certain permit approvals or things ring the basis of that. we have the city attorney saying this is not a legally

enforceable agreement. i'm trying to get clarity of was -- did you or director hillis or -- was it ever on the table or a point of discussion in negotiating this document, to include provisions that would make it a legally enforceable commitment, to make the commitments from ucsf legally enforceable? or not? >> so i don't typically, you know, have a public discussion of discussions that happened between myself and the city attorney. that being said, you know, we believe we can achieve the goals that are put forward in the memorandum of understanding and we believe we can receive the benefits that are stated in that m.o.u. and you can also ask that question of chancellor hoggard, who you will hear from in a few

moments. >> chair melgar: okay. thank you, mr. buckley. that was a no, supervisor preston. i'm going to make sure that supervisor peskin can get in. he's also on the roster. >> supervisor peskin: so, madam chair, in the interest of having the chancellor speak, i'll defer these. i would later on like to note the history of various m.o.u.s between the university of california and the city and county, both at parnassus as well as at mission bay and whether there was violation of those and enforced or not. i do not want to in any way impede the chancellor from coming forward. i'll reserve those for later in the meeting. thank you. >> chair melgar: okay. thank you, supervisor. we will now hear the presentation from jeff before we hear from the chancellor, if that's okay. >> thank you.

>> chair melgar: yes. thank you. >> if i could, i will be sharing some slides. all right. are these visible? >> chair melgar: i can't see anything. how about now? >> chair melgar: okay. >> all right. well, we'll go with that. good afternoon, supervisors. i'm with the planning staff. i will quickly run through just a brief overview of the comprehensive parnassus heights

plan, just as background for those who are not familiar with. and quickly run through the highlights of the terms of the m.o.u., that have been touched upon in the hearing thus far. just really briefly a recap of the parnassus heights plan itself. excuse me. the proposal as you've heard from supervisor preston, would increase the total square footage of development on the campus by approximately 2 million square feet over the course of about 30 years. of that 2 million square feet, approximately 675,000 square feet or so would be net new housing of about 760 units. and the balance of that 1.3 million would be nonresidential space, primarily new hospital clinical space, upwards of 800,000 square feet and 300,000 square feet of research and a small amount of additional other administrative and logistics space and campus support. in total, the population

increase on the campus from recent population counts would be about 8,000, just under 8,000 people per day. that's between a mixture of students, faculty and staff, as well as patients and visitors served by the new facilities. if you want to hear more from the chancellor about the plan itself, but just real briefly. here's an image from the plan highlighting many of the areas of new development or changes on the campus. most of the changes primarily will happen around -- centered on parnassus, as the certificate of the campus, with the new hospital and the south side of parnassus as well as new facilities, especially new housing along and extended 4th avenue, at the west end of the campus, as well as other improvements to the circulation and open space off of irving and access to the mount.

so that's a very brief overview of the plan. we're happy to answer questions. and we can talk at length about the campus plan itself. so in terms of the overall process, ucsf started their process back in 2018. and underwent a couple of years of process that they were in with the community and their internal stakeholders. the city participated to some extent in those meetings. throughout this time, there was an e.i.r. the comment period was last summer. and then last fall again at the urging of the mayor and supervisors yee and preston, the city led by the mayor's office and m.t.a.ed led a process of negotiating and discussing with the community this memorandum of understanding. we had three workshops, which you heard about.

and that brings us to this point today. you also heard that the hospital itself will be -- have its own project-specific e.i.r., because it, of course, is not designed at a level of detail to be analyzed fully in the plan itself. and that design will be -- is just getting off right around now and the e.i.r. will be published later this year. you've also heard the many agencies that have been involved. you've already heard about them so i won't belabor that point. we had quite substantial participation in the work shops. the last workshop well over 100 participants in that workshop. so on to the m.o.u. itself. i'll run through the various major topics of the m.o.u., just hitting on the highlights, including both what the plan itself that you see proposes, included in the topic, some comments on what we've heard through our public engagement and then what the m.o.u. contains on the topic.

so in terms of ongoing collaboration, this is obviously a key interest of the city, given the jurisdictional issues on an ongoing basis. for reference, the past m.o.u.s, there was an m.o.u. signed between the city and u.c. back in 1987. and it primarily is a very brief m.o.u. it's basically one page and describes the need coordinate on an ongoing basis, on planning and development activities throughout the city. and, of course, this is in interest of city departments, as well as the public in making sure that that happens. in terms of this m.o.u., it specifically supplements and augments the 1987 m.o.u. and particular to this campus plan. it does require u.c. to submit an annual written report to the city, including data on a host of issues ranging from transportation behavior, obviously the buildout of the plan, their progress to fulfilling the commitments in

the plan, as well as other measures. there is a requirement that at the planning director or planning commission's discretion, that u.w. comes to a hearing at the planning commission to brief the commission on all of these ongoing progress, on the campus and other matters. it does establish that the city would get an early look at an opportunity to comment on the design of major buildings. and it commits u.c. to hold community meetings and information publicly. in terms of housing, probably one of the couple major focuses of the conversation. the plan itself includes approximately 760 new units at the parnassus campus, split between the densification near the top of the campus, up near the top of the mount, as well as new units down off of parnassus, primarily along the new extended

or re-established 4th avenue. we heard a lot from the public and as well as stakeholders from the city of the need to make housing specifically available to the new expanded workforce, primarily those making lower incomes, that housing shouldn't be just for students and faculty. and that there's a responsibility to house some of the workforce as well at a variety of income levels, as well as that there's a need to make sure that good chunk of the housing is built and phasing terms early on, such that it aligns with the construction of the major facilities generating the jobs. we can come back to the details about what different job classes that ucsf makes. they provide us with this graphic, just showing a range of incomes, of different job classes at ucsf. in terms of what the m.o.u. builds on that, the m.o.u. does

establish that u.c. will deliver 1263 net new units by 2050. that's several hundred more than the plan itself contained. and that half of those would be delivered by 2030, which is when the new hospital is suppose to open. and on ton -- top of that, it establishes that u.c. would have to yet aside certain percentage of the overall housing portfolio in different increments over the years, at below-market rates, culminating with 40% of all of u.c. housing portfolio in the entire city be affordable below 120 a.m.i. by 2050. you can see the different increments up on the screen, with half of the units at -- up to 90% a.m.i. and the other half of the b.m.r. units at up to 120% a.m.i. in addition to that there are options for u.c. to meet a

portion of that unit requirement, up to 200 of those units either by paying the city in-lieu fee that goes to o.c. it to spend on affordable housing, in the vicinity of the campus or u.c. could provide land directly to the city as a land dedication. additionally, there is the provision that they would expand the down payment assistance program for employees to cover a wider variety of employees, making a wider range of incomes. and there's a provision that should some employees take them up on that, they would get some credit towards their housing obligation. moving on to transportation. the plan itself includes a number of changes and improvements to the immediate circulation, particularly to improve the loading and drop-off dynamics around the campus. obviously we've heard a lot of

interest and spent a lot of time looking at the transit issues and the broader transportation issues. and the need to both reduce the number of automobile trips for the campus, as well as find ways to meet the additional needs generated by the growth. and so the m.o.u., as you've heard, does require u.c. to pay a transportation contribution. it's set at a per square foot fee of approximately $10.58 per square foot. and that would generate we estimate around $20 million for the full buildout. as you've heard, i think supervisor preston noted that this is approximately -- in fact, just a hair above what a private developer would pay, had they been subject to the t.s.f. and in this case the fee -- or sorry, not the fee, the contribution is a single rate for all of the uses, rather than the t.s.f., which is broken out by different sorts of uses.

u.c. would also be making upgrades to the stop at 2nd and irving and other street improvements in the area, as well as have committed to working with the sfmta to improve bike routes, golden gate park to the campus and other improvements in the area. there's a couple key commitments that u.c. is making that aren't found in m.o.u. related to transportation that are very important important, that are actually mitigation measures, that are found in the final environmental impact report. the first is that u.c. will implement an aggressive t.d.m. program, a transportation demand management program to reduce vehicle trips by at least 15%. and also that u.c. will implement a patient transit pass program, within the next five years and will also commit to working with their student body to issue a referendum for the students to vote on, assessing themes for a student transit pass program.

moving on to workforce. the city and ucsf have a couple ongoing programs that both provide job training and internship opportunitieses for those people seeking to find opportunity in the health care field, as well as construction employment opportunities through the ccop program. workforce development and job training and access to both long-term kind of operational and career positions well u.c., practically for those from disadvantaged backgrounds and people of color is of particular interest to the city, not just for workforce development and equity concerns, but also to address transportation concerns to try to reduce the number of people who are working at u.c. who need to commute long distances. and so the m.o.u. does build on these programs to increase and expand the excel program, so include more job class of courses -- classifications.

the m.o.u. requires u.c. and the city to finalize a hiring agreement with 30% local hire goal, including operational jobs, as well as expansions and extensions of the ccop city build partnership. and, lastly, also to expand an existing partnership that u.y. has with the school district, that provides students, particularly those from underserved backgrounds, the opportunity to get a mentorship and seek a food -- foothold about learning about the health care profession, which is a segue to health care a topic. obviously the new hospital is a major focus of this plan. we have heard from the public the interest in, as well as our own internal public health stakeholders, such as the department of public health and a variety of needs that the city has, ranging from psychiatric care to geriatric care and from

some folks in the public we have heard a strong outcry to look at the opportunities to increase skilled nursing facilities for subacute care. so we worked very closely with the department of public health and the mayor's office and ucsf to find areas where there was sort of future benefiting and opportunity to build on the facilities that ucsf would have to expand their capabilities to support city goals. that primarily fell around the area of psychiatric and mental health. and so the m.o.u. commits u.c. to increase their -- increase their facilities -- excuse me. increase their commitment to look at opportunities to expand their in-patient psychiatric beds, particularly medi-cal recipients and work with d.p.h. on a variety of mental health services.

also on the last bullet point, dove still aing -- dovetailing, also expanding the programs that seek to find opportunities for people and young adults from underrepresented populations to find career pathways into the mental health field. a major open space asset for the city and one that everyone loves once they find out about it. and so u.c. continues to maintain commitment to the mount. you heard that the reserve was one of the key components of the 1976u.c. regents' policies, as related to commitments made at the time. and that commitment maintains certainly heard from the connections from golden gate park and the surrounding

neighborhoods. we've heard a lot about the girls that are major artistic landmark that exists on the campus and will be preserved independently of this m.o.u., through efforts that have been underwritten for the last year. we'll main the mount sutro reserve and we'll make sure those replaced acres are adjacent to and the character of that is commensurate with the reserve. the new hospital would incur into the existing reserve by a small amount, counsel off of medical center way, as proposed. and so it would be as much or more as compensating for the lost acreage by dedicating additional acreage, as part of the reserve. there would be improving the trails, and providing improved

surrounding neighborhoods and continuing their ongoing vegetation management planning. so a couple points that are not in the m.o.u. itself, but the ongoing commitments. u.c. has continued to support the sutro stewards, which is a nonprofit organization that provides open space and natural sciences programming up on mount sutro. and u.c. would be providing support for them and some physical facility space to support their activities. and in the e.i.r. and mitigation is in there, as related to the murals, that this is not in the m.o.u., that u.c. will convene a task force by the end of this year, that includes the representation from the city's preservation commission and other members to be determined. that will identify a suitable permanent home for the history of medicine and california murals, either on the campus, parnassus campus itself, if a

suitable location is found. or at another institution or location in the city, ensuring that they would be publicly accessible and viewable moving forward. so those are the highlights of the m.o.u. there's a lot more detail that we can cover, if you'd like, during question-and-answer. again you've heard that the plan and the e.i.r. would be before the regents next week. the city and u.c. would be available -- would be allowed to sign the m.o.u., following those actions. again noting that the certification of the e.i.r.a precondition for executing the m.o.u., given that commitments in the m.o.u. are dependent on environmental coverage of the e.i.r. itself. and with that that concludes staff's presentation.

>> clerk: madam chair. >> chair melgar: thank you. thank you very much. we will now hear from ucsf chancellor sam hawgood. thank you. welcome. we can't hear you, chancellor. [ please stand by ]

perhaps we can come back to you. there we go. i think we can hear you now.

i'm so sorry, chancellor. this is covid. can you help us, madam clerk? >> clerk: yes, through the chair, we can resend him the link and also if he looks at the bottom of the invite of teams there's a call-in number. i can't say that publicly because it's not a public number. i can reforward it to him now so it's at the top of his e-mail chain. for now, we can go to public comment, if you'd like. >> yes. supervisor preston, did you want to say something? you are also muted. >> supervisor preston: i did have some questions for planning i was going until after the chancellor but if your preference would be to have some

of those questions asked now while we try to trouble shoot the technology, i'm happy to do that. >> with don't we do that. ask the questions to the planning department and hopefully we can get some staff assistance to chancellor so that we can hear his comments. go ahead, supervisor. >> supervisor preston: thank you, madam chair. i just have a handful of questions to the follow-up on the points raised in the presentation. starting with the affordable housing commitments, can you address why those are set on the 30-year timeline in terms of versus something longer terms iy more of a permanent restriction around affordability and how

that compares to other comparable commitments that the planning department deals with? why that timeline? was it a product of negotiation or was there some other reason for that time horizon after which ucsf would be free to convert those units to market rate? >> i'll take a quick stab and then i'll have jeff buckley elaborate. typically, when we have commitments and inclusionary part of development projects they have to exist for the life of the principle project, however long that would be. in this case, the 30-year committee is 30 years from the termination of the m.o.u., which would be in the year 2080 so it's much more than 30 years from now. so depending when the units were built or restricted, to their

affordability levels, it could be longer than 30 years so units by 2030 for 50 years because 2080 is 50 years so some of the units would be on a different timeline. i believe our conversations rested around ucs kind of concern around permanently establishing permanent, indefinite restrictions on themselves out to a longer period past 2080. jeff, can you elaborate further? >> yes. through the chair to supervisor preston. a couple key points i would add. for one, when the m.o.u. is executed, then it becomes document that ultimately, we're expecting them to be able to fulfill their requirements in 10-year increment zoos theys son

provide that hazarding as soon as possible after the execution. we don't expect that that will be the case immediately but that is one thing that the document allows. i think the second is that they -- ucsf didn't understand the concept of permanence and in this document, we allowed the ability to change where the units will be and we also require them to provide and disclose the locations of those units as well so we are keeping track of them and ultimately they asked for that flexibility, as i understand it, and maybe uc sf can jump in here, based on their plans to dense a fie some components of their existing housing so that's part of why we are.

>> clerk: supervisor peskin had a question for you. >> unless i missed it, i don't think there was any reference in the m.o.u. to the history of medicine murals by mr. zack heim? is that correct? >> it's not in the m.o.u. >> to the parties of which apparently the board of supervisors is not a party, would there be any willingness for that to be included in the m.o.u., particularly as it relates to the relocation and while i'm grateful that those murals will not be destroyed and it appears will be removed, there's no plan for them to be publicly displayed and we have

another item on this agenda relative to other murals in and mr. rivera were patriots and i just want to know whether or not there's any consideration or could be any consideration including provisions for the mural for public display in the m.o.u. >> chair, can you hear me now? >> yes, we can hear you. is it ok if we go ahead with the chancellor's presentation now? >> absolutely. i hope the chancellor consulted with the best tech experts and i am delate and deferred until the later in the meeting. >> thank you, welcome chancellor. very good to see you. >> i apologize for the audio. i'm speaking on the phone and i

will address supervisor peskin's thank you supervisor preston for expressing your personal invitation to come before the committee today. he has nicely gone over the elements of the m.o.u. so i would like to focus my remarks on the key issue that brings us together today. the question of delaying ucsf's plans to seek approval from the university of california board of regions to move forward without the plan. we've seen our share of public-health crisis together, including the 1906 earthquake, the h.i.v.-aids epidemic and now

covid-19. it takes place every day every year. it's important to foreground key benefits the projects will create for san francisco. affordable housing, public transit, investments and workforce development. the creation of construction and other permanent jobs to stoke the local economy are more inviting experience for the neighborhood with greater access to campus open space. a modern hospital with 40% more capacity and we will know longer be forced to way and we're out of that capacity. we do that approximately eight times everyday of the year.

our shared interest in ensuring ucsf's ability to serve the growing care needs of san francisco is in jeopardy. our campus is aging and is overcrowded. the facilities on parnassus cannot keep up with the complex care needs of modern medicine. in particular, moffett hospital designed in the 1940s, and built in the 1950s, 70 years ago, is functionally obsolete and no longer serves the healthcare demands of patients and physicians. it also does not meet the 2030 seismic safety standards required by stay law.

and just one example of many is the creation of a new service corridor behind the campus so that delivery and service vehicles are taken off parnassus avenue. to design a hospital that our neighbors in the city will be proud of, we have the renowned firms and hdr. now although there's much speculation in the public and frankly misinformation, about the height and shape of the new hospital, we are still early in concept design. when it is further happening ale will be community input. we have a welcoming light-filled, healing space that takes full advantage of the natural environment at parnassus heights and naturally compliments the neighborhood.

this will be in stark contrast to the outdated monolithic buildings along parnassus avenue that currently separate the campus and the neighborhood. the new campus will be more welcoming, not less to the community. now let me turn to the community benefits associated with the project and the m.o.u. between the university and the city. we enthusiastically accepted the invitation of full one year ago from supervisors preston, yee and mayor breed to create an m.o.u. with the city. they asked us to model our m.o.u. after the one the city made with san francisco state university. we have worked with the mayor's office and significant input from supervisors yee, president and more recently melgar to

develop the m.o.u. over the past year. the community investments memorialized in the m.o.u. were developed through our comprehensive community engagement process that has spanned two years and has included 28 well attended community meetings. these community investments will pour millions of dollars into the neighborhood. including a commitment to quadruple housing for our parnassus students with 1,263 met units 40% will be uc affordable units and 20 million-dollar contribution to sfmta to improve pedestrian access to parnassus heights with a focus on increased capacity of the street scape improvements to

make the streets safer, better lit and more beautiful. we also will make significant contributions to the local economy including thousands of union jobs and permanent jobs and increase our spending on small and local diverse businesses. along with an expansion of our xl workforce training programs, and a local higher goal of 30% for all entry level positions. now, to address some of the questions that have come up, i want to be clear that i consider this m.o.u. to be binding. i've committed this directly to mayor breed and i'm happy to make that commitment to the board of supervisors. in deed, ucsf is glad to be accountable to the city and the community that we serve, for all of the commitments in the m.o.u. the reason it is not a legally binding document right to the constitution autonomy of the university of california,

however, as already stated by jeff buckley we require city permits for each of the buildings that would be part of the comprehensive plan and that creates enforceability of the m.o.u. the h.o.u. is backed and supported by the strength of many other commitments ucsf makes good on everyday in our service to san francisco. the doctors proudly serve the patients in zuckerberg san francisco general hospital. for years we've operated free community health and dental programs and during the challenging past year as we've all wetel with covid-19 ucsf has been a present partners to san francisco has part of our shared public commission and just yesterday, we tested for free at

the 24th and mission part station with a rapid antigen test and connected those who were positive immediately with care we have all possible tests for the u.k. variant. next week and this has been planned for over two years and with all due respect, we have already accommodated one request for two months delay last year and we are unable to accommodate a second second. further delay will needles complexity and costs it's important what we'll be asking the regions to approve is the e.i.r. and the l.r.d.p. and the regions do approve the mou that

i have been the authority to enter enter into on behalf of the university with the city. we will create thousands of construction and permanent jobs and will bolster local small businesses and restaurants as well as start the process to make the critical investments in sfmta and our sitting housing stock. for both, moving forward will generate economic activities that will help address the financial challenges created by the pandemic. i understand that have concern we have not provided input on this project but this is inaccurate. over the past two and a half years, we've partnered with thousands of neighbors in more than 28 community meetings to develop the parnassus heights

plan and the community investments that are memorialized in the m.o.u. i have personally met with supervisors dean preston, norman yee and more recently melgar. their districts are part of the planning process throughout. as part of our two plus year community engagement efforts, i also met with neighbors on edgewood avenue, the street that backs up to the site of the new hospital to hear their concerns. our community process is on going and we will continue to partner with our neighborhood. my wife and i have raised the two sons in the neighborhood and when my term has chancellor ends, that's where i will return

i ask you to community engagement process that has identified the communities i ask for your support so that we can lay the foundation for the next 100 years in serving the health

needs of san francisco together. i and my colleagues on this call not harry to take questions that you may have. thank you. >> thank you, chancellor. i have a couple of clarifications and questions on this presentation before i let you go. chancellor, thank you so much for making the presentation and for being here. i heard you say that those are two separate things. the products was the region and the m.o.u. which is in your in r in yourjurisdiction. does it take out of your hands and go to the region? >>

>> i don't have a university lawyer on my tall and it's created at an m.o.u. with the city. >> thank you for clarifying that. supervisor preston. go ahead. >> thank you. i think supervisor peskin may have been mid question when the chancellor was coming on. i have a question as well. i'm looking at the roster and i see supervisor peskin before you, yes. >> on the mural issue, the mural issue that supervisor peskin asked about is in the revised

e.i.r. has been submitted after the requisite public comment period. it identifies that we have engage the renowned historic architecture firm aig to -- >> that was an insurance firm. to remove the murals and place them in storage. we then have committed to putting together a task force including the making sure they are placed in a home whether it's on the university can maintain them appropriately. they are very fragile and that

obviously is not our sweet spot but we will put together a task force over the coming year to be on display? >> is that adequate? >> thank you, madam chair and thank you chancellor and i really do want to thank you for your commitment and change of views relative to that work which i think the university of california called the jewel in the university of california's crown. the question was simply whether or not the university no that matter the city insofar as the board is not a party to this nor would the m.o.u. would be before the board for approval include those same eir representations

in the m.o.u., that was the question. >> i would consult to know whether there are issues doing that. we would use avoid double recordings of that. i might ask should voice chancellor to comment on that. >> thank you. can you hear me ok. >> we're not a microsoft teams institutions so we're all learning on the go. supervisor peskin, it's good to see you again. we have it's related to the legal requirements under ceqa so

we've been very transparent with the staff and the city that there are certain elements like the production measures as well as the murals and the murals are identified in the eir that those commitments are included in the eir and not in the mou and so that's the reason why they're suffering. >> if i may through chair melgar to vice chancellor newman, i understand that. i actually think that if you lock at the eir and the mitigation that the chancellor just set fourth, you can actually tear off of that into the m.o.u., the eir says that you will create a committee and figure out where they go. the m.o.u. could actually be the next step. i am not a lawyer, if i was a lawyer i would never do ceqa or criminal law. i actually think that if you

guys conversation with your coun, for what it's worth. >> i'm happy take it up with the ceqa attorney as well as our council at the office of the president. we did have a lengthy conversation about it and that was the advice we received but i appreciate your advice. >> thank you, vice chancellor. >> thank you supervisor. supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: thank you chair melgar. thank you to the chancellor again for making time and being here personally and to you and your team for being very open and accessible to our office during this past year.

a couple thing i want to follow-up on. the first is around the issue of the enforceable agreement and i appreciate chair melgar's question and i'm trying to get a better understanding of your response. i understand that without the benefit of council here, to the regions or to ucsf at your disposal, that you have some concerns about whether ucsf could enter into enforceability provisions contract as part of this m.o.u. i guess i'm trying to -- i would like to request and see if you are open to your reviewing that with your council and also to the extent that it is legally permissable is that something that you would be willing to revise the m.o.u. to include and

express enforcement provisions? >> i'm very happy to discuss it further with council and if necessary or if you would desire i can have council have a conversation with you or someone in your office as well. i'm pretty clear that i've been instructed that that is not possible for the university to enter into such an agreement. i would only add the additional comment that all of the items in the m.o.u. make perfect business sense for the university. it makes sense for us to provide housing for our employees. it makes sense for us from a pure business perspective to improve transit through the university. it makes sense for us to deal with open space and as our commitment as an anchor

institution, in the city of san francisco, it makes sense for us to commit to workforce. so, there's nothing in this m.o.u. that is a difficult obligation for us to commit to. i think our history with the city, at least for the 40 years i've been with the university, we are a trusted partner with the city. so, i hope we can move beyond this point. >> thank you. i would welcome the opportunity to get some clarity. i don't see why, despite the constitutional autonomy, why uc would be unable to enter no a binding contract to provide certain benefits but i look forward to getting more information on that.

i agree with you, all the the members of this committee would agree providing affordable housing and housing makes good business sense but we have to recognize the context, while there's a lot of good will is that does exist between ucsf and the city and community, we're having a discussion which is premised on lifting a space ceiling that was promised to the community that it was a permanent space ceiling. regardless of the permits of whether it should be raised or not it's fair, i believe, for the community, in particular, on the eve of that being lifted so say about what about these other restrictions. what about if he retires and we're 20 years in the future and someone else looks at the bottom line and says it makes more sense to representative these units at market rate than half of market rate. what recourse does the city

have? i will say as 1/11 of this board of supervisors would feel better with an agreement that actually had enforceability provisions. >> i would just echo again, that the city can with hold permits for building on the campus if they feel we are not honoring the intent as well as the letter of the m.o.u. the other issue i wanted to follow-up on was just around your comments specifically to the resolution and the request to delay by two months to the next region meeting and you referenced the delay, and i

just, if you do maybe clarify the practical matter with the hospital eir scheduled for the summer, right, this is not going to impact the when you would break ground or move forward with this? what is the practical impact of a march hearing? >> let me make three points to the issue. number one, on our asked, we were to take this to the region last november and at the request, i believe your office and the public, we delayed until january. we feel we have negotiated in very good faith with the city to an m.o.u. that is acceptable to the city and to the university. we have stretched and stretched

and stretched and really a further delay is just that. a further delay. we are spending considerable money on design of a new hospital without the known approval that we can execute on the project. until the regions approve the e.i.r., we are making a bet, if you like, that they will and we need to get that decision behind so that we can move forward. we are already at the extreme end of the schedule to get the hospital built by 2030. if there are ceqa lawsuits, related to the eir, they add additional time lines so the sooner we get the eir issue approved, many other things happen. this is an incredibly expensive project to build a new hospital in this day and age.

we are going to need tremendous donor support and anything that further erodes their confidence that we're actually going to be executed on this project is also a significant concern. my concern that much further delay puts the entire project in jeopardy and i'm not disputing that a two-month delay would change the date we put a shovel in the ground, but we've been working on this now for years and years with a lot of public comment and these dates have been known for years. it is just unclear to me what the purpose of a delay in the approval of the e.i.r. and the long range development plan is. >> is that your question?

>>? tons to that, i understand the were the regions to approvethisn january, i still don't see any actual impact on time lines here and i do want to just recognize that it's no one's fault that the m.o.u. process took longer than anticipated. the release of the m.o.u. occurred later than anticipated for the public to see it and that is part of what contributes to my strong strong belief it would not be appropriate to be heard. thank you for your comments explanation. >> i express the m.o.u. itself

will not be on the region's agenda. it's the e.i.r. and long range development plan amendment. >> is it fair to say that if the regions do go ahead and vote on this at the end of the month, the m.o.u. can still continue to be negotiated? is that what you are saying? >> in theory, yes. they want to know we have a good relationship with the city around this project. as a finalized m.o.u. is the strongest signal that i can send

to the regions that we have a good understanding with the city about the consequences of this project. to further negotiate the m.o.u., the m.o. you won't be signed until after the regions approve the eir because, it's contingent if they, for whatever reason, say they are not comfortable in us going forward with any of these projects, then there's no m.o.u. so it won't be signed at the date of the region meeting and to open it up for further on going negotiation, unless it's a minor point, i think we have in good faith negotiated this for 12 months now and i realize

that. >> thank you for your comments about how all of these different aspect and the m.o.u. make business sense for ucsf. one thing that may not but has been pretty clearly identified in the medical services master plan for the city, is the skills nursing beds and so i, as a district 7 supervisor, we have laguna honda in district 7. i appreciate ucsf because it's our only hospital easily accessible on the west side and yet for a lot of folks who have seen this issue in skilled nursing beds in our city and care about issues of seniors and long-term care and families who have to ask us that service at the end of life of their loved

ones, i was involved at the planning commission when we negotiated benefits agreement for cdmc and it didn't make it and now we have this and i'm hearing from a lot of community members alarm that this is not including so can you tell me a little bit about your thought process and not including that in the m outaouais? >> skilled nursing facilities are complex entities to run and manage and they're not in our core competency if you like so we have partnered with killed nursing providers rather than try to run them themselves much similarly to the things like

in-house hospices, et cetera. we would be happy to work with you in thinking of a city wide or a regional plan around skilled nursing facilities and we didn't include it in our we will be happy to continue to discuss because i grow with your core point we have an aging demographic and these kind facilities will be more and more important, including to health systems having access by health systems like ourselves or sutter or others will be more and more important so, happy to engage with your office and even

leading a regional or city wide discussion about thinking about school nursing facility access to the population going forward. to try to put it no the mou. it's such a complicated decision and i don't think it's not something that we can do alone. we have to do it with a series of partners so, i'm happy to continue the conversation. i would recommend that it's not a suitable thing for the m.o.. >> we are talking about expanding the space by 40% or about that, probably a little bit more, and so, you know, clinical providers adapt to new needs all the time and we're talking about the next 50 years at the hospital so are you saying that it's just not possible to think about, at some

point, adapting the new space to this use? because you don't have it right now? >> the space increase that we're asking for is all programmed. it's not that we're banking an additional space. to be honest, when we started this process, we asked the question of should we try not to have a space ceiling. we're continue to have a space ceiling it's just a larger one that is now. so all the space that we're asking for has already been programmed so if the questions specifically is, is it any of that additional two million square feet available for a skilled nursing facility on the campus, the answer is no unless we went back and didn't do something that we think is mission critical.

the idea would be to address the skilled nursing facility access issue on sites other than parnassus heights including sites that ucsf may not be the controlling entity of because again, it's not -- it never has been in our history, part of our core business. we partner with other agencies where skilled nursing is their core business. >> thank you, very much, chancellor. so unless my fellow supervisors have any other questions, we can go to public comment. >> i want to express my thanks for in inviting me and i'm happy to follow-up with any of the three of you after this is necessary. >> we appreciate you very much, thank you for buying here.

>> i will keep it very, very brief in the interest of time and public comment as i'm sure we have quite amount. i do think relative to the issue of enforceability that we have been dancing around. one question that i just want to throw out there that's not a question for the m.o.u. it's a question for city staff and the city attorney is whether or not the city asked that of these that would sound like from city staff the mayor's office are major encroachment permits, whether or not those permits can be conditional or revocable. we should consider as we noodle through this so i want to throw that on the table. i believe and again i am not an attorney but as a matter of federal law, we could actually pass by ordinance ray measure were in the board of supervisors

would have to approve the m.o.u. albeit timing for that is probably quite short. >> with that, let's call for a couple of comments. we have 100 listeners and 66 in queue. callers, you will hear a prompt that has you have been unmuted and you may again your comments. >> good afternoon, supervisors, i'm a resident of at this for holding this important meeting today and i have several

concerns and that we created and we need more forward ability for the units so that people that work at the hospital can afford to live there. we need more units that are at 29% of the area median income and we need to provide some kind of housing with the workers that are employed in the jobs that we created outside of the hospital to support this new increase. the plan also needs to consider more impact on the already burdened transit system and we discussed and ucsf is promising that one-time fee for transit improvements on an ongoing basis and it's not clear if this will increased in the end and i would encourage you to sort the

resolution urging the california region to move consideration of the environmental impact come january 2021 meeting to the march 2021 meeting. thank you. >> thank you so much for your comments. next speaker, please, you have two minutes. caller, you are on the line. let's go to the next caller and we'll loop back to this caller. next speaker, please, you have two minutes. the prompt will note that you have been unmuted and you will begin your comments. >> caller: hi, good afternoon, supervisor. my name is molly shane and i'm calling in support of ucs parnassus campus plan and m.o.u. with the city. i'm a registered nurse and the

director of care management and patient transition with ucsf health. we oversee patients throughout our hospital system. each morning leaders throughout ucsf health address any concerns about quality, safety, staffing, or operations and a review of our capacity and availability of sets for the day. a parnassus heights hospital operates daily at 100% capacity. this means at times patients are wait north the emergency department or overnight in our recovery room. additionally, other patients continue to receive specialized care awaiting its smaller community hospitals, sometimes for more than 24 hours for a bed. these are seriously ill patients who can't get the care they need when they need it because ucsf hospital is full. the lack of inpatient beds can have impact on patient care, quality and safety and bell be afforded to move patients smoothly through the right

levels of care and adhere to infection prevention standards and private rooms and provide for the best outcomes for our patients. a larger states and a a nurse and lead are i urge you to support the parnassus and vote against any delay to this project. our patients made this possible now more than ever. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> >> hello. my name is dave brown and i lived a couple blocks away from the ucsf parnassus campus in

district 5 for over 15 years and i'm calling in support of the parnassus campus planned at mou with the city and voice opposition to delaying it any further. it's an as set to the neighborhood in the city and gives world-class healthcare and provides good jobs. the hospital needs upgrades to stay here and at a time when business are failing and leaving san francisco and the bay area, you need to support projects like this without further delay. ucsf is a good neighboring plan for this project and they've done community outreach for years at this point and yes, i might be inconvenienced but this is the only way that coming down buildings are great new buildings. whether i have no no financial interested, i don't work there neither does anyone in my family and i heard the objects regarding housing and the city needs more housing but it's not realistic to expect a hospital to solve that and a housing shortage is decades in the making because of the policy decision that's this board.

people wonder were progress is nonexistent ask it's nearly no mystery. it's delays with the once that onesproposed here. the ucsf plan is good and fair for the city. the board has known about it for years and it should not be delayed any further. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> caller: thank you. my name is (inaudible). i live in d7. on the border between the inter sunset and golden gate heights. i can see the parnassus site from my house and i do not work at ucsf. i support the ucsf plan without adding any delays or needles obstacles. i just understand from friends who work there how badly the revamp is needed for the facilities there and i'm glad they're making it safe for pedestrians around there because it's a pretty crazy area right

now for pedestrians. my only bit of constructive feedback which is more directed at the chancellor is that, it looks like no more space is being added for childcare like ucsf did at mission bay. where they substantially increased a number of spots there so, i think that not including more childcare is a missed opportunity for people to be able to actually live and work here in the city but that shouldn't slow down the process it's just a forward-looking consideration. thank you. >> thank you for your comments, next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors. i am marine doug an a registered nurse who worked at ucsf for 31 years.

i'm a district 7 resident and member of the board of directors for the california nurses association and member of the executive committee of the san francisco labor committee council. as a registered nurse and member of cna we believe that healthcare is say human right and we support the safe new hospital that preserves and expands health services to our community. we believe ucsf is able to provide the high standards of care, patient deserve because of the committed and hard-working frontline workers. the history of ucsf management prioritizing their economic self-center over the common goods has repeated itself too many times to get them a pass with any plans and they must be held accountability to the community and all due diligence and any proposal. over the past few years, we've seen ucsf move to close vital clinics and services to underserved patient and the new generation clinic, and ucsf home healthcare. ucsf has increased parking rates for patients and frontline workers by 10% during the

pandemic. these examples do not raise the concerns over treatment of ucsf workers and on going fights with ucsf over p.p.e., safe staffing, resource and preparedness throughout the. fundamentally, ucsf should not be given a special treatment because they're wealthy and well connected. they require they are held so the same review, due process, standards and accountability to the community as any other entity if not more. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> caller: my name is david and i'm a grandfather of two tiny san francisco. i live a mine from the parnassus campus. i'm supporting ucsf parnassus plan at m.o.u. and oppose any delay moving forward. i believe it's urgent that ucsf completes this project and it's important for our sitting county government to do its best

efforts to move the project forward. the chancellor alluded to the state mandated deadline that failed to meet standards which is set for 2030. the most important deadline involved here is set by the san andres fault. the moffett hospital is not satisfying current hospital seismic standards. most of us dislike thinking about this but we're in a race against time to build a seismically sound hospital campus before we suffer the major earthquake. the city our history with hospital seismic upgrades projects is not entirely encouraging projects such as the new seismically safe campus were delayed for many years while we disagreed what san france disagreed about. let's not gamble with mother nature's timetable in approaching this project.

the city and county should ensure the parnassus campus would be available to care for our city's second injured about the part of our earthquake pre paidness agenda can be completed as speedily as possible. thank you for your attention. >> clerk: thank you for calling. next speaker. >> caller: i live in the parnassus neighborhood. i think we should reject the ucsf expansion just out of hand because of the grown space greee encroachment. we've encroachment and the city is running out of grown space and at this point, the gentleman said he spoke to the people in the neighborhood about this and to a man, everything rejects this pre posal and people are

hiking through this all the time when they were kicked out because they couldn't go hiking over there. so we need green spaces and as soon as you takeaway green space you cannot replace it again. the remedy is we will take the green space and we will replace it with something else. someone will build a road through your house and give you a chance to basically add wings on the side to compensate for the space taken. it's a different experience. so, it's simple that we have people here who are like in their 60s and 70s fighting to keep the space green. these people are not going to be around in 30 years to enjoy it. so it's clear they're doing this for the benefit of the future generation and this is california and we have the state and the state entity. encroaching on green space and we are talking about murals that we are hiding. green spaces are more important because they stick around.

ex create a existing footprint and not encroaching the grown space. why are we having this meeting. the supervisors should be up in arms and we should have conservation plans for all the gene spaces in the city. the chancellor comes here and says while we spoken to everybody and it's just fine. it's not. >> thank you so much. thank you for calling. next speaker, please. hello, caller, you are not ot line. >> let's turn to the caller and we'll move back to you and next

caller, please. >> you can notify your comments. >> i'm a neighbor of ucsf and i lev encoral street and i just wanted to voice my support the approval without delay and it's important that we recognize the role they have played in general and in dealing with viruses like covid-19 we need to have research hospitals and treatment in the city and it's and i think it's important for san francisco to be able to approve projects

without reasonable delays. i would like to point out the van ness less rapid transit line was it's important to have approved projects and i did not find supervisors prestons converting to be a reasonable request at this time in the project. thank you. >> thank you next speaker. >> good afternoon. i'm a long time san francisco resident and member of sfgmd. i am strongly in favor of the

plan. i think it's important that we step back and reflect on what is being considered here. a non-profit hospital is offering 10,000 jobs for san france and that alone should be enough. on top of that though, ucsf will build for us over 1,000 housing units which are needed and on top of that, 40% of these units will be affordable and remember you ucsf is a non-profit there's no margin to cut into it and on top of that, ucsf has good faith the city and the council for over two years how to minimize neighborhood impacts and they've done everything we asked and more. if we're going to treat it like a problem there are cities that would love to have our problems. delaying approval will make us look like the 16-year-old that gets a new bmwf his birthday and throws a tantrum because his parents didn't buy him a

ferrari. please oppose this resolution and thank you from your time. >> thank you for july call. you have two minutes. >> hi, supervisors, can you hear me? >> perfect. good afternoon, supervisors, my name is hodgey and i'm a district representative for senator scott wiener and i'm here to read a statement on behalf of senator wiener regarding his strong support for the parnassus plan and the memorandum of understanding that the university has negotiated with the mayor's office. this is an important project that should move forward without delay. if there's anything we have learned from this pandemic it's the life saving importance of hospital capacity and modernization as well as research for vaccines.

we should be proud of ussf and it's the the best hospital in the country expanding research capacity is an unequivocal benefit to our community and we should not delay it and it produces critical needed transit and housing investments particularly to expand the capacity of the ngf. i understand that change can be challenging for any neighborhood but this project is about the long-term health and well-being of our city and i encourage you to reject this resolution. thank you. >> >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is jamie michaels and i'm a long time neighbor and strict five a former patient who has benefited from the hospital services and member of the ashbury neighborhood council and the proposed plan was significantly increase the size

and to the surrounding neighborhoods and impacts not yet adequately address mitigate insufficient housing for employees and demand on transit and the 43 and the six parnassus best lines and increase traffic and air quality infrastructure which public scores open space and parks and families the possibility construction of a 300-foot tall tower which by the way would exceed the height of cpnc new van ness campus around 125 feet. in 2014, ucsf committed to a long range development plan for a modest expansion and that plan appeared in part because the university had developed its sizable mission bay campus which was supposed to relief pressure

from over developing parnassus. it's troubling how that earlier plan appears to have been superseded by the current plan. it worries me that any new plan or agreement might be as easily ignored if and when the university makes that decision in spite of community concerns and needs. proposal this until we can confidence that both are well thought out and appropriate for the site and enforceable and i'm asking to you postpone action until march. >> hi, my name is annie leonard and it's encroaching on our

green spaces it's something that really concerns me and i don't understand how we can be expected to come to an agreement with ucsf when they broken their promise. in the past, i was just reinforced six years ago and i that's it, thank you. >> i'm a community member since 1986 and i brought my family up there so i know the effects of the high density of usf. students and employees and the values of healthcare and the

public that utilized and the experiencing living in the community has been created problems of housing and parking and in terms of patients that have been accelerated with the higher density of population. there's no carbon footprint here. it's a bulldozer project. with special square footage increase cannot be helpful to the neighborhood. it's streamlined through the process too quickly. i believe there a few times that would be extended properly and understanding the outcome. it was wonderful housing and seismic hospital and it also helped the neighborhood. uc sf has the model to link this all together as we have done

throughout san francisco. and it's the central hillside should stay that way and there should be no more use of anymore green that should be kept for the future generations of san francisco. >> thank you, very much. you have two minutes and your line has been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> this is lee. a resident of district 5 and i support the plan. ucsf is an excellent university with one of the best hospital this is the world. having it located here is a community benefit. ensuring our hospitals are seismically safe is an important priority. we should not delay. it will provide jobs and educational opportunities directly and local businesses also benefit indirectly and there are more potential customers. climate change is an urging

issue and we need to act now to add more housing in dense transit rich neighborhoods. that is the most effective way to combat climate change and that is what this plan does. 40% would be affordable in the midst of a housing crisis, should you not pass up this opportunity to add hundreds of new affordable units and last, the questioned we should prevent people from moving to san francisco because it will cause too much traffic, is backwards. i agree there's too much traffic but that is because of cars, not people. let's have a reasonable solution that addresses the problem by restricting cars. for example, we can increase the cars per streets and add more protected bike lanes and invest in muni and tax cars in san francisco. i think charging a rate of

$1 per pound per year for each vehicle would be fair. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is andrew day and i'm a resident of district 5 and i'm calling to give my full subpoena supportof this project and hoper moving forward without any further delays. there are four issues pressing not only on our city but the state of our country but re vant here are housing crisis and a pandemic and a transit budget shortfall and recession and so i think this project will really help our city and our

communities in all four of those areas obviously the most relevant one would be increasing a low capacity ability for research and things of that nature but the $20 million for transit is going to provide a lifeline for money' and also helping staff, patient, et cetera, get to and from the campus without needing to and the drives are fantastic and given the recession, there are plenty of people who would love the opportunity for a job with great benefits provided by the hospital and lastly, you know, again, we're really, the city is desperate for housing, especially affordable housing and i take over a thousand units

would just be a huge impact to helping relief from the pressure from the housing crisis we're in so again, i just want to say that i think this project and the hospital ucsf has done a fantastic job spending years plan north and working with the community and i think we should move forward without delay. thank you. >> next speaker. >> >> hello, this is tess and district five many of you who do know have reservation and oppose them and these are neighbors from the miraloma park, forest noels and edge wood and poll valley improvement and they have written a letter placing this

project to the regions and today they include the ashbury neighborhood council which opposes amendment to the 2014lrdp with a new hospital. now note this long range development plan approved in 2014 and the new host could already be under construction and yes it will be 300 feet tall but asking to do some exploration, if he is kind of been taking the attitude this is what we want and now we'll talk about how to make you feel happier about it and the ice cream cone. we'd like you to talk about trade offs that they are willing to make so that we can preserve our neighborhoods and keep it good for all people and also support reward of supervisors

resolution to ask for that two month delay for more time and i would also point out that the club has point the outside our very large number of concerns with the projects and urges you csf to rethink the parameter and create a more environmentally sustainable equitable and neighborhood friendly projects. so, it's time to actually sit at table and talk about what is good and make sure that neighbors actually have information. if we had the -- >> thank you for your comments, next speaker. please. >> caller: good afternoon. my name is gary with the san francisco land use coalition and i support supervisor preston's resolution to delay approval of the expansion plan.

the proposed development of a 30-storey hospital at the ucsf parnassus heights campus while the under utilized saint mary medical center campus is a five-minute walk away makes no sense. saint maries medical center has two parking structures and on major muni bus lines and the hospital had a daily census of of 500 beds and it's currently operating with a daily census below 100 beds. acquireing and expanding the existing saint mary medical campus could provide an ideal solution that substantially reduces ucsf the 3 billion-dollar project cost and negative environmental and transportation impact of the proposed project. the proposed housing plan and 20 million-dollar contribution solving the anticipated construction problems or congestion problems is a weak

attempt to window address the proposal that violates a hospital's existing agreement to limit future expansion. >> thank you, very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker. >> caller: hello. lori.

>> they could not have approved it last move. i appreciate city official's work to negotiate an m.o.u. within a very short timeframe. the increase is to housing and transit are positive but not nearly enough. too little housing, too late in the process and too little affordability. as we have scenery peteedly this leads to many employees commuting long distances while the higher paid employees put pressure on local housing cost and displacement. 20 million for transit is less than 700,000 each year of construction who cares after that? ucsf pays no property or grocery receipt tax. they non binding by the use of

language good faith efforts investigate potential for explore opportunities and subject to available space and it over foreclose with practices that acknowledge current partnerships and programs and we can do better and please support the resolution. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hello, supervisors. my name is ellen. i live six blocks away from the ucsf parnassus and i'm calling with support of the campus plan and the m.o.u. with the city. in addition i'm a physician and did my residency at ucsf and worked full time on parnassus campus for 30 years until my 2018 retirement. the ut dated parnassus campus is in need of revitalization and after the already over two years of extensive planning and

community engagement for terrible. they have to out-of-date these facilities are for example a research scientist whom i know whose lab needs to use space heaters because of the broken heating system which is sold and oust date it can't be fixed and tremendous need for expanded healthcare access and charges with recrewment of new faculty where they compare with competing institutions. planners have worked and i love that the plan includes access to more campus open space for all san france and connectivity to where i love to go for hikes and bike rides. i talk about the size of the project but it's limited to the existing contrast campus it's not expanding further on to neighborhoods and t