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 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 the growth will be spread on the campus so i ask you, i implore you, to please oppose this resolution to do not delay this for the future of ucsf and the hope of san francisco, prioritize the public-health and safety of our community and allow this project to move forward. delaying it could jeopardize ucsf's on going innovation and research education and healthcare delivery for decades to come.

thank you. stu so much, next speaker, please. >> caller: yes, hello, my name is sarah smith jones and i want today say that we love ucsf and we have been patient there and we have supported it. however, being a healthcare provider does not have to do the land. we appreciate their high level of care but it doesn't mean they have license to build whatever they want when they want regardless of how it effects the community. ucsf must improve parnassus campus. we have concerns about transportation, air quality, housing availability in the community. this isn't about blocking ucsf they need to renovate it's pushing back against over development and giving real considerations to the jobs and housing balances that have been

troubling the city before they moved forward. i support the resolution to delay the vote. >> thank you, next speaker, please. you have two minutes. >> caller: hello, supervisors, i'm a policy manager at the barrie council and i'll calling in support of ucsf parnassus plan and m.o.u. with the city and i am proud to support this -- and having continue to take the community back. it will have serious consequences from the public's health. as we would covid-19 pandemic in the medical needs. this project is limit today campus has not expanded further into neighborhoods and they are sim making improvement that's will benefit the community including $20 million of public transit improvements.

i suppose sort building 1,000 housing units and ensuring that 30% of affordable to the workforce which so important. it's just impacting the communities and communities of color. please do not delay this critical project for the future of ucsf and the health of san francisco. thank you for your time and consideration. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> >> well complexion i'm a student and intern speaking on behalf of the housing and strong suppose sort of ucsf proposed project and first, ucsf is a world-class leader and the medical community and the campus expansion and vital to their success and the ability to serve more patients. second, ucsf has gone above and i don't know in their efforts to garner community input as part of their planning input and the

result is a well thought through plan with the critical healthcare, housing jobs and public transportation needs of our community, third, it's well documented that healthcare and housing are linked and reflects that a lot and up to 46% of housing units at 120% ami or less and for staff households at 121% to 210ami and increasing the supply of affordable housing residents for improvement and last but not least we applaud improving the expanding transportation and addition to the environment of benefits of reducing car traffic this expansion will benefit low income residents who rely on public transportation to access necessities including food and improvement and education and healthcare and for all these reasons and many others the housing action coalition

supports ucsf's proposed parnassus campus plan. thank you, very much. >> caller: hello, supervisors. i'm calling can concerns about the affordable housing in the ucsf parnassus project. this is a multi-decade project and any increase on the amount of low income affordable housing that can be planned for now early on will be worth the extra amount of time. the biggest issue that needs to be addressed is that a lot of low income staff wouldn't be guaranteed a fort able housing and 40% of affordable housing that's been accurate and half of that making up the 120% of the median income and the other half is for folks making up to 90% of median income and there needs to be some amount of guaranteed housing for folks making up to 50% of the median income that is staff at ucsf and otherwise that

very crucial low income housing needs will be first onto the rest of the neighborhood and frankly there's not enough for households throughout san francisco in fact because the amount of affordable housing being produced is completely out of line with the number of jobs, it means a lot of low income staff will be super commuters and that has to be supposed and it's not good for the environment or for economic equity. anything that can be done to create more low income affordable housing for folks making below 50% of ami would be a benefit for this project and a number of affordable housing measures have passed and mental health i hope, ucsf will consider the units for below 50% of the m.i. >> thank you. next speaker please. we have 123 listeners with 75 in queue.

>> caller: hello supervisor kathy, i'm a healthcare practice nish ner and i support the well stated concerns relevant to all city residents about this oversized project. why have we not heard about the neighborhood being impacted while we heard repeated worry about the benefits for the city? are we not part of the city? uner sunset residents live and breathe here 24/7 including the 30 years of daily construction. we're not hospital staff here for part-time for work. we deserve to have our voices incorporated into planning. i'm entitled to ask what life will be like during actual construction in detail? will air quality be monitored for toxic exposures throughout the transit routes and using whose standards? how will this, how will you protect residents health from the emissions of trucks and the materials as we live in the

extensive construction zone. for projects so steeped in serving public-health, you are overlooking the tangible, environmental toll of airborn toxins and noise stress we will all be submitted too. i believe health is a human right and i'm trying to retain that for those of us who are permanent residents in the inner sunset. reducing the city is something that we all permanently lose these are precious jewels of san francisco and there are more sane ways for ucsf to pursue their goals in regards to serving a medical services to the city. how they can do it? where they can do it and we can do better. thank you. >> thank you so much. next speaker, please. you have two minutes.

>> caller: hello. my name is glen. ashbury resident and neighborhood of the project. 50-year plus san francisco resident and remembering when the history some of the other previous controversies we've had with uc. it seemed to have been quieted down quite a bit by the long range development plan including what was agreed to last reformed 24 king which a new hospital, not the continuance of the old one, a new hospital being built with a 200-foot tower. we had the development in mission bay. also part of ucsf, not a totally separate project and this was supposed to take pressure off the campus. and this seems like when we had that formed in 2014, that virtually before the ink was

dry, uc started this agreement busting plan and to have a 300-foot tower, have all the extra space, not really any real consideration of the 20 million it's not going to go much moreover 50 years but the real problem is day-to-day, all of our transit schooling through that air are already hyper concentrated. we have the extra 8,000 increase within the population it's going to mean stressed out on buses and people coming in with cars and people already trying to find parking places. it's not going to be easy. and i really support how you see it making -- when you look to

paragraphs, you use phrases we'll explore and after they've already broken an m.o.u. -- >> thank you so much. next speaker, please, you have two minutes. a system prompt will indicate that you have been unmuted and you may begin. >> my family has lived in the edge wood neighborhood for over 30 years. we are strongly opposed to this ucsf plan off expansion plan. there's no question that a seismically sound hospital is needed and that healthcare is a human right, however, the impact of the 300-foot tower 20 the neighborhood and to the environment cannot be ignored. many of the project seem to forget that approval of this project will result in 30 years of construction, noise, dust and traffic, not just to the neighborhood but to the campus

itself. additionally, the golden gate zoos it's home to 37 different species of birds and with a study they did and they estimate the new hospital would kill 6,000 each birds because of the height and the location and even though the green space would still be there, there's going to be like i mentioned, traffic and noise and dust and so fourth on to 30 years so it doesn't seem environmentally sound. that's all. thank you. >> thank you, speaker, you have two minutes. >> caller: yes, my name is

miguel. i'm calling in support without delays. i serve on the coalition for economic equality and i'm the chair of the local business enterprise subcommittee. we work with yourselves, supervisors, the mayor's office on small business shoes and i've had the pleasure to work with many of the staff and drafting and working with them to incorporate the small local business enterprises within the construction job. we recognize this is the workforce and it involves potential p. l.a.s and creating scalability for our small businesses who may not have the opportunity now to work in the hospital with orb pod. they made commitments to us that they're looking forward to creating the scalability so that our small businesses can fly not only at the uc campus for the on going future but to also work in other hospital institutions in

which they've not gained the experiences will have this opportunity moving forward. and wholeheartedly, support this project and from the labor perspective and the small business perspective. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you for calling. next speaker, please, we have 70 left in queue. >> caller: this is karen. thank you for allowing me to speak today. as a faculty member i participated both in an internal advisory committee process over the past two years and also i participated in the community advisory process. and i'm speaking in support of the us plan today and it was presented before the committee. i would like to thank supervisor preston for his commercial comments on the issues raised by the community and other organizations in regards of comprehensive parnassus heights plan. however, we have over the last two years ucsf has engage

surrounding use parnassus campus in an open and transparent process including sharing the development design and the decision-making process of the designed as a plan and they do respect the innovation and the amenities proposed community the community engage process and important to the neighborhoods around ucsf and they're important to faculty, students and staff and employees. we've asked for the development of the campus housing in the plan which has been brought up by many of the speakers as again as a public institution we've made a commitment both to the housing and alsos long-term transportation mitigations that are in part of the projects. both of these issues are priority issues for the inner sunset neighborhood and surrounding communities and they're impacted by the inner sunset commercial neighborhood as well as the quality of life issues in the surrounding heights community.

ucsf cost and design is being reviewed in a separate ier and they will continue in 2021. my extend supporting a new hospital which is critical to be compliant with the 2030 deadline yet many are waiting for the hospital and it will be subject to this community process. i urge those on the committee to up is or the moving this cphp forward to the regnant in january as planned. thank you for listening and i support the ucsf plan. >> thank you for calling. next speaker, please. you have two minutes. >> caller: thank you, supervisors. lori here at district 5 affordable housing advocate. member of senior and disability action and the planning (inaudible). here to fully support supervisor preston resolution the delay of the vote by a tiny amount of

time, two months. too small to effect the project. it's a reasonable request to a plow plans of the community to secure answers for what, until today, has been unanswered questions. examining the documents, presentations, community input so far and one thing stand out, although ucsf has put a lot of time into community outreach, in relations are now improving. there's been no dialogue, no two-way communication, to meet the public at large. uc presents and the next presentation appears as if the last meeting never happened. we hear the same generalize the primes but no guarantees and no specifics and i agree with several san francisco planning commissioners and supervisor preston and supervisor peskin that more specifics and accountability are needed in many areas including (inaudible)

and trust and accountability and so much more. each care especially for elders and families is still lacking in commitment and nursing facilities and thank you supervisor melgar, also, subacute care, alzheimer's care, even though it's still they're most pressing needs for district 5 and district 7. ucsf's (inaudible) contribute or locally and a regional resource and the over arching question that worries the many of us is, more of the needs of a regional resource result in the sacrifice of local residents care and cohesive environment. >> thank you so much. next speaker, please. you will be notified your line has been unmuted and you may begin your comments.

>> caller: this is scott and i live in san francisco and i'm excited about this project. it's time to get shovels in the ground and start building this hospital project as quickly as possible. it's amazing that ucsf will build 1,000 homes and fund transit improvements. i'm grateful that ucsf did this. the current m.o.u. terms are sufficient to move forward. our community doesn't need more negotiation from supervisors. we need a new hospital and we need it now. let's take a step back to appreciate the fact that a new hospital is a massive community benefit in of itself. even if there were no m.o.u. a lot all. for over two years, ucsf listened to the community now it's time to build. sf is lucky to have a world-class medical resource and healthcare facility like ucsf

serving our community. during this pandemic, we've all realized how much ucsf has worked to save the lives of our loved ones. our community strongly supports this project as it stands today. a once in a century global pandemic is absolutely the wrong time to delay building this hospital project any longer. i want to focus on earthquake safety. this new hospital will be far more protected against earthquakes and current ucsf facilities. we all know that the big one earthquake that attack our community any day. in fact, geologists tell it's certainty. if we learned anything during this pandemic it's that our city needs more hospital beds and more hospital capacity. we learn the importance of supporting front line healthcare workers. i'm disturbed by people on this call complaining about building heights. when the taller buildings allow for more hospital beds and healthcare workers that will save sour lives and sour loved

ones when we get sick. i really ask people complaining about building heights to have perspective. i want more hospital beds in our city and i know the vast majority of san france do too. no more negotiation. >> next speaker, please. you have two minutes and the line will be -- you will be notified your line has been unmuted. >> caller: hello. my name is richard rossman and i'm calling about the murals and the history of medicine in and i agree with supervisor peskin we need some written guarantee. i just read over the eir this morning that i got and it says with the many should be set up now we need to know where these murals are going to go and who

is going to be on the committee and will the committee have public meetings and will people be allowed to sleep? i've asked the university a number of times these same questions and i'll get vague answers and we'll set it up when it's moved. we need to guarantee that there's going to be a place. and i don't know how many people have seen these murals but they all need to be placed in one location. they tell a story of the history of we need some kind of agreement that they actually are going to move them and we don't want them left in storage and like the murals are and i hope the university and get the

committee going and send a commitment the university will actually do this. i'm not sure what guarantees we have just because it's in the eir and so. >> my name is francisco decosta and i would like to share a few things that haven't been addressed. the board of supervisors delaying this project at the level is not something than is conducive to helping the

community. there are ways the board of supervisors to do a detailed needs assessment and we have saint maries that we can neutralize and we do have fort scott at the presidio and the (inaudible) doesn't have any money. we can utilize that land at fort scott. we don't have to go there. there's a lot of land at mission bay and ucsf has anchored itself over there and that is sware expansion and the benefit of facilities should be at mission bay. the answers will be adversely impacted for 30 years. you supervisors won't be there. so it's easy to talk about

expanding at parnassus and you will not be adversely impacted. who will speak for the birds? and who is speaking for the first people who are asking for have land at parnassus and we know the strangers they come and they are around and they think of everything. they do not. we need to include everybody in the deliberations. thank you, very much. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please, you have two minutes. >> welcome, supervisor melgar and greetings to the supervisors peskin and press upon my name is

jim chap lan and i'm an urban planner and a member of housing action coalition. i ask you to pass the comprehensive parnassus plan memorandum of understanding and eir to the full board with a recommendation to approve and to do this today. and reject item number 2. this is primarily a healthcare facility and we are in the midst of the worse pandemic in 100 years and we have all celebrate at ucsf wants town vest and move healthcare facilities as parnassus and not try to stymie their efforts again there's a seismic deadline that must be met. in addition, we're all suffering from the shortage of housing in san francisco. it is actions like the proposal to the right that have put us in this fix. this plan has been vetted and there is no reason for yet another delay. this will only add more

uncertainty to the process and increase the cost of that housing that effects us all. there's two and a half years of meetings, 70 elect official meetings, 2400 community surveys collected, 10,000 neighbors actively engage and they are reflected in the plans and 6% of the is on the hands on a recent neighborhood survey were aware of this plan. and there are extensive community benefits that the least of which is the urban design benefit to the neighborhood. the opposition is near obstructionism. please pass item 1 today so this measure can go to the full board with your yes recommendation and we will reject the item 2 with your no-vote. thank you. >> thank you so much, next

speaker, please. >> it you hear me? >> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is (inaudible). i'm the vice president of the george washington high school alumni association. and i'm also a professional motion picture film producer and director. i'm an advocate for preserving art and accurate history and i'm a lead person in protecting the art at george washington high school, concerned with the murals at ucsf that ucsf hasn't been fully transparent with their intentions regarding the murals. i think it's a great idea that they're creating a task force and the task force should start immediately and because in recent -- they haven't done

anything at advocate levels in stewardship in protecting the murals and keeping the murals if it's possible and no reports doing that and to say they should or shouldn't and the thing that really gets me is that, there's been no decision on where they will be permanently installed and when because we don't want them stored forever particularly if they're not in a environmentally safe conditioned room. we really think that this task force should make the row active and we believe that it's important we know where it's going to go and i want to thank everybody for considering this. this is precious art. we can have a world-class building but it shouldn't be expensive priceless art.

thank you, very much. >> thank you, mr. speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is (inaudible) with the council of community housing organizations. as affordable housing advocates, the interest in the project is to ensure that ucsf staff faculty and students are ensured adequate housing at the needed affordability levels and wages and income so it is to fully mitigate the project and with that displacement impacts or the surrounding community and we applaud the work done to modernize and expand ucsf as we learned eight years ago that the cpmc and we worked hard tone sure the housing impacts of those expansions would be mitigate and we've been here before and in that situation we heard don't delay and we've done

plenty of meetings and we don't need to do further annal six et cetera and in that case the community perseveredded and the board of supervisors was able to win incredible housing mitigations na will have laughing impacts into the future. there has not been a proper process to analyze specifically the housing affordability impacts of this new project including analysis and public discussions of jobs, housing, fit and a starting point is to understand that new staff sack you will tee and students will create, demand for new housing for new households and we should expect the project for this demand with new units equals to the new households and with the appropriate affordability levels of household and unit sizes. new households can't be mitigate with existing units serving current needs such as existing student housing. otherwise the impact remains the same. it's the sum total of household creates demand for units to live in. the mitigation plan and a

m.o.u., must directly address the full need that is a new population of 5,000 people in the need by income levels as analyzed by jobs housing report. and as we see it playing some% of that ami and some might be at 1120% and it is not connected in anyway to the projects new staff and faculty actual wages but that analysis says not been done. can be met through existing student housing and some of this new supported by -- >> thank you so much. next speaker, please, we have 114 listeners with 68 in queue. >> hi, good afternoon, supervisors. my name is katie and generally focus on policies, plans and codes rather than individual

projects. however, we have a process for occasional supporting proposals of importance lish parnassus heights. due to the scale, the institution and the opportunity to add density on the western side of san francisco. the vision does this without expanding the campus and prevents under use lights land and serving the future needs of the bay area. parnassus heights is a location for development near the end muni lines and frequent buses and university shuttles. the design vision also creates a good place for people. we are particularly excited about the proposed park to peak connections through campus that further open up reserved to the public and the reduced campus parking and we are pleased to add more housing and reduce transportation impacts and it's critical for ucsf to replace and renovate its facilities to world craft medical and research

endeavors and we appreciate their community engagement efforts and support the plan to meet the needs of the institution, neighbors and the bay area as a whole. thank you. >> thank you next speaker. >> this is kathleen courtney. i was one of the founding members of the inner sunset action committee. and along with other organizations, around ucsf, it's the destruction of housing and the area for expansion plans and all that led to 1975 and an agreement to limit the size and maintain a current envelope and decentralize services that was up in a 1987 memo of understanding. now, i don't know of any of the

representatives of the university or the planning department or the board of supervisors who were involved in those discussions five decades ago and i don't recall the current chancellor being involved but i know there are current residents of this city in their 70s and 80s and 90s who will hurdle the fight and really work to preserve the community and hold university accountability. that is required. i support definitely the request for the board of supervisors to secretary vote of regions to postpone any decision and in fact it's premature to think of something by march. the community needs to be informed. 50 years ago we had caravaned

and we went to the senator (inaudible) and we really hold the city accountability and it's needed now. the citizens of the community deserve to be informed and we really have a mor at responsibility to do so and thank you very much. >> thank you so much. next speaker please. you have two minutes. the systems will be know and you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> >> hi, this is gloria berry and i'm a member of the san francisco democratic party and i'm a native of san francisco and i was a resident of district 5 until our family got evicted after 18 years due to a wonderful idea of a project. i support the resolution.

i ever a few concerns. i want to know what is the hurry. multiple callers mentioned a housing crisis and i recommend anybody and just go to amazon and they'll higher anybody and drive around making deliveries and you will see hallways and hallways for a vacant housing all throughout san francisco. it's a crisis is very low income housing. that is where the crisis lies. i also wonder if there's a direct correlation to these type of projects, to how many people end up homeless because of the projects. also, i'm concerned about the expiration of the affordable housing in the east bay, it has came to fruition and a lot of people make these decisions and well that unit will have an ex anexpiration but it's not during

my -- $108,000 salary is considered for half of the units. keep in mind that the average median salary for a black person in san francisco is $36,000. also, i'm tired of the offer of community benefits not being true or even being vouched for with data and as far as unfortunate use being able to be streamlined with programs at ucsf so she with all be happy with that. i would love to see the data when it's done in the past and also -- >> thank you very much. >> your time has concluded, ma'am. next speaker, please.

>> caller: hi, i live in district 5. [please stand by]

grandfather spent a month and receiving world-class treatment for his cancer. not everyone is lucky enough to receive that care. and they have turned away thousands of people for capacity. and those who think that health care should be a human right, please do not delay this extension of a vital hospital in the middle of a pandemic. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: hello, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, ma'am. >> caller: can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, you may begin. >> caller: my name is teresa palmer and i'm a retired geritrician and i wish to support the delay in the resolution, agenda item number

2. i am very grateful for the health care this i received at u.c., it's an life saving for me and my family. but i find it very cynical that under the cover of fear of covid that u.c. is trying to push a plan through for a huge footprint of care that is not necessarily needed in this location. and it is not looking -- what i'm afraid of is that in the future that the clinical care that is offered in this hospital will not be what the people actually need. and what we need in san francisco is long-term subaexecute care in a hospital campus which sent profitable as short stay acute care. but what you see is competing

for market share of short stay acute care, which is the most profitable but not the most needed in san francisco. and i refer to the current health care master plan of san francisco that indicates this and i think it's been hurried through and it will not hurt to delay it. we need more community input what is needed and what should be at the parnassus campus. and the jobs and housing bit will increase displacement and the types of care offered are not going to help the aging population surrounding ucsf. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker, please. >> caller: hello, i'm a neighbor

of ucsf. and i would like to thank the supervisors for holding this hearing to shed light on the process that we're in the middle of here. and the substantive issues. i support the resolution. i want to make the point that the city has a limited opportunity to influence what ucsf does here. but the m.o.u. process may be the best hope for having that influence. and while chancellor hallgood initially tried to separate the m.o.u. from what goes buyer the- before the board of regents either next month or march, in response to questioning he made it very clear when he said that the regents would want to know that we already have a good understanding with the city. very clear that his intention, his goal, is to be able to go in and to say that the city is already blessed this through this m.o.u.. and that has value to ucsf, and

the city should not give that up cheaply. there are many issues that need further clarity. substantively i would cite to the sierra club's letter about the height and mass of the building. and u.c.'s apparent unwillingness to consider any modification to that. and the transit issues. and to focus on the increased capacity to this, and yet no reference to any studies that have showed that would even be feasible, let alone what it would cost. on the subject of the $20 million commitment by ucsf, apart from making improvements at the second avenue stop, what does that involve? does the corridor between the medical center lane and 4th avenue count toward that? by the way, when that takes away

additional -- >> clerk: your time is up. next speaker, please. you only have two minutes to speak. and the prompt will notify that you are unmuted and you can begin your comments. for those on hold, continue to hold and we'll get to you on the queue. hello, speaker, you're on the line. >> caller: hi, i am the neighbor on 6th avenue and the president of the sunset park neighbors. we support the hospital project and i am also part of the revisioning group and spent many hours in meetings sharing our neighborhood concerns. we are excited about the

project. we're excited about the housing and the improvements. and we also encourage ucsf to consider welcoming the campus down into the inner sunset business district and not become a self-sufficient campus without coming into the neighborhood. we encourage greening of parnassus and helping us with projects such as making the entrances to golden gate park more pedestrian safe. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker. >> caller: hi, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> caller: hi. so, good afternoon. i am providing a prepared comment by others who have been waiting to speak at this meeting to 6k p.m., she had to go to

work at ucsf parnassus. i'm a secretary at ucsf parnassus. i'm a go-between for physicians and caregivers. i earn about $60,000 annually. i'm here today representing over 4,000 members who work at ucsf, which about half work at the parnassus campus. on average, workers earn about $70,000. (indiscernible) are going to have deep and lasting impacts for both ucsf workers and the broader san francisco community. and we appreciate the discussions around creating workforce housing for ucsf employees, the current framework falls short. there's nothing in the m.o.u. between the city and the university that require people like myself and many of my co-workers who are considered to be low income and very low income households to make ucsf affordable housing units. we believe that there's not enough units developed and they

expect the workforce to grow by 4,000 and it's only building a fraction of the housing needed to offset -- (indiscernible) and the m.o.u. does not have an impact on low income earners like myself. and, in fact, the workers live in far off places and must travel up to six hours to work at ucsf (indiscernible) going to work. this conversation requires more time and we look forward to being involved in these discussions. as it stands it's premature to move forward with anything at this time. and we support supervisor preston's resolution to delay the vote. thank you. >> clerk: thank you so much. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi. my name is matthew cumel and i live in district 7 and i'm calling in strong support of the

proposal and the opposition to these delays. i live adjacent to the ucsf open space. and i am proud they share that open space with the community and this plan gives us space to looking to connect it to the park below. residents have seen thousands of plans and engagements. and it's contrary to fact and it does not speak to the honest collaboration on the part of those who make these claims. i applaud the housing and transportation green space that is provided to our neighborhoods through this plan. i also wear a hat of a researcher at ucsf. and if you look beyond the soviet era crumbling walls of ucsf, we have collaboration and we meet the challenges thrown at us. and we rise to this challenge with new cures and cutting edge cures on behalf of our community, our city, san francisco. and when covid hit we knew

almost nothing, and (indiscernible) district 5 and 7 were filled with our staff, professors all riding in their bikes to get blood draws. parnassus is special because it puts everyone on the same team. covid samples could be moved around in the study. this is what is special about parnassus and san francisco. there's safety concerns in these buildings and they are ancient and this makes our research take longer than it should. these are not minor issues. it is really urgent that we start to do something about our campus and about our local hospital. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: hello, i am a business owner in district 5 as well as a resident. i live on 3rd and irving, roughly half a block from ucsf. i'm calling in support of the

project that ucsf is putting forward, the extension, and in opposition of any other delays. i personally have had certain, you know, discomforts with the parking situation. i personally have seen, you know, what it's like when it's a busy day and it's challenging for the neighborhood. these are all petty, petty, petty things. we're in a city right now where people are losing jobs. we are losing jobs in our cities and losing jobs because businesses are closing. we need more jobs and we need more housing. we also need to stop viewing every single project in this city as if it's going to be a silver bullet, to fix every single issue that the city has. one hospital cannot cure all of the housing. one hospital cannot cure all of the displacement. but what it can do is what it's meant to do, which is to create a better place for our health care professionals to work in

the middle of a pandemic. we cannot be viewing these issues and believe that one thing is going to be a cure-all. it will build some housing. is it perfect? no. but it will build some. it will build more of a hospital. is it perfect? no, but it will build more hospital. and will it create jobs? yes. is it going to cure poverty? no, it's not. we need to stop trying to block every single thing in san francisco. it is the thing that is making us, the city, that is becoming a joke in the united states in terms of growth and it's why people are leaving. there's a saying which is don't look a gift horse in the mouth. that is what is happening right here almost explicitly. we are viewing a project that is going to create a better economy, more housing, and a better environment for everyone to work in and we're looking at it and saying that this is not perfect enough. we need to stop that. thank you very much.

>> clerk: thank you, mr. mayfield for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hello, this is katherine howard from the sierra club. the sierra club supports the resolution to delay the consideration of this plan to march 2021. we understand the importance of up-to-date medical facilities but however to put forward the idea that a healthy environment is importance of the well-being of communities. this needs to address its environmental and the social equity impacts. the project's massive increase to a much larger campus and the patient workforce population as well as the addition of a 300-foot-tall building in the middle of a residential community with other open space are shadowed. and they are having a negative impact of this project on this

section of san francisco. by the way, the information on the type of the building comes from the own documents and meeting with the ucsf project staff. and this is an extensive document and the public deserves time to evaluate this document for the impact that this project will have on the community. please vote to support the resolution to delay this plan. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, miss howard. next speaker, please. >> caller: hello, this is dennis antanori. i have been a 30-year member of the community advisory group to ucsf and i have literally spent thousands of hours of my time contributing to the planning processes at ucsf. i have always been proud of my involvement and happy with the university been able and willing to listen to the advisory group over all of these years. however, with this project, they

have abandoned that possibility. they have abandoned us and they have left us in the lurch. they keep talking about how much they have engaged the public in this process. there's not even been one meeting on the underlying project. the plan itself has never been reviewed by any public body or by any group of advisors. the only thing that have been presented to people are community benefits, but there's never been any underlying discussion of the overall project at all -- not even one minute of it -- despite repeated requests and the demands by the members of the group. i also need to talk about this idea of a delay. first of all, it needs to be known that the current environmental impact report was issued today. it is well in excess of 5,000 pages. it is impossible to analyze and to respond in it between now and the regents meeting. that's another reason that there

should be a delay because we need to have a real look at the impacts and, in fact, the regents need to take time to look at that document as well. that's their job to actually to take that document into consideration before deciding when it's going to approve or not approve. so i don't see how that is even possible within the time that is remaining. secondly, the claim that there's a lot of housing in this project begets the fact that there are numerous -- numerous units in this project are way in the future in some distant vague plan to build a new 4th avenue and to build new high-rise on 4th and 5th avenue. >> clerk: thank you so much for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi there. so i'm a bit concerned about a

few aspects of the expansion project. i felt that the presentation on affordable housing and transportation was nebulous. i mean, affordable to who? none of the baristas that work in the neighborhood. and i think that u.c. hasn't fully considered the ramifications of the scale of the project. i understand the importance of having a modern medical facility, but the supervisors need to consider the full impact first. i'm also concerned about the quality of care of the patients will receive during and after construction. like, how let increased traffic impacts the ambulance response time. will the increased traffic create more accidents and more vehicles from crashed vehicles on the end line? i think that we should delay the approval of the project until we have a clear idea of its impact per supervisor preston. thank you for your time. have a good day.

>> clerk: thank you, next speaker, please. >> caller: hello, my name is -- wake up. all you can do is talk about going into our century old forest. 3.3 million people in san francisco, and all ucsf is commit to the incursion into the reserve but not the forest itself. it is a rubber stamp and you're the judge and executioner to the forest. if you are concerned about housing, it could have retained its 10-acre rural campus that had been adequate for the growing hospital staff and the student needs. the reserve was a home of 45,000 trees. there's no other place in san

francisco that sequesters more carbon dioxide. the board of supervisors has a duty to protect the public and ensure that ucsf abides by the board of renal yents' 1976 legally binding contract that it promises to preserve it for perpetuity. this is a matter of life and for all of us as we rely on the very oxygen that the trees provide. they should be acting to protect the environmental laws and to have conservation. as carbon dioxide levels escalate to the point of no return, time is running out for us all. wake up. it remains our greatest hope that the city will act quickly to protect us. use the precautionary principle. use regulations ensuring that this forest lives and works for us every day of its life.

it demonstrates neighboriliness and good practice. we are silent soldiers against catastrophic climate change. we are in a crisis, the number one public health crisis is the climate emergency. and it's for all life on earth and all you can talk about is turns a thousand units into our largest urban forests. this is -- >> clerk: your time is concluded. >> clerk: thank you so much for calling. we have 110 listeners with 58 in the queue. next speaker, please. you will have two minutes. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors. the san francisco coalition. chair melgar and fellow supervisors, i'm calling in support of this resolution and i strongly urge you to postpone these plans until we can get more equity for the community. this is not about whether or not

ucsf is a world-class research center. and there's no question about that. and this is not about building more housing, unlike the developers. this is about equity and community benefit. in exchange for an expansion that will bring millions of dollars to business. in a time when the city keeps repeating their new mantra of racial and social justice, it's strange that a plan that completely overlooks the needs of low-income employees of ucsf, and for who most part are people of color is being pushed forward. just listen to the folks calling in support of this plan. the audacity, i don't know, it's laughable. they're white, upper middle class professionals who ignored the fact that the housing that ucsf is committing to provide is only available to the upper

realms of its employees. this is exactly what ucsf has done in the dog patch. you can just go see that for yourselves. they created student housing that had the needs of janitors and phone operators, and half of the so-called community benefit in the form of housing has been slated for people making 90% of the this, and the other half is on 120% of the daily m.a.i. what about job/housing balance? and i think that it was stated 8,000 people that are going to come to this new campus. 8,000 people and 1,200 new homes? never mind the jobs and housing -- >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please.

>> caller: good afternoon, supervisors. my name is norman dagelman and i live in district 5. i support the resolution to delay. and i'm concerned that the income qualification might be too high and there would be enough affordable housing for people who make less. let me give you an example. i live at parkview commons and affordable housing situated below me is managed by the mayor's office of housing. and they gave me the chance to buy a home. at the time they purchased it, i was a gardener for san francisco and my income was $50,000 and that was the limit that one could make. and gardeners now make $60,000. i'm concerned that there would not be enough housing for employees who make that level of income. thank you very much.

>> clerk: next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon, chair melgar, and supervisors preston and peskin. this is anastasia, a member of the san francisco tenants' union. i have been listening and what i've come up with is that the community has not been engaged by ucsf in the process of planning for the development of this hospital complex. and the associated housing. clearly as mr. fernando martinez said, there is no job housing fit. the lowest income for the workers are going to be priced out of the project. there is no specification in the

m.o.u. that outlined which categories and what income levels are there. and there's three columns out there, but this should be specified in the m.o.u. everything needs to be spelled out as far as the housing goes. you added 500 new units? well, give us some discount. give that discount to the people who are supposed to be employed at the project. and i'm in support of the resolution. thank you. >> clerk: thank you so much for your comments. next speaker, please. you'll have two minutes. >> caller: good afternoon. i am fortunate enough to be a

homeowner here in the sunset and living with my husband and a small child about three blocks away from the ucsf campus. we are very much in support of the parnassus plan and the m.o.u. and we believe that it should be approved without further delay. i do not support delay considerations, and i'm frankly disappointed in this resolution. i'm tired of the climate of endless delays and how it's contributed to many of the issues that the city faces. and (indiscernible) pre-pandemic we communitied on buses serving this area and we're excited to invest in public transportation serving this neighborhood as we're very familiar with the issues. we support the potential for the plan to support small businesses in the inner sunset and for the community to be more connected with ucsf and to share open spaces. and we're glad to see the considerable investment in affordable housing and we believe that more people, not less, should be all to live here

and to enjoy this neighborhood. i recognize this project will probably cause disruptions to my daily life but i believe that the long-term benefits are worth the short-term discomfort. i have received many, many, many flyers from ucsf about the plan and have had the opportunity to attend several community meetings about this project. there's been ample opportunity for the neighborhood feedback and it's time now to move forward without further delay. i encourage you all to reject this resolution. thank you. >> clerk: thank you so much. next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon, chair melgar. and the supervisors. peter popadopolous. and i wanted to say good evening now, actually. well, we're happy to hear today to raise the possibility of including lower income housing units, and portable housing from last year. we heard from a number of other

speakers. this is our principal concern here that we'd like to highlight is the affordability mix and making sure that some hard number of lower-income units is set as part of this agreement. we think that this kind of hard commitment will be necessary to ensure that these housing opportunities really provide a meaningful number of low-income workers local housing at these facilities as you have heard from some workers themselves directly. and, you know, we want to make sure that we're not asking our administrators and our janitors and other critical service workers to make very long commutes from outlying areas where they can afford the housing. there's a tremendous opportunity right here to provide housing for them in a very equitable and, you know, a healthy community way that i think that makes a lot of sense. so as another speaker raised, there has been a study at this point to try to figure out exactly what levels of housing

would be the best fit. and, if not, we strongly encourage that as well. and last with regard to the phasing of the housing construction, we very much would like to see some clarity on the levels of affordability during these exact build periods, but as people pointed out it's quite a long ways off at times. and if these units need to be built in a slow and staggered fashion as the document suggests, that we would strongly suggest meeting with lower income, lower m.a.i. units in the earlier rounds to make sure that is accessible earlier on. thank you for considering these questions and suggestions. we look forward to hearing -- [bell] >> speaker's time is concluded. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. we have 93 listeners with 44 in queue.

>> caller: hi, good afternoon, supervisors. my name is sam dolce and i'm a rentner district 8. and i'm calling to strongly support the ucsf extension project and express my disappointment with this proposed delay. i think that everybody else has done a good job of highlighting the benefits of this project, including our hospital renovations and seismic renovations and the increased hospital capacity, and $20 million in muni funding and 1,200 homes that are going to be built. i am in strong support of that. but i also want to comment on -- with the idea that supervisor preston has expressed that we need this to be a silver bullet project that addresses all of the problems in san francisco and why that's a problematic idea. because if you think about it, the problem in san francisco is

there's not been enough housing built for years which has massively caused the price of housing to increase throughout this city. as a result, every little project that gets built becomes a site for all of these benefits. whereas if you look at the macro market of what is going on in san francisco, that fight just keeps limiting the number of housing built, and as a result, every single project there's a pushing and shoving over these benefits. as a result, very little gets built and the overall benefits to the community are way fewer. so i strongly support this project and i also just want to express my disappointment with this entire process. and the idea that every project that comes through s.f. needs to solve every problem. that's not how this should work. this isn't how it works in other countries and other cities with a sufficient supply of housing. and if you really want to approach that, you should look into upzoning the westside and building more housing throughout

the city rather than trying to use ucsf for a vessel to solve all of these different unrelated problems. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. you will have two minutes. >> caller: hi. i am adam bookbinder and i am a planning commissioner in the south bay. i am calling to oppose the resolution f to not delay this absolutely crucial project. and i have financial interest in this project and i'm speaking only from my own convictions. there's a vital need for our health care system. and the cost of inaction are tremendous and the cost of action are trivial. and it should not be compromised for the nebulous concerns of the neighborhood character. i understand that change is scary. i encourage everyone to engage empathy and think about the needed benefits and not just the costs. i agree that the whole region has a housing shortage and there's so many concerned citizens talking about that, and i encourage you to show up with the same fervor to advocate for

housing projects in your neighborhoods. and to deny housing in the hope of some future utopia is how we got into this disastrous situation. we had community meetings and we're drowning in process. no objection that is raised is worth turning down homes and health care in san francisco. please move this project along without haste. thank you for your time. i yield the balance. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon, to the board. i am here as a district 5 resident to fully support my support for ucsf parnassus. i live among doctors and students and researchers. and i had the misfortune of getting appendicitis last august and i was treated by their staff. and there's a need for continued investment in parnassus. there's no open secret that it

is (indiscernible) and now during the pandemic, we need to invest in this amazing institution to help our city and the decades to come. i want to say that ucsf has gone above in a commitment to housing. this will address the challenges facing our city and it it is misplaces to have the hospital to solve infrastructure problem. the investment of $20 million in muni and the housing units is something that you can't pass up. they have problems bigger than the hospital. (indiscernible) this is in the end why we're so excited about this plan. it's hard to have walkable spaces and we should see it as an investment in the neighborhoods. and asking for continued delay

is a shifting of the goal posts and the people who pay are the patients and tenants and communities. i support parnassus, thank you for the time. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker. >> caller: hi, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, you may begin. >> caller: hello? okay, good. supervisor melgar, i'm calling in support (indiscernible) and to encourage the resolution for the consideration of the (indiscernible) and i would like to talk about the objections. (indiscernible) and the ability of groups to prevent development (indiscernible) are a direct response to the lack of housing, including affordable housing in san francisco. i would like to address some of the comments on the environment viability. (indiscernible) building in a

city with more (indiscernible) is forcing workers to have long commutes. and the height of the buildings and the shadows they cast, frankly, they should be following the sierra club, and to have (indiscernible) instead of focusing on environmental (indiscernible). and the board has so little ability to prevent it and i think that we should all seek to expand the number and the kind of projects of which the board has no jurisdiction. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker, please. hello, caller, you are on the line.

okay, let's move back from this caller and take the next caller. >> caller: good afternoon, supervisors. i live seven blocks from ucsf. i will see the new hospital from my yard and i will hear and experience the construction. i support ucsf's project. i'm coming around to supporting the new hospital, but still with environmental reservations for the largest roposed footprint. i see need for the expansion at parnassus so that the research is tied together. despite my project overall, i would like to enable more time to take more community input and further negotiate the m.o.u. now that we can see the final e. rimplet s. and the chancellor seemed to say today that he can sign the m.o.u. without needing board of regents approval. but if the regent cannot approve

in january without having the m.o.u. in final form, i support for the purpose of finalizing the m.o.u. some points that i would like to see fixed in the m.o.u., once a year for the ongoing construction is inadequate commitment. the impact on neighbors are going to be significant and we need opportunities to have community input over the life of the project. i am pleased to see ucsf commit to 67 acres for a reserve, but the m.o.u. should be more specific about requiring city and community input if ucsf wants to go away from the agreed plans for the reserve. i want to speak up for cars. i'm all for reducing the use of cars but the draft m.o.u. only focuses on ucsf as a destination and the plans contemplate street changes to enable park access and bicycle access without specifics. they don't look at egress

between irving and frederick and lincoln which are commute roadways. those streets are used by everyone -- contractors, health care workers, teachers, and delivery drivers who have to drive into and out of the city each day. i'm not talking about tech workers. plumbers do not use mass transit to get from job-to-job. there needs to be planning to keep those streets accessible to cars while making it safer for pedestrians. thank you. >> clerk: thank you so much. next speaker, please. we have two minutes, and our system will prompt you to know that you are unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> caller: hi, my name is jonathan treat and i live in inner sunset. and ucsf is a neighborhood gem and i'm there once or twice a week. i don't really want construction in my neighborhood but in general it's probably worth the one-time upfront cost of the

annoying construction for the long-term benefits of the hospital. i just had to call in because i have heard apparently just crazy things. there's a cap on the growth of a hospital in san francisco during a pandemic. and, you know, i know that right now our city is shrinking but i think that it will boom again and there will be a time when we're going to hope that we have those hospital beds. and i just want to continue to making sure that we're investing in the future. and having ucsf to make the same investment in our city. i think that right now the ucsf campus is delap the day delapidn down, and one caller said soviet era. and to have more increased capacity and to get more housing units. i think that these types of housing units are the ones that we want and they're not just transplant apartments and they're for students and going to be somewhat more affordable

than your average apartment on valencia. i just wanted to respond to a couple of points. you know, i heard some claim about more automobile trips and the environmental damage. i think that this type of housing integrated into the neighborhood close to work, close to jobs, this is what we need more of. this type of housing reduces the distance that people are driving. and, yeah, i think that if anything the transit plan should be a little more aggressive. and it needs its own right-of-way, preferably a tunnel but we know how san francisco does building subways, obviously, not our strong suit. so i would encourage some sort of, you know, dedicated right-of-way, and so not constantly backed up in traffic. in that i support the project and oppose the resolution to continue the delays. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker, please.

>> caller: thank you so much for the opportunity to talk. my name is emily anthony and i'm a resident of district 8. i'm calling to voice my support for ucsf parnassus campus plan. and i was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer and i hope that some of you have to look at the relationship with ucsf from a neighborhood institution and a scientific beacon to a place that you're going every day for radiation and chemo. one of the things -- one of the reasons that we started going to ucsf is that it has world-class, and a unique set-up with the collaboration between the clinical researchers and doctors. this not only helps us to get access to cutting-edge care but it's the kind of health care contribution that led to things like the discovery of the new vaccine and now that we're in the middle of a pandemic we know

the importance of that kind of cutting edge health care and research. it is amazing when you think about the reputation of ucsf and then see the reality of the building. and how much that campus is in need of a renovation. and i want to voice that, yes, while i understand a lot of the neighborhoods' concerns, these are health concerns and for our community and the vitality of our life individually and also for the future of this city, health care is an incredibliy important research and i don't think that we should short ucsf. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. >> caller: hi, my name is lisa chesler and i'm a d5 resident. as a neighbor and a member of the advisory community on this project, i vehemently dispute their claims of good-faith community engagement. the meetings have been going on for years, it's to violate the

agreement that was sprung on the community in the last minute. their outreach is just p.r., with no substance. and the reason that the space cap exists is because at that time ucsf was willing to come to the table, not just with neighbors but with officials and state lengthors and to have a real dialogue. those days of cooperation with the stakeholders and any integrity in upholding agreements have passed. they used excessive overcrowding and to expand the campus to justify developing the miss bay campus. now they say they can add over two million square feet and eight million people. they won't honor the distant commitments so why would anyone expect them to honor new ones? even if the m.o.u. is more symbolic than binding, i think that the board of supervisors has power to better reflect the city's priorities. you have more leverage with ucsf than you realize but only before the e.i.r. is certified. and they released the final

e.i.r. just this morning so claiming that it's because of the city is disingenerous. it's over 5,000 pages and there's no way to review it before the vote, and that's why ucsf wants to rush it through. is the plan so fragile that they can't survive an additional 60 days of scrutiny? ucsf only considers what is best for ucsf. we count on you, our officials, to advocate for what is best for the city of san francisco. i support to take appropriate time to review this 30-year multibillion dollar plan that will change the city forever. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker. you will have two minutes. >> caller: hi, i am calling in support of the campus. the expansion offers crucial needs to meet the growing demands of the region. imagine if we had that capacity now, we can meet the next health

crisis and the day-to-day needs of the community. ucsf has only gone through a process that had 70 elected officials and had surveys. and it's not only unnecessary but dangerous for san francisco. we must act with urgency, our economy is freefalling and we need more jobs and housing and health care. and (indiscernible) it's creating more division, and we can't let exclusionary communities to continue to exclude. it will boost activity for all san franciscans with transit. and i can attest to the need for improvement. and with a lack of ridership, this will be a boom to m.t.a. it will build a thousand new units, 30% of them below market. and a need for greater affordant, and it's not getting subsidy to help with that affordability level. the project cannot fix every housing issue and we

(indiscernible) and reminder that (indiscernible) and also working on homeownership opportunities that is transformative to reducing the wealth gap. some people who live nearby are afraid of the growth and the change and see more people, more traffic and we need more time and it will ruin our city. creating access to areas like parnassus heights and good union wage jobs is not ruining anything. i'm from the bay and i have lived in san francisco most of my adult life and i have watched as my family and residents have been pushed out. we cannot be scared of growth anymore. it only benefits the more privileged. so i ask you to please oppose the resolution and do not delay this critical project. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker, please.

>> caller: hello, supervisors. i am an urban environmentalist and i work in current policy. i live in district 11 in oceanview and i'm calling today to oppose this resolution and to support this project. ucsf is one of the top medical centers in the country, and we should absolutely support its growth to benefit s.f. and the country. i have personally received critical care at ucsf. as someone who is professionally dedicated to climate change solutions, i find it extremely disappointing that people would use the environmental arguments against having jobs and housing in a transit rich neighborhood in san francisco. if we don't build the housing here, it will go somewhere else, likely more car dependent, resulting in more climate pollution. it's not tall buildings in cities that are threatening our planet. it's carbon dioxide from driving cars. we cannot equitably solve our housing shortage without

building more housing in neighborhoods like this one. we have pushed nearly all development to the eastern half of the city. and we cannot allow the neighborhoods of mostly wealthy and single-family homeowners to opt out of change. we need to build on the west side and this is a great project. thanks. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi, my name is adam and i'm a resident of district 6. but this parnassus project affects the entire city. we've heard a lot from people who are local homeowners, millionaire homeowners saying that, hey, this affects us. well, parnassus affects the whole city and it's not just a district 5 thing, everyone uses it. and i would say that, supervisors, the role of supervisors is to set the rules. does this project meet the

rules? if, yes, then step back and let it go forth. was that 10,000 jobs, 40% of affordable housing. there's been two plus years engaging with the community. how is this rushed? the project is not expanding into the neighborhood. ucsf is non-profit, it takes insurance. i don't know if the board needs a reminder that s.f. general, which is run under the city's department of health famously screwed over hundreds of thousands of residents by balance billing. you know, that was a scandal last year. i don't think that the city really can be talking about how to run a hospital. commentators talk about using hunter's point instead. well, you know, that's actually kind of racist. why are we saying let's put all of the development in the poor upcoming area of the city? you know, density is needed to help to combat climate change. this project uses land well.

and it provides transit. the only reason to not develop is to preserve the existing home values. we literally have heard from the millionaire head of hanks saying she didn't want it. we have heard residents saying that we don't want to deal with construction and how we protect the residents. we have laws and rules for that. this is not 50 years ago, that's when red lining went in. and the citizens of today need to be listened to and supported. and we want to support the land of millionaires and preserve the property values or support the citizens of san francisco? thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. we have 78 listeners with 31 in queue. >> caller: hi. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, you may begin. >> caller: i am gabe hoffman and a member of the san francisco transit riders' union. and this project will greatly

increase the car transit at the expense of our local transportation. $18 million is a small drop in the bucket. it's a minimum that any private developer would do and agree to. and this is despite being an n.g.o., and this is a very wealthy and rich organization and they pay their c.e.o. i think over $1.4 million a year so they can get money to actually to fund public transit to take, you know, to take care of the increased transportation as needed. if this were to occur, it would include a lot more cars, which is a lot more traffic, and pollution. and the m.o.u. doesn't mention the daily car trips. and this puts pedestrians at risk. there's already been double digit deaths from pedestrian accidents in the last number of years. and, you know, in the city. and there's no communication for

that. and there's not a plan for the emergencies or how they would deal with traffic around parnassus and irving. so i think that i support the resolution and the m.o.u. should improve the public transit and, you know, the public housing. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. you will have two minutes. >> caller: hi. i am a renter in the neighboring district 8, and a frequent muni user. and i am calling in support of the campus plan and the m.o.u. and i urge you to consider things from the city patients' point of view in the post-covid future. and the cancer patients are admitted overnight and they have to be admitted to parnassus designed in the 1950s. there's nowhere at mission bay or elsewhere.

and we comment on how dedicated the staff are and they're amazed to discover how outdated and unsafe the infrastructure is. and they keep it going with patch work solutions. and family members have spent time in a crowded parnassus emergency room and you know what i'm talking about. if you have ever wondered why we don't increase our emergency or in-patient capacity, and you know what i'm talking about. this is before covid. we're all trying our best to give patients medicine in 2021, and it's hard to do this in this hospital. and the 24/7 institutions need a redevelopment like this. and i hear the concerns that have been voiced and i recommend that the plan does not solve all of the pandemic problems of this city. and so let's fulfill the public mandate to take care of san franciscans. the current infrastructure is really untenable.

>> clerk: thank you for your comments. for those on hold, please wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted. next speaker. >> caller: hi, my name is george worling and i'm with the san francisco land-use coalition. i support supervisor preston's resolution to delay the adoption of the ucsf m.o.u. this project has been preordained by ucsf. there's almost no public acknowledge of the final plans. i would say that there's about 90% of the residents in district 7 that don't know about the ucsf m.o.u. when they did have their final two meetings, they had about 50 combined stakeholders who attended on the zoom meetings

from who knows where. and they were trying to reach out to local residents. i have been involved in the community hospital projects such as the san francisco general laguna hospital. and i that will this project should be relocated and changed in size. and it is too bad that the final draft show that today. the project is too large for the parnassus site. even the ucsf did not want this space. they were outbid by the oracle arena and now they're stuck with kind of trying to figure out what they're going to do at parnassus. i think that you have to learn from history. from 1987 m.o.u. was brilliant. and it kept them from expanding throughout the neighborhoods.

it forced them to go into mission bay and it forced them to go into dog patch. and now they can expand even further. so i think that it's a great thing that they're trying to build. i think that it's a great thing they're going to build more low-income affordable -- >> clerk: thank you so much for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: good evening, supervisors. my name is alexander merryman. i'm at a program at ucsf and a san francisco resident. i'm calling in support of the comprehensive parnassus plan and the m.o.u. with the city and to oppose the resolution. i have spent years learning about the clinical and the basic science research spaces on the parnassus campus. upper csf parnassus heights has been used as a home as the original campus, however the infrastructure pales in comparison to the modernized

spaces in mission bay. and there's a close collaboration with our clinicians and scientists. and the model is essential for advancing care for our patients and for the close proximity to our clinical and research spaces to have the research for novel discoveries. and the nature of the parnassus campus negatively recruits those to work in these areas. and they're underrepresented in medicine and science. while ucsf works towards guaranteed housing for a student body for the entirety of their training, and the peer institutions local and afar, this would go towards achieving this goal to have representation in medicine and science. do not delay this critical project. and we have the safety and

health of our community and allow this to move forward. (please stand by) (please stand by)

>> he is just interviewed for an position. i'm confident that opportunities of this magnitude will grow with this program. it is one of the top medical schools in the country. please listen to the support and the community of the citizens we serve. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello. i live in district five.