Future of the UCSF Parnassus Heights Campus Advisory Committee Meeting #6 Thursday, February 6, 2020

SUMMARY NOTES

Advisory Committee Members/Designated Alternates Present: Andrea Jadwin, Inner Sunset Resident Bob Walsh, Cole Valley Resident Caleb Krywenko, Inner Sunset Resident Calvin Welch, Haight-Ashbury Neighborhood Council Charles Canepa, UCSF CAG, Cole Valley Improvement Association Dan Sider, Inner Sunset Resident Dennis Antenore, Inner Sunset Resident, UCSF CAG Erica Kajdasz, Cole Valley Merchant, Cole Valley Fair Kelly Akemi-Groth, Inner Sunset Resident Kevin Hart, Inner Sunset Resident, UCSF CAG Maria Wabl, Inner Sunset Resident Martha Ehrenfeld, UCSF CAG, Inner Sunset Park Neighbors Robert Ogilvie, Inner Sunset Resident, SPUR Sarah Jones, Cole Valley Resident, SFMTA Susan Maerki, Inner Sunset Resident, UCSF CAG Susannah Wise, Cole Valley Resident, Inner Sunset Merchants Association Tes Welborn, UCSF CAG, Haight-Ashbury Neighborhood Council Walter Caplan, Forest Knolls Resident, Forest Knolls Neighborhood Organization Advisory Committee Members/Designated Alternates Absent: Beatrice Laws, Cole Valley Resident, Kezar Stadium Citizen Advisory Benji Jasik, Inner Sunset Resident Donald Luu, Forest Hill Resident, Chinese Chamber of Commerce Jeanne Myerson, Cole Valley Resident, SPUR

Subject Matter Experts Present: Alicia Murasaki, Assistant Vice Chancellor of Campus Planning, Real Estate Barbara French, Strategic Advisor, Office of Senior Vice Chancellor Brian Newman, Sr. Assoc. Vice Chancellor, Real Estate & Vice President, UCSF Health Christine Gasparac, Senior Director, Community and Government Relations

1 Diane Wong, Principal Planner/Environmental Coordinator, Real Estate Elizabeth Polek, Vice President, New Hospital Planning and Optimization, UCSF Health Francesca Vega, Vice Chancellor, Community and Government Relations Joshua Switzky, Planner, SF Planning Department Kevin Beauchamp, Director, Physical Planning, Real Estate Paul Takayama, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Community and Government Relations Stuart Eckblad, Vice President, Major Capital Projects, UCSF Health Tammy Chan, Senior Planner, Real Estate

Subject Matter Experts Absent: Jorge Rivas, Deputy Director, OEWD, SF Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD)

Welcome, Recap of Last Meeting, and Agenda, Andrea Baker, CEO En2Action

Andrea opened by requesting any public comments that are not on tonight’s agenda.

A community member requested a discussion about the project’s obligation to maintain light with the additional shadowing of the new building height versus the current heights Moffitt and Long sites.

Kevin Beauchamp replied that effects on light, air, and shadow will be analyzed in the upcoming EIR. The EIR Scoping Meeting on February 10, 2020.

A community member shared she grew up in the area of 2nd and Arguello. Her mother was involved in an accident with a UCSF Shuttle Bus on 6th Avenue. She raised the question of pedestrian and Muni traffic at the intersection of Arguello and Irving Street and pedestrian safety and crossing at Arguello and 2nd Avenue.

Kevin Beauchamp thanked the neighbor for her comment and replied that pedestrian safety is also one of the topics that will be analyzed in the EIR.

A community member asked how long UCSF’s community engagement commitments last until they sunset?

Francesca Vega responded that UCSF will walk through their commitment for a long-term community investment project. There is no cookie-cutter length of time and that as part of this project, UCSF is considering commitments through a long-term lens and based on feedback received from this community process to address needs in the community.

Andrea Baker presented upcoming opportunities for community engagement, including:  Advisory Committee Meetings: March 11, April 22, May 13  EIR Scoping Meeting: February 10  Parnassus Community Day (CPHP Open House): May 30

2

UCSF Report Back, Francesca Vega, Vice Chancellor, Office of Community & Government Relations Francesca Vega provided a 30-day recap of UCSF’s activities and discussions to explore the viability of community investments offered by the community in previous Advisory Committee meetings.

Since the January Advisory Committee meeting, UCSF has engaged in the following efforts: 1. Publication of the Initial Study, January 14, 2020 2. Internal Executive Committee Meeting 3. Chancellor Executive Team Meeting 4. Communication with Elected Officials including Mayor London Breed, Supervisor Norman Yee, and Supervisor Dean Preston

An Advisory Committee Member asked for greater specificity.

Francesca replied that Supervisor Preston had many similar questions as those raised during Advisory Committee Meetings, including questions about housing and transportation plans, inclusivity of community process, and UCSF’s budget for monetary investments.

The daily population in 2020 is projected to be 17,300 with faculty and staff totaling 12,000.

An Advisory Committee Member asked if contractors and construction workers are included in the population projections.

Kevin Beauchamp responded that the numbers are all-inclusive.

An Advisory Committee Member asked about the letter UCSF received from Mayor London Breed, Supervisor Dean Preston, and Supervisor Norman Yee requesting an MOU with the City and County of San Francisco and what the university’s response entailed. They asked for a copy of the letter to be included in subsequent meeting materials, for the MOU to be on a future meeting agenda, and for community input to be taken into consideration.

Francesca replied that she uses the terminology of “formalized agreement” which is what the MOU is. She doesn’t have details or a framework yet, but that the university’s intention is for this community process to help inform the commitments outlined in the MOU and be responsive. UCSF is committed to coming to the table to formalize an agreement that everyone can be proud of. UCSF is committed to talk with the Advisory Committee of what the MOU could look like.

3 An Advisory Committee Member commented that it’s important for the Advisory Committee to understand how their feedback will be involved into the MOU. They advocated for the community to be able to share direct feedback to the city without being filtered through UCSF. They asked for a greater amount of involvement of the public in the development of the MOU. They asked why they haven’t received a copy of the letter from Mayor London Breed and Supervisors Preston and Yee.

Francesca responded that there are open discussions taking place, there is no separate process underway, and that the city wants to work collaboratively to ensure that the communities voice is heard. She reiterated that she is a part of the leadership team, and an ambassador for the community. Her role is to ensure that the community’s concern, needs and feedback are responded to. [UCSF has subsequently shared the letter from the City and UCSF’s response letter to Advisory Committee members]

An Advisory Committee Member commented that their roles as city staff working in city departments, and certainly our elected officials, are to serve the public and community, and that is what they are bringing to these tables as we have the ongoing discussions with UCSF about how we work together to ensure city needs are being served of the course of this many year plan.

CEQA Process, Diane Wong, Principal Planner, UCSF Real Estate

The Initial Study was published on January 14, 2020 and is now available for public review. The study identifies scope and content of the environmental information that will be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR).

Examples of topics include:  impact of increased traffic on pedestrian safety  impacts on historic buildings  additional need for housing  effects of construction (noise, air quality, traffic)

An EIR Scoping Meeting will be held on February 10, 2020 at 6:30pm in the City Lights Room at Millberry Union. The Initial Study is available online at http://campusplanning.ucsf.edu/

UCSF’s Framework for Community Investments, Francesca Vega, Vice Chancellor, Office of Community & Government Relations

When assessing impacts and investments, UCSF will focus on addressing potential impacts from the CPHP and development activities. Potential impacts will inform the nature and type of potential investments.

Investments are generally categorized into three “buckets”:  Project Design  CEQA Mitigation

4  Community Investments

Community investments are intended to be long-term and sustainable over time and are connected with CPHP development projects as they come online.

UCSF’s guidelines for community investments must:  benefit neighbors and UCSF  address anticipated impacts of UCSF development  be visible and meaningful rather than small and unmemorable  be beyond the scope of individual projects/sites  be contingent on approval of the project(s)

An Advisory Committee Member asked why we were reviewing an example of UCSF’s community investments in the Dogpatch when the Parnassus Campus is in a completely different neighborhood with different needs.

Francesca replied that UCSF is providing examples to give the Advisory Committee members a sense of what might be possible and to help spur the generation of ideas.

Connectivity with Nature Brian Newman, Senior Associate Vice Chancellor, Real Estate, Vice President, UCSF Health

Brian opened with a framework of the topics of the meetings. The last meeting UCSF shared the design guidelines and focused on public realm. Tonight’s meeting is focused on Open Space and Park to Peak. Subsequent meetings will focus on Transportation and Affordable Housing. Brian emphasized that these meetings are for UCSF to receive ideas that will populate the list [for community investments]. We may not be able to achieve every idea, but UCSF wants the ideas to help us think about the Parnassus Campus.

From the Working Group process, UCSF heard from community that they would like to see a greener campus, with more landscaping, trails and open spaces throughout. Brian shared the campus heart of Saunders Court, opening up a service corridor to flow traffic down to a new 4th Avenue, providing access to Mount Sutro through 5th Avenue, and an open space at the Millberry Terrace. The commitment to park-to-peak connection from Golden Gate Park to Mount Sutro is more than cutting through the campus, but looking at public elevators or other ways to connect people by enhancing the public spaces. Brian shared some ideas to get ideas flowing for the breakout groups.

A community member asked if UCSF was building higher and if their house would be in the shade after construction at Parnassus. Brian responded that shadow studies will be available in the EIR report and will be finished in May.

5 An Advisory Committee Member asked how we get from vaguely discussing a million ideas in our breakout sessions to the specific items that are funded by UCSF.

Brian responded that by design, UCSF’s wants to cast a wide net initially and then filter down to specific commitments that UCSF will make. These can be beyond monetary commitments, to policy designs or other commitments.

Christine added that in the Dogpatch Taskforce Process, the neighbors spent time outside of the meetings UCSF held to meeting amongst themselves and refine their priorities to build a consensus among themselves.

An Advisory Committee Member asked at what point in the community process the Dogpatch neighbors came up with a specific proposal.

Christine said it was towards the end of the process when the Dogpatch community felt consensus with the projects they put forward, but that she recommends for this group is to start meeting together now to determine their priorities.

A member of the public expressed concern over activating elevators to Mount Sutro since one of the primary users of the existing elevator is skateboarders. They also commented that the 6th floor terrace presented by UCSF is at a higher elevation than their backyard and in their yard they frequently experience gale force winds. They advised UCSF to consider this in their planning.

Brian responded that UCSF is conducting extensive wind studies to understand what times of year specific spaces are comfortable and protected from the wind. The intent is having a diversity of spaces so if one area is not comfortable due to weather, another place is.

A member of the public commented that currently delivery and service vehicles use 5th Avenue and that has an impact on the residents that live on that street. They asked if UCSF will use 4th Avenue instead of disturbing the neighbors on 5th Avenue under the new plan.

Brian responded that they will relocate the School of Dentistry to extend 4th Avenue so that it becomes a gateway to the campus for delivery and service vehicles, Uber and Lyft, and drop-offs to get them off some of the adjacent streets. UCSF is also working to build a service corridor to remove as much traffic off Parnassus and neighborhood streets as possible.

A community member commented that their home on Edgewood Avenue will be severely impacted by the new hospital and asked what the university’s intentions are.

Brian responded that the new hospital has not yet been designed, the architects are being hired right now. He acknowledged that expanding the hospital shared will work the best operationally which is why UCSF is compelled enough to share this idea

6 in conjunction with the mitigation of greening the podium will help this. UCSF is seeking explicit feedback from neighbors and whether or not the specific mitigations they’ve identified will address community concerns.

An Advisory Community Member asked for slides to be standardized in their orientation. They asked if the 6th floor hospital terrace would be considered a part of Mount Sutro Open Space Reserve? They commented that neighbors have suggested in the past to remove part of the reserve to move UCSF activities off of Parnassus, which at the time UCSF said no. They commented that moving forward, neighbors should assume a “no” from the University is in fact a ‘maybe.’

Brian responded that the terrace would be an amenity and accessible to the public, but that it would not be counted towards open space for the Reserve.

An Advisory Committee Member commented that Mount Sutro is a retreat and doesn’t know if bringing more activity to it is necessarily a good thing for the forest. They also commented that the hospital will be 297 feet tall (twice as big as any other building on the hill) and that shadows are very likely.

An Advisory Committee Member responded to the previous comment regarding the Dogpatch process and shared that Parnassus has a wider range of neighborhood organizations than the Dogpatch community did. They encouraged all the neighborhood organizations to be in coordination with one another. They shared that the investments in the Dogpatch process did not all reflect the City’s priorities but was a reflection of the neighborhood interests. They shared that their team at MTA has been working with UCSF to bring forward what MTA thinks are the priorities that need to be addressed in this area and they will present this information in the next meeting.

A Community Member asked about security and safety for all of the proposed green spaces that will protect nearby residents without polluting homes with excess light and sound.

Brian responded that UCSF has a public safety/police force and UCSF will seek out additional information from this group in regard to their plans to address the safety concerns the community member mentioned. In previous meetings, we have heard that the neighbors want the garages to be screened to address light and noise pollution.

UCSF Listening Session and Small Group Report-Out, Facilitated by En2Action

1. What actions can UCSF take to improve the quality, visibility, and use of “Park to Peak”

Common responses from the community included:  Intuitive wayfinding, alternatives to paved pathways, improved sidewalks, flashing crosswalks, diversity in the types of open spaces offered, sitting

7 areas on Mount Sutro. There was a divide between community members who thought increasing accessibility to Mount Sutro was beneficial and those who felt increased foot traffic could potentially harm the forest and detract from the quiet respite it currently offers.

2. How would you suggest UCSF improve or enhance green and open space in and around the campus for the broader community/neighborhood?

Common responses from the community included:  Wind screens, greater accessibility for people with disabilities, greening and improvement of MUNI and shuttle stops, consider a variety of age groups when considering open space plans, include outdoor play spaces for kids and seniors, continue to have a good working relationship with Sutro Stewards

3. What additional community investments would improve green and open space throughout the nearby neighborhoods?

Common responses from the community included:  Planting additional trees, offering facility/classroom spaces to Sutro Stewards and Community Based Organizations, improved routes and parking for bikes, adequate funding for Sutro trails

Public Comment, Facilitated by Andrea Baker

An Advisory Committee Member commented that they have shared copies of their initial comments on the scoping document for the EIR and they are requesting any additional comments from the Advisory Committee prior to Monday’s scoping meeting.

8