Planning commission hears UCSF Parnassus MOU with housing, transit and workforce commitments; no vote taken

UCSF and City of San Francisco staff presented a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Jan. 7, 2021 that would formalize voluntary commitments tied to UCSF's Parnassus Heights comprehensive plan, including up to 1,263 housing units across UC's portfolio, approximately 750–760 units on the Parnassus campus, about 200 additional hospital beds associated with the plan, and roughly $20,000,000 in transportation contributions over the buildout.

The presentation to the San Francisco Planning Commission was informational; the commission did not vote on the MOU. Jeff Buckley of the mayor's office said the agreement ‘‘goes beyond the vital public interest of adding 200 hospital beds in a pandemic’’ and emphasized workforce and housing as core impacts. Brian Newman of UCSF summarized the campus plan and said the hospital capacity increase would be a ‘‘modest but important’’ 42 percent increase in bed capacity in affected facilities.

Why it matters: UCSF's Parnassus campus is aging and contains seismically vulnerable clinical facilities. City staff said the MOU would bind UCSF to annual reporting and city briefings, increase the university's housing commitment to 1,263 units (with more than 1,000 designated affordable across UC's housing portfolio), and set a 30 percent local-hire good-faith goal for construction and operations. The MOU also calls for a Transportation Demand Management program, a 15 percent trip-reduction target included in EIR mitigations, and a transportation contribution that staff said ‘‘is equal to or just a hair above’’ what a private developer would pay into the city's Transportation Sustainability Fee.

Public comment: More than 100 callers weighed in during a lengthy public-comment period. Supporters — including alumni, business and labor groups, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and housing advocates — praised the project for adding hospital capacity, jobs and housing and called the community-benefit package ‘‘generous.’’ Michelle Kim of the Housing Action Coalition asked the regents to consider AMI tiers to ensure housing serves lower-wage campus employees. Opponents raised concerns about the project's scale, a proposed 300-foot hospital tower, shadowing and traffic impacts; some community members said the MOU relies too much on ‘‘good faith’’ commitments rather than enforceable requirements. Laurie Lederman, a neighborhood resident, described the MOU language as ‘‘not nearly enough’’ on affordability for low-wage entry-level UCSF staff.

Key numbers and commitments disclosed by staff and UCSF during the hearing: - 1,263 total housing units committed by UCSF citywide, half to be delivered within the first 10 years; roughly 750–760 of those intended for the Parnassus campus. - Over 1,000 affordable units across UC's housing portfolio; of those, roughly half targeted to households at up to 90% AMI and the other half up to 120% AMI (staff labeled some figures as programmatic targets that would be delivered over decades). - Approximately 200 additional inpatient beds (a 42% increase in capacity for certain inpatient services stated by UCSF). - $20,000,000 in transportation funding to SFMTA over the buildout of the plan, according to staff. - 30% local-hire good-faith goal for construction and operations.

Commissioner concerns and staff responses: Commissioners repeatedly asked for more specificity and enforceability. Questions centered on (1) how AMI tiers and the distribution of affordable units will match the incomes of service workers and students, (2) how the city will enforce or verify commitments that are voluntary for a state institution, (3) the timelines and phasing for the hospital-specific EIR and construction, (4) the feasibility of proposed transit and circulation improvements on the Inner Sunset and Judah corridor, and (5) stewardship of WPA-era murals and Mount Sutro open-space protections. Planning staff and UCSF responded that the regents must first certify a programmatic EIR and adopt the campus plan before the MOU can be executed, and that a separate project-level EIR for the hospital will be produced and brought before the regents later this year. Joshua Suitsky of planning staff said the MOU requires annual reporting and a planning-commission briefing to provide ongoing oversight.

Claims and contested points: Some callers alleged the MOU was being rushed amid the pandemic; others said the city lacks leverage because UCSF is a state institution not subject to local land-use controls. UCSF and city staff replied that the MOU reflects months of negotiation dating back to 2018, that many provisions exceed what private developers would provide, and that some requirements are tied to EIR mitigations and the regents' adoption process.

Next steps: Staff said the programmatic EIR and the campus plan will be heard by the UC Regents, followed by a project-level EIR for the hospital (a draft expected later in 2021 under UCSF's schedule). City staff also noted a scheduled Board of Supervisors Land Use Committee briefing on the plan the week following the commission hearing. The MOU cannot be executed until the regents certify the EIR and adopt the plan.

Votes at a glance (formal actions recorded during the same remote session): - Continuances for multiple calendar items (cases listed for Lombard, Jackson, O'Farrell/Jones, Nineteenth Street, Seventh Avenue) — motion to continue carried unanimously (7–0). Mover: Commissioner Imperial; second noted in record. - Item 6 (conditional use authorization at 2265 McKinnon Ave) — approved on the consent calendar (7–0). Mover: Commissioner Fung. - Minutes for Dec. 10 and Dec. 17, 2020 — adopted unanimously (7–0). - Case 2020-7461 CUA, 1057 Howard Street (cannabis retail, equity applicant) — approved unanimously (7–0). - Case 2020-007488 CUA, 1095 Columbus Avenue (cannabis retail) — approved unanimously (7–0).

What remains uncertain: Commissioners asked staff to provide more granular numbers for the jobs–housing balance, a clearer AMI breakdown tailored to campus workforce incomes, firm commitments or enforcement mechanisms for key MOU items (versus ‘‘good faith’’ language), and a construction-phasing plan tied to mitigations for noise, air quality and traffic. Several callers and commissioners insisted on specific, enforceable measures for mural stewardship and Mount Sutro conservation.

Evidence: The planning commission recorded the informational presentation, public comment and commissioner Q&A; the staff presentation and UCSF testimony cite the draft MOU and the programmatic EIR schedule as the governing documents for next steps.

The Planning Commission did not vote to approve or execute the MOU at the Jan. 7 hearing; the item was an informational presentation and will proceed to the UC regents and the Board of Supervisors for further action.