Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parnassus Heights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
UCSF presents Parnassus Heights master plan to planning commission; neighbors raise space‑cap, traffic and open‑space concerns
Summary
UCSF presented a long‑range plan for the Parnassus Heights campus that would add roughly 1.5–2.0 million square feet of program over decades, increase housing on campus to about 750–984 units and include a new hospital; the presentation prompted broad public comment citing concerns about Regents' 1976 space cap, traffic, construction impacts and encroachment on Mount Sutro open space.
UCSF officials presented an informational briefing on June 4 about the Comprehensive Parnassus Heights Plan (CPHP), a multi‑decade proposal to modernize and expand the Parnassus campus.
Planning staff introduced the item and said the city will coordinate a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) process with UCSF and other city agencies; staff also said a draft environmental impact report (EIR) was expected to be published within roughly two weeks with a 45‑day comment period. Francesca Vega, UCSF vice chancellor for community and government relations, and Brian Newman, UCSF vice president and associate vice chancellor of real estate, said the plan responds to aging infrastructure and seismic‑safety needs, and includes major themes such as Park‑to‑Peak connections, a new ‘campus heart,’ an improved Irving Street entry, expanded open space and a substantial housing program for trainees, faculty and staff.
Newman described high‑level program numbers: the CPHP’s spatial program could add roughly 2,000,000 square feet across the campus (he emphasized the diagrams were conceptual building envelopes), and that to accommodate housing and other uses UCSF would seek amendments to a longstanding Regents space ceiling (he cited roughly a million‑and‑a‑half square‑foot change to the ceiling and said housing is not counted against the ceiling). UCSF said it proposes to substantially increase campus housing (staff referenced roughly tripling or quadrupling current housing totals to approach figures in the upper hundreds—UCSF noted different sub‑area counts, for example increasing units at Aldea and adding several hundred on the west end) and that it will use an MOU and the EIR process to negotiate mitigations for transportation, housing and other impacts.
Public comment ran long and split sharply. Neighbors and advocacy groups urged the commission and UCSF to honor the 1976 space‑cap agreement with the Regents and opposed what many described as an excessive 1,500,000 square‑foot expansion and the prospect of new traffic, construction truck routes and impacts on Mount Sutro Open Space. Speakers asked the commission and the city to negotiate enforceable mitigation (housing commitments for lower‑income employees, transportation funding and traffic mitigation, limits on building footprints into open space, and a binding MOU rather than nonbinding statements). Supporters—UCSF patients, employees and some advisory‑group members—said seismic upgrades, modern clinical space and additional housing for staff are essential for patient care and the regional economy.
Commissioners asked staff and UCSF for timing details and legal questions about the 1987 MOU and how the city’s general plan might intersect with any long‑range amendment the Regents would consider. Staff said the city expects to review and comment on the draft EIR during the upcoming 45‑day period and will negotiate an MOU over the coming months; the commission urged that the MOU be specific and enforceable and that staff work with SFMTA and other City agencies on transportation and housing mitigation.
No formal commission action was taken; the presentation was informational and will move through CEQA review and separate approval channels.
