[The comments phase of the LRDP is over and it is approved. You can find UCSF’s specific response to our change requests in the LRDP in the attached file.
Fifth and Kirkham LRDP Response [PDF]
Parking for new housing units
Parking is difficult everywhere in the city, and around the Parnassus campus is no exception. Significant numbers of new housing units are being built on campus without parking. That doesn’t mean people won’t bring cars, it just means that they will park those cars around the neighborhood. While we strongly support transit, it’s unreasonable to assume that no students or faculty will bring cars with them. This is especially true for faculty who are often accompanied by young families.
Recommended edit to 4.4.3 (Circulation, Transportation, and Parking):
Add the following bullet to the end of this section:
Discourage rogue car parking by student residents. Because new parking spaces are neither being allocated or built for new housing, UCSF will request SF MTA not to issue neighborhood J stickers for all addresses containing new student housing. This will encourage transit and respect the neighbors who already fight for scarce parking spaces with UCSF patients, staff, and healthcare professionals.
Design parking into faculty housing. Because faculty are often accompanied by young families, it seems unlikely they will survive without a car even in transit-friendly San Francisco. UCSF will design faculty housing around Parnassus campus that includes parking, like much of the existing neighborhood housing stock does.
Lack of documentation / UCSF support for 5th & Kirkham cushioning measures
In 3.5 OP3 (“Cushioning of Impacts”), it’s stated that any agreement by UCSF to undertake cushioning actions will be documented in a formal agreement between UCSF, the community groups, and/or the City.”
And yet we cannot find a mention of the 5th and Kirkham traffic calming measures anywhere in the LRDP, despite UCSF’s verbal commitment to pay for them, the existence of a community meeting, and finalized designs that have been reviewed by SF MTA (David Valle-Schwenk), SF FD (turning radius cone test), UCSF, and the adjacent neighbors.
Recommended edit to 4.4.3 (Circulation, Transportion, and Parking):
Add the following bullet to the end of this section:
Implement traffic calming at 5th Ave and Kirkham. To reduce congestion at the residential intersection of 5th Avenue and Kirkham St due to the child care center and the increased contractor truck traffic accessible only by this intersection, UCSF proposes to implement and fund traffic calming measures. The design of these measures has already been successfully designed in collaboration with the community, reviewed by SF MTA, and tested for truck-turning by SF FD. It has the support of adjacent neighbors, SF MTA, UCSF, and the offices of both Supervisors whose districts straddle this intersection.
Community Advisory Group conflict of interest
Throughout the document UCSF references the Community Advisory Group as a proxy for the community’s concerns. The CAG receives advanced copies of proposals, opines on them, suggests changes, and generally acts as the community’s voice in the planning process. What’s more, advanced plans that the CAG members learn about are sometimes kept secret from the community, the very people they are supposed to represent. And as many have pointed out, feedback received at community meetings is often simply written down but never followed up on.
CAG members are appointed by the University with no oversight or input from the community itself. While we don’t harbor any illusions about changing the University’s chosen representation of the CAG, we are troubled to learn that at least one CAG members has a business interest in a contract with the University, suggesting that CAG member has conflicting interests that are not known to the community he represents.
To that end we recommend all CAG members publish a financial disclosure form that reveals any financial conflicts of interest so the community may understand how entwined the CAG members that claim to represent them may or may not have only the community’s interest at heart.
Recommended edit to 3.1.1 Community Advisory Group:
[inserted before the final paragraph that begins with “In addition, ….”]
To ensure that CAG members are transparent with the community they represent, all CAG members must fill out an annual financial conflict of interest disclosure form on October 1 of each year. The filed form is published on the UCSF CAG website. Failure to submit a disclosure form by Nov 1 will result in termination as a CAG member.
We will provide a sample CAG conflict of interest disclosure policy in a subsequent draft.
Childcare Center Accountability and Availability
We have previously had to request accountability on UCSF’s commitment to making available neighborhood slots for the childcare center at 5th Ave and Kirkham St. We suggest making reporting of this an annual event.
Recommended edit to 4.7 (“Measurement and accountability”)
New bullet at the end of this section:
- Publicly report on usage and availability of community dedicated childcare slots at the childcare center at 5th Ave and Kirkham in accordance with the neighborhood agreement established when the childcare center was built.
Many young families live in housing adjacent to the 5th Ave and Kirkham St childcare center. We recommend making available the new playground to the community on weekends when the childcare center itself is empty.
Recommended edit to 11.2.2 (“Proposed Plan”):
New paragraph between first and second paragraph:
As a benefit to the neighborhood, we will make the outdoor playground being built at the Kirkham Childcare Center available to neighborhood children on weekends when the childcare center is otherwise closed.
“Entire” community included in process
Because UCSF sometimes runs proposals by the CAG as a proxy for the community, and because many members of the community don’t feel the CAG represents their interests well, we suggest clearly delineating policies that inform the community should include the community beyond the CAG.
Recommended edit to 4.7 (“Measurement and accountability”): (edit in bold and brackets)
In order to further its commitment to manage the impacts of its development of the Parnassus Heights campus site and to communicate with [all] neighbors [including those not part of the Community Advisory Group] on the progress of efforts to manage impacts, UCSF will:
“Noise” in the objectives
Institutional facilities have the potential to create significant noise and harm both nearby wildlife and degrade quality of life for neighbors. Elsewhere in the document we have seen UCSF affirm that they are subject to federal, state, and local noise regulations, but these do not appear in 3.1 LRDP Objectives, despite the fact that many other goals are collected there.
In particular HVAC systems are often the culprit, and a minor amount of noise baffling between them and the adjacent community could do a great deal to address noise complaints.
Recommended edit to 3.1.1: (added material in bold)
C. Design new buildings to be sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood and landscape, taking into account use, scale, noise, and density.
We have a number of simple questions that were not answered by the document. Answers may not require editing the document, though those answers are more believable if they get committed in writing to the LRDP.
Parking before Koret comes down
Koret Eye Clinic is marked as a location for contractor parking during construction, but Koret is not scheduled to come down right away. Where will contractors park before Koret comes down?