Chapter 29:

 Campus Planning and Development

.

INTRODUCTION

.
During its three years of review and assessment, the Commission on University Strategic Planning (CUSP) did not focus heavily on the physical campus, accepting instead that the university had made impressive progress in recent years in addressing campus physical needs (1). Over the past decade-plus, the university’s administration has focused on creating management strategies designed to secure funding required to address years of backlog and inactivity in making physical improvements. Critical components of those management strategies were: reorganization, reprioritization, and redirection of resources.

.
(1) See the chapter on university facilities in Part One for a discussion of the campus  response to CUSP recommendations in the facilities area.

.
Reorganization: Significant reorganization of the university’s staff assigned to address physical considerations occurred in progressive stages. In 1989 President Corrigan approved the creation of a unit whose core mission was to address the physical campus, with the assignment of a senior administrator as its head. Organizationally, Plant Operations was separated from Capital Planning, Design, and Construction and assigned the day-to-day operation of the campus, as well as the responsibility to address the enormous deferred maintenance backlog the university had accumulated over the past 40 years. The new department would focus on physical expansion and major capital improvements. This action demonstrated a clear commitment by the president to revitalize our facilities and address institutional growth. In 1999 the president approved the creation of two associate vice presidencies for the two sub-divisions, Facilities and Service Enterprises and Capital Planning, Design, and Construction.

.
Reprioritization: In a major policy shift, the university moved from the traditional and seemingly ineffective approach of pursuing funding based upon incrementally master-planned capital improvements to a more proactive approach. It adopted a strategy of having many projects funding-ready, resulting in the ability to selectively and aggressively compete with alacrity for limited California State University bond monies as systemwide categories and criteria changed. One indicator of the success of this reprioritization strategy is reflected in a comparison of Major Capital Outlay funding rankings for the years 1978 through 1990 with the years 1991 through 2000. During the twelve-year period 1978 through 1990, SFSU ranked 15th among the twenty campuses, receiving only $25.5 million in Major Capital Outlay funding. During the following nine years, 1991-2000, SFSU moved to 1st place among the twenty-three campuses, with a Major Capital Outlay program exceeding $116,960,000; or a 455% increase over the previous two-plus decades. (See Exhibits A, B, C, and E at the end of the chapter.)

.
Comparative data for Non-State Capital Outlay activity reflect similar success: for the twelve year period 1978-1990, SFSU ranked 12th among twenty campuses, with only $14,127,100 in construction activity. During the past nine years, funding has increased by 567% to $80,163,999. (See Exhibits A, D, and E.)

.
In addition to Major Capital Outlay, the university depends heavily upon Minor Capital Outlay to make improvements to the campus which are not of a repair and replacement nature. Minor Capital Outlay projects by definition may not exceed $250,000 and in recent years have been restricted primarily to health and life safety. Currently SFSU ranks 4th among the twenty-three campuses in Minor Capital Outlay, although funding is usually provided pro rata to institutions based upon enrollments. SFSU has received almost twice the systemwide average funding. Once again the policy shift to reprioritization, with its primary tenet that we have more projects funding-ready than we have funds to support, has allowed the university to position itself to receive funding other campuses have been unable to expend for one reason or another. (See Exhibit F.)

.
Redirection: The third change in management strategy resulted in a redirection of university resources as a result of the campus-initiated audit of its deferred maintenance backlog completed in 1994. The documented $66.2 million backlog, the first fully audited review undertaken by any CSU campus, underscored the inactivity and lack of funding in preceding decades to address critical physical campus needs. Realizing that the most aggressive capital outlay program could do only so much to remedy long-standing facilities needs, the president and the University Budget Committee redirected university resources to create what has become a $2 million annual budget earmarked to address the deferred maintenance backlog. Similarly, other monies were redirected to create a progressive classroom renovation/renewal fund and vending revenues committed to create user-friendly vendor sites.

.

Competing Needs and Challenges

.
To put SFSU’s successes over the past nine years into perspective, many competing needs had to be considered and addressed both separately and in relation to other needs and projects. The reprioritization and redirection strategies discussed above had the ancillary effect of a more holistic approach to all projects by combining limited resources to ultimately complete more of them successfully. Among the most competing needs and challenges are: infrastructure renewal; seismic retrofit; deferred maintenance; staffing shortfall; classroom renovations; space deficits; external regulatory mandates; housing shortages; and improvement to the day-to-day study/work environment for all.

.
Infrastructure Renewal

.
As the system restricted capital funding to focus primarily on infrastructure renewal, seismic retrofit, and health and life safety, SFSU aggressively created projects tailor-made for the new priorities. First among its projects, as well as first among the CSU campuses to initiate such a project, the university created a $27 million Corporation Yard Central Plant and Utility Infrastructure Renewal Project. The university’s infrastructure, which had been constructed in 1954 to serve a student population of 4,500, was on the brink of irreparable failure; and the continued day-to-day operation to provide support for a community now reaching 30,000 users could not be assured. The replacement project created a new central plant, corporation yard, and utilities/communication infrastructure to all major buildings. It relocated facilities housing support functions to the periphery of the campus, thereby creating space which has become the new SFSU Foundation-owned and developed Village at Centennial Square. The second phase of the infrastructure project, the Telecommunications Infrastructure Project, is planned for the year 2002. This project will upgrade the telecommunications infrastructure with fiber optics to allow high speed networking throughout the campus and to the desktop.

.
Seismic Retrofit

.
In 1990, following the Loma Prieta earthquake, the CSU undertook an independent survey of all of its facilities, and in 1991-92 ranked in priority order those which most needed seismic retrofit. SFSU had the unenviable distinction of having twelve facilities in the top fifty, with five in the top ten. To date, retrofit of eleven of the twelve buildings has either been completed or is in progress. The 12th project, the retrofit/renovation of the J. Paul Leonard Library (currently projected at $94.5 million) is proposed for funding in 2002-03 and is being supported by the CSU as a joint state-state agency venture with the California State Library, with an additional $9.3 million to house the Sutro Library and Collections.

.
Deferred Maintenance

.
In spite of spending over $38 million to date to reduce the deferred maintenance backlog (over $9 million in campus funds, $26 million in Major Capital Outlay components, and $3 million in Minor Capital Outlay components), SFSU is losing ground in this endeavor. While progress has been made to reduce the $66.2 million documented in the 1994 audit, aging buildings and systems along with inflation have added approximately $20 million in additional elements to the backlog. In May 2000, a new deferred maintenance review documented a backlog of $67.3 million. The review concluded that an annual budget of $7.74 million is required for facility renewal if SFSU is to stop the growth of its deferred maintenance backlog. This falls far short of the current annual allocation of $2.3 million.

.
It could be easy to dismiss SFSU’s deferred maintenance backlog by blaming it on poor leadership in the past, lack of funding, and insufficient attention to the problem. In reality, its causes are numerous and complex. One of the most critical factors is simply where the campus is located. Facilities and systems designed for years out of either the State Architect’s Office or the CSU’s Chancellor’s Office were often "off the shelf" both in design and in the acquisition of systems and equipment. Materials and systems were secured at lowest bid paid, with little attention to the fog and nightly saltwater wash which add to SFSU’s character while shortening the predictable shelf-life of those materials and systems and accelerating deterioration or outright failure.

.
Staffing Shortfalls

.
In addition to the critical challenge facing the university vis-ŕ-vis deferred maintenance, staffing shortfalls exacerbate this problem. Staffing levels for custodial, skilled trades, and technical support continue to lag far behind national standards. For example: The Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers recommends staffing one custodian per every 17,000 sq. ft. to be serviced; the CSU formulae provide only one custodian for every 18,360 sq. ft.; currently SFSU provides one custodian for every 37,425 sq. ft. Adequate attention to maintenance is affected and quality of life for building occupants is impacted.

.
Classroom Renovation and Renewal

.
As referenced earlier, with the strategy of redistribution, the Classroom Renovation and Renewal Program was funded in part with dedicated allocations earmarked in the university’s annual budget and in part through the targeting of "opportunity" projects. Of the campus total of 148 instructional classrooms, some level of renovation has been completed in each classroom over the past four years. As a turn-key operation (new wall finishes, flooring, ceilings, lighting, window coverings, furniture and equipment, etc.), SFSU has completely renovated 46 classrooms in six of the major academic buildings. The remaining classrooms will be fully renovated on a scheduled basis in future years.

.
Capacity Space Deficit

.
Space, or the lack thereof, is one of San Francisco State University’s most rapidly emerging critical issues. With only 96.6 acres, the campus designed in 1954 to serve 4,500 is now utilized by over 30,000 students, faculty, staff, and visitors. The significant capital growth and expansion over the past nine years notwithstanding (see Exhibit E), only one other CSU campus shares SFSU’s distinction in having an audited and demonstrable capacity space deficit. The lack of space has been exacerbated in recent years by at least two variables: relatively better budget years which have allowed for the increased hiring of faculty and the offering of more course sections; and, equally challenging, the rapid increase in research activity. The university is operating longer hours on weekdays and weekends; and while this serves to relieve some of the space crunch overall, the need for additional space to meet academic instructional requirements is increasing.

.
To address space issues and develop strategies to maximize the efficient use of space, the president in 1996 approved the creation of an Office of Space Management. Its director was both a member of the faculty and one-time chair of the Academic Senate. While instructional-academic space was delegated for assignment to Academic Affairs, the director of space management worked in a collaborative effort with Academic Affairs to ensure that space utilization was both equitable and efficient. The challenge of identifying space for ever-growing research activity, as well as demands placed upon existing space to accommodate temporary relocations caused by a massive construction effort, ranks among the institution’s most difficult challenges. In Spring 2000, Space Management created the university’s first audited report accurately reflecting the assignment and use of all university space. With the retirement of the director in Fall 2000, the functions of the office were transferred to the associate vice president for academic resources.

.
External Regulatory Mandates

.
These mandates, while presenting one more serious challenge to limited resources, have had the positive effect of improving quality of life and replacing systems and materials on the aging campus. Capital projects intended to correct infrastructure or seismic issues must include fire and life safety code improvements and incorporate provisions to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as all other mandated programs. Mandates, whether legislatively or judicially imposed, include: abatement and removal of asbestos, lead paint, PCB’s, underground storage tanks, and micro-toxins; testing for air quality; and the monitoring, storage, and removal of hazardous materials and wastes. In addition to the monies spent in Major/Minor Capital Outlay and Deferred Maintenance to address these issues, the Department of Environmental Health and Occupational Safety annually spends an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars a year in university resources to accomplish testing and hazardous materials removal. While the overwhelming majority of asbestos abatement has been done, SFSU currently projects a remaining asbestos abatement backlog of slightly over $5 million in projects yet to be completed. Lead paint removal is the most recent federally mandated challenge being addressed, with the emerging science around micro-toxins inevitably the next most critical potential issue, particularly in SFSU’s marine-like environment.

.
In keeping with SFSU’s commitment to access for all, and incorporating the strategies of reprioritization and redistribution, since 1994 the university has spent over $10,982,305 ($6,350,000 in Major Capital Outlay; $ 3,271,724 in Minor Capital Outlay; $1,360,581 in Deferred Maintenance projects) on physical barrier removal to ensure equal access for the physically challenged. Today, SFSU is the leader among CSU campuses in incorporating both the spirit and the letter of the Americans With Disabilities Act to ensure equal access.

.
Housing Shortage

.
That which is an attraction can also be a nemesis. The appeal of living in the Bay Area has resulted in a widely publicized housing shortage. SFSU’s students, faculty, and staff know first-hand the impact of that shortage on their ability to study, teach, and maintain careers. The housing shortage for students has been particularly impacted by two environmentally related crises: the Loma Prieta earthquake and the discovery of micro-toxins. Shortly after the 1989 earthquake, investigations concluded that the 760-bed Verducci Hall student residence was unsafe to occupy, and the university closed the building. The structure was a two-tower facility, with one tower constructed on bedrock and the other on an old lake-bed. Ten years later, after tenacious battles with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and with the intervention of politicians from the local level to the White House, the university reached a compromise with FEMA brokered by Senator Dianne Feinstein. The compromise allowed SFSU to obtain approval from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to execute the implosion of the high-rise student residence structure in March 1999.

.
With the implosion of Verducci Hall, SFSU undertook an inventive third-party venture, with its non-profit SFSU Foundation entering an agreement with a developer, the Catellus Corporation, to construct a creative mixed-use complex named the Village at Centennial Square (in recognition of SFSU’s centennial year). The complex, scheduled to open January 2001, will provide 760 beds in 192 student apartment units, with an additional 12,000 sq. ft. for restaurants and shops. A cornerstone will be the 59,275 sq. ft. Student Services Building designed to incorporate all student services into a one-stop-shopping complex, bringing together for the first time under one roof the majority of the many support services students must access.

.
By the Fall of 1999, the campus community was looking toward academic year 2000-2001 as the year when, with the total beds available in Mary Park Hall, Mary Ward Hall, the Residence Apartment Building (RAB), and the new Village, the university would surpass the level of student housing it had known prior to the Loma Prieta earthquake. Additionally, the 2000-2001 fiscal year would be the first year of a positive cash flow to cover all dormitory revenue fund bond payments (including, because of pooled bonded indebtedness, continued payments on the non-existent Verducci Hall).

.
However, the anticipated joy would prove to be short-lived. In late Spring 2000, tests on the Residence Apartment Building found micro-toxins (toxic mold) caused by water intrusion into the structure and companion Guest Center which had been constructed in 1990-91. Consultants advised the university that the toxic mold could be harmful to persons with particular health issues and vulnerabilities. Thus, in late May 2000, based upon advice from health professionals, the university closed the RAB and Guest Center (the latter having been serving as an International Living Community for domestic and international students). The university is currently in litigation with the developer-builder, and the future of the Residence Apartment Building rests with the courts.

.
Improvements to the Day-to-Day
Study/Work Environment

.
SFSU remains an oasis for many to study, teach, or create career lives. To many, the artist’s presence is felt not only in the exhibition galleries in the Fine Arts Building or in the newly renovated Student Center but across the campus green as well. Thanks to creative gardeners and landscape artists on staff, many faceless state-issue buildings are camouflaged with brilliantly colored flowers, interesting gardens, and majestic trees. Individuals find escape among carefully planned soft spaces as a respite from the large number of people using SFSU’s limited 96 acres. Fears during construction that major trenching and disruption would spoil the grounds were unfounded, with the campus landscape looking healthier and better for the investment. Several years ago an unwritten policy shift occurred with little fanfare or notice. Gone were the "don’t walk on the grass" attitudes and placards, to be replaced with sculptures, a Memorial Grove, and garden features encouraging intimacy with nature. In recent years, over 100 new benches (at a cost of $110,000) have been added to the campus landscape; and neighbors from surrounding apartments can be seen using the grounds as a mini-getaway, mingling with SFSU students as part of the campus family. The most revealing statement indicating that sense of personal ownership of the campus’ hidden charm—its grounds—is the general absence of graffiti on campus buildings and property in a city so blighted.

.
Physical plant staff have established a strong and successful track-record in creating or identifying third-party ventures to provide for physical improvements when state monies were not available. A simple need to replace a telephone communications switch was turned into an opportunity to collaborate with the switch’s maker to acquire the needed switch while presenting a win-win invitation for NEC to become a significant contributor to SFSU. NEC subsequently made a $1 million dollar-plus contribution to SFSU to create a state-of-the-art beta technology NEC Conference Room in the Administration Building, beta site improvements in auditoria and audio visual technologies in Knuth Hall, and a beta technology classroom in the HSS Building.

.
Facilities and Service Enterprises has worked collaboratively with the SFSU Foundation to create two outdoor and two indoor vending sites in an attempt to provide user-friendly spots for persons crossing the campus and using its facilities. The joint-effort plan is to reinvest profits into the capital construction necessary to eventually ensure all major facilities provide such support sites, as well as an additional income stream for the Foundation. This collaboration has also brought the Enterprise Rent-A-Car franchise to the campus, allowing students, faculty, and staff the ability to rent vehicles after a funding shortfall forced the closure of the university’s motor pool.

.
SFSU’s award winning campus Recycling Program was enhanced further with a $50,000 grant from the City and County of San Francisco to operate an innovative "in-vessel" composting demonstration program. This allowed the use of waste from dining halls and numerous collection sites to create compost for use on the campus and in the City’s parks.

.
Designed to encourage the use of public transportation, SFSU maintains a fleet of shuttles carrying passengers to and from the Bay Bridge and the Golden Gate Bridge (with stops recently added to the Presidio and Treasure Island) seven times per day and the Daly City BART station every fifteen minutes. Further evidence of the university’s collaborative effort with the City can be seen at the 19th Avenue MUNI platform. SFSU maintains this site and the College of Creative Arts provides exhibits of art prepared by students, faculty, and staff. Another collaborative effort between the university and SFSU’s Foundation is the creation of a $125,000 19th Avenue Transit Stop. The new bus shelter, plantings, and vendor site created a new campus entrance that is both inviting and provides comfort and shelter. Additionally, with a $72,000 grant from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District providing support for alternative modes of transportation, the university has created a "Bike Barn" to house over 300 bicycles daily.

.
Capital Planning, Design, and Construction has closely managed construction projects planned and funded by the university’s student auxiliary organizations. The Associated Students planned and constructed a model $3,210,000, 11,861 sq. ft., state-of-the-art children’s center with student-imposed fees, while the Student Center Governing Board similarly increased student fees enabling the completion of an extensive $18,507,000 renovation and 26,000 sq. ft. addition to the Cesar Chavez Student Center.

.
Two additional Capital Planning, Design, and Construction projects improved quality of life for students. During 1999-2000, students benefited from the clean-up following the Verducci Hall implosion, with the contractor providing $250,000 in new tennis courts as replacements for those damaged by the implosion. Students also returned to campus in August 2000 to find a newly-replaced $1,717,000 track and soccer field at Cox Stadium.

.
In its most recent user-friendly improvement, visitors and the campus community in general will appreciate the signage and way-finding program undertaken by Facilities and Service Enterprises in concert with the University Publications staff. The program provides that all internal and external signage will be replaced with state-of-the-art and ADA-compliant signage throughout the campus by the end of the year 2001.

.

What's to Come

.
The next five years portend to be as hectic and yet creative as the past nine have been for staff in Capital Planning and the campus community alike. While the seismic retrofit-renovation of Hensill Hall ($20,310,000) and the Psychology Building ($5,175,000) are currently under way, planning is in process for the earlier-mentioned Telecommunications Infrastructure Project ($12,247,000) and the Seismic Retrofit/Renovation/Addition to the J. Paul Leonard Library ($103,826,000). SFSU has also requested funding from the CSU for a $45,796,000 renovation/addition to the Creative Arts Building, the replacement of HSS ($39,351,000), and the renovation of the Gymnasium Building ($54,610,000).

.
In addition to projects planned as part of the state’s Major Capital Outlay process, Capital Planning is working closely with the College of Extended Learning to secure land, plan, and construct a new SFSU Downtown Center. Similarly, Capital Planning is working closely with the College of Science and Engineering on planned expansion of the Paul F. Romberg Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies. All the while, review of plans and options is constantly occurring for "blue sky" projects intended to supplement state-funded programs with third party ventures like the Village at Centennial Square.

.

CONCLUSION

.
In a final assessment, San Francisco State University is not the physical campus it was a decade ago. Both the exterior face of the university and its indoor environments have changed drastically through multi-faceted efforts and multi-source funded programs. To say the least, the last nine years have been challenging for everyone on campus. Construction and reconstruction are invasive processes. Major construction is disruptive at best, while construction of numerous projects occurring in SFSU’s limited space has created, at times, almost indescribable challenges for everyone in the campus community. Clearly the good humor shared by students, faculty, and staff about their world being under constant construction, supported by a collaborative effort to keep the campus community informed, has prevailed to date over construction fatigue. Overall, complaints have been few and expressed appreciation prevalent.

.
While much remains to be undertaken in this dynamic environment of physical change, every individual in the facilities and campus planning area takes pride in a dedication and contribution to the university unparalleled and unmatched by their predecessors. For all of its challenges and needs, SFSU remains a special place to study, teach, and work. The impact of both time and nature on a campus built in 1954 is demonstrably clear. Much remains to be done. Nevertheless, most campus users are aware that an impressive amount has been accomplished; and they share the confidence that future challenges will be addressed as effectively if and when necessary funding and support become available.

Exhibits A-F available at this site in the near future 

Return to Part Three: Other Areas of University Planning and Implementation | Return to Accreditation | SFSU Home | Top of page