City College of San Francisco - California Competes

STANDARD III.B
I. Overview of the Standard III.B Report:
Physical Resources
There have been major changes and improvements in the College’s planning and implementation of
physical resource projects since the last accreditation review. A successful bond initiative earned the
approval of 73 percent of San Francisco voters in 2001, earmarking $195 million for facilities over the
next decade. Under Proposition 39, the framework for which the 2001 bond was conducted, the College
was eligible for $350 million. However, for a variety of reasons, the total amount sought was divided into
two separate bond initiatives—the first phase (2001) for $195 million; the second (2005) for $246 million
(this has been adjusted for increased construction costs). Prior to the 2001 bond initiative, the District’s
only significant construction resource was $50 million from a bond passed in 1997. Those funds were
earmarked for the purchase of the sites for the new Mission Campus and Chinatown/North Beach Campus
and for a portion of the basic renovation and remodeling projects. In addition, the funds were also used to
initiate the first phase of the technology network and campus connectivity project and the basic electrical
upgrades needed to support it. [Refs. 8, 9, 10, 11]
The local support for the 2001 initiative enabled the College to begin the planning for three new campus
facilities: Mission and Chinatown/North Beach Campuses and the Community Health and Wellness
Center, in addition to critical maintenance and repair work needed at multiple sites across the District.
Construction of the new Mission Campus and the Community Health and Wellness Center commenced
in August 2005. Plans have been completed and construction is underway for a Student Health Services
Center and a Child Development Center. A Performing Arts Education Center, Advanced Technology
Building, joint-use classroom building with San Francisco State University, Student Development Center,
and the second phase of the technology network and campus connectivity project are in the design stage.
The Facilities and Maintenance Departments were reorganized and placed under the supervision of a new
Associate Vice Chancellor of Facilities Planning and Management. The restructuring allowed the Facilities
Planning Department to hire permanent, full-time project managers and reduce its prior dependency on
construction management firms for project management services, with the goal of saving the District
tens of thousands of dollars, streamlining project management, and improving the overall communications
flow. Under the leadership of the Associate Vice Chancellor of Facilities Management, a District-wide
sustainability and green building plan is being developed, which is leading to more energy-efficient
buildings. [Ref. 23]
The College has integrated its facilities planning into its institutional planning process; fostering a strategic
approach to prioritizing the physical resource needs of its students, faculty, and staff; and making
effective use of the College’s Shared Governance System, including the planning and budgeting processes,
to evaluate and act on the District’s priorities. A comprehensive Facilities Master Plan was developed with
the participation and support of the College’s Shared Governance Facilities Review Committee. [Ref. 1]
This is a 15-year plan for building, replacing, and renovating College facilities and was developed with
the assistance of an outside facilities planning firm experienced in college master plan development. The
District has multiple assessment mechanisms for evaluating the feasibility and effectiveness of physical
resources in supporting institutional programs and services. For example, it utilizes its Banner administrative
information system to annually review equipment needs, and an outside agency was hired to conduct
an inventory and assessment of the physical condition of all buildings. The College has significantly
improved communications related to facilities across institutional departments and offices. This has
promoted more meaningful interactions between the Offices of Academic Affairs and Facilities Planning
to assure the quality of programs and services as well as the health and welfare of students.
CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO
187