capital projects planning committee / facilities master plan … · 2016-09-21 · capital projects...

Capital Projects Planning Committee / Facilities Master Plan Advisory Working Group

September 21, 2016

I. Call to Order (2:00 pm) II. Adoption of Agenda (2:01 pm) III. Report (2:02 pm)

a. 33 Gough – Status (1 minute) (http://www.ccsf.edu/BOT/2016/September/22/XIII.%20B..pdf)

b. 750 Eddy – Status (1 minute) (http://www.ccsf.edu/BOT/2016/September/22/XIII.%20D..pdf)

c. Balboa Reservoir Project Update (3 minutes) i. Development Principles and Parameters

(http://sf-planning.org/balboa-reservoir-cac-meeting-schedule) ii. Developer Selection Committee CCSF Representative

IV. Public Comment (2:07 pm - 10 minutes) This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Committee on matters facility related. No actions will be taken. Each individual is limited to two minutes.

V. New Business (2:17 pm - 98 minutes) a. CPPC Membership and Vote for Co-Chair (5 minutes) b. CPPC Self-Evaluation (5 minutes) c. FMP Advisory Working Group

i. FMP Progress Report September 2016 ii. Ocean Campus Fall 2016 Parking Analysis dated 2016.0909

iii. Balboa Park Station Community Advisory Committee April 26, 2016 Recommendation of document “Issues and Proposals for City College of San Francisco’s Ocean Campus Streetscape”

iv. City of SF Planning Department Comments on Ocean Campus Options Presentation to FMP AWG - August 29, 2016

v. Options Discussion for Centers VI. Future Business (3:55 pm)

Next meeting is Sept. 28, 2016, 2:00 to 4:00PM (?) @ Rosenberg Library Room 518 a. Reschedule of December 6, 2016 CPPC/AWG meeting b. Discuss options for the Ocean Campus and all Centers c. CPPC Bylaws d. CPPC Self-Evaluation Report to PGC

VII. Adjournment (4:00 pm)

http://www.ccsf.edu/BOT/2016/September/22/XIII.%20B..pdf

http://www.ccsf.edu/BOT/2016/September/22/XIII.%20D..pdf

http://sf-planning.org/balboa-reservoir-cac-meeting-schedule

http://www.ccsf.edu/en/about-city-college/administration/facilities_planning/facilities-master-plan.html

9/20/2016 PGC Standing Committees Evaluations Linda Da Silva

https://outlook.office.com/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&ItemID=AAMkADZhZmRmMmEzLTE5YTgtNGVmMy1iNTQxLTFiZDhmNWZjZjJlZABGAA... 1/2

PGC Standing Committees ‐ Evaluations

Hello Ron and Linda,

I would appreciate your assistance in direc뛕�ng this message to the correct recipient. Thank you! Cherisa

Dear Capital Projects Planning Commi�ee Chair,

Per the PGC ‐‐ and in response to Standards IC and IVA ‐‐ please share the a�ached annual survey results withyour Commi�ee members.

The file contains three sec뛕�ons (bookmarked):1. The spring 2016 Evalua뛕�on for College Commi�ees survey results for your commi�ee, including charts,tables and comments.

2. A table comparing the spring 2016 numerical results to those of 2015, so members can see changes, ifany.

3. Responses to ques뛕�ons 6 and 7 from the overall PGC Internal Survey, because responses pertain to thecommi�ees (#7 addresses commi�ees directly; for #6, see comment 4)

The following Commi�ee self‐evalua뛕�on steps were specified by PGC:

∙ Distribute in advance of your next mee뛕�ng

∙ Discuss survey results at that mee뛕�ng

∙ Prepare a one page summary to be shared with the PGC, including

1. Date of Commi�ee discussion

2. Commi�ee members and alternates present for discussion

3. Overall analysis of the survey results (i.e. major observa뛕�ons)

4. List of improvements (if any) the commi�ee agrees to make in response to the survey results

∙ Share the one page summary with PGC in September

Thank you in advance for your help with this CQI‐related item. Please let me know if you have ques뛕�ons.

Cherisa

Cherisa Yarkin, Ph.D.

Cherisa Yarkin

Mon 8/22/2016 9:28 AM

To:Ronald Gerhard <[email protected]>; Linda da Silva <[email protected]>;

Cc:Pamela Mery <[email protected]>;

1 attachments ﴾150 KB﴿

CPPC_SvyResults_Aug2016.pdf;

9/20/2016 PGC Standing Committees Evaluations Linda Da Silva

https://outlook.office.com/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&ItemID=AAMkADZhZmRmMmEzLTE5YTgtNGVmMy1iNTQxLTFiZDhmNWZjZjJlZABGAA... 2/2

Director of PlanningCity College of San Francisco415.452.5271

0.00% 0

44.44% 4

33.33% 3

22.22% 2

0.00% 0

Q1 Indicate your status:Answered: 9 Skipped: 0

Total 9

Faculty member

Departmentchair

Classifiedstaff member

Administrator

Student

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Answer Choices Responses

Faculty member

Department chair

Classified staff member

Administrator

Student

1 / 12

Evaluation for College Committees - 2016Capital Projects Planning Committee

0.00% 0

100.00% 9

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

Q2 Indicate which college committee youare evaluating. Please complete a separate

survey for each committee you want toevaluate. *The asterisk indicates the current

Standing Committees of PGC.Answered: 9 Skipped: 0

Total 9

Accreditation *

CapitalProjects...

CollegeProfessional...

Diversity *

EnrollmentManagement *

InformationTechnology...

Planning *

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Accreditation *

Capital Projects Planning Committee

College Professional Development

Diversity *

Enrollment Management *

Information Technology Advisory (ITAC)

Planning *

2 / 12

Evaluation for College Committees - 2016

100.00% 9

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

Q3 Indicate your relationship to thecommittee:

Answered: 9 Skipped: 0

Total 9

Committeemember or...

Not a memberbut attend...

Not a memberbut attend...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Committee member or alternate

Not a member but attend regularly (more than half of the meetings)

Not a member but attend occasionally (fewer than half of the meetings)

3 / 12


22.22% 2

22.22% 2

55.56% 5

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

Q4 Agendas were provided prior tocommittee meetings.


Total 9

# Comments: Date

1 Early on fiscal year 5/11/2016 2:49 PM

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agreenor Disagree

Disagree

StronglyDisagree

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

4 / 12


0.00% 0

44.44% 4

11.11% 1

44.44% 4

0.00% 0

Q5 Meeting notes or minutes were providedprior to committee meetings.


Total 9

# Comments: Date

1 Early on Fiscal year 5/11/2016 2:49 PM

2 not all the time 5/11/2016 12:30 PM

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

StronglyDisagree

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

5 / 12


33.33% 3

22.22% 2

33.33% 3

0.00% 0

11.11% 1

Q6 Meetings were conducted in aconstructive and efficient manner.


Total 9

# Comments: Date

1 Interim VC of Finance, Zakovitch, ram rodded the "Emergency" resolution that already had gone in front of Board ofTrustees "after the fact" at one meeting. Should NOT happen! Committee sat and listened to VC tell Fred Sturner theco chair to "Shut up!" Committee sat and were TOLD Art Tyler would be leading the committee. There was NOTHINGconstructive or efficient about that meeting.

5/11/2016 2:49 PM

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

StronglyDisagree

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

6 / 12


11.11% 1

33.33% 3

0.00% 0

44.44% 4

11.11% 1

Q7 Committee members had appropriateinformation to make informed

recommendations.Answered: 9 Skipped: 0

Total 9

# Comments: Date

1 Referring again to the meeting Interim VC of Finance Zakovitch jammed this through 5/11/2016 2:49 PM

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

StronglyDisagree

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

7 / 12


22.22% 2

22.22% 2

0.00% 0

55.56% 5

0.00% 0

Q8 All members were encouraged toparticipate in discussions and provide

input.Answered: 9 Skipped: 0

Total 9

# Comments: Date

1 I was very uncomfortable asking committee to slow down on this after the fact committee support when we DID NOThave all the facts to make such a decision. My plea to slow down and gather the facts was not supported.

5/11/2016 2:49 PM

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

StronglyDisagree

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

8 / 12


33.33% 3

11.11% 1

55.56% 5

0.00% 0

0.00% 0

Q9 I understand the committee's purposeand responsibilities.


Total 9

# Comments: Date

1 There are still pending questions as to our role and how we relate to PGC 5/11/2016 12:30 PM

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

StronglyDisagree

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

9 / 12


11.11% 1

44.44% 4

0.00% 0

44.44% 4

0.00% 0

Q10 The committee worked effectivelytowards fulfilling its purpose and

responsibilities.Answered: 9 Skipped: 0

Total 9

Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

StronglyDisagree

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Strongly Agree

Agree


Disagree

Strongly Disagree

10 / 12


Q11 What is most effective and useful aboutthis committee?


# Responses Date

1 It should continue to exist and should be reporting in some kind of pipeline, but it must improve its processes and alsobe acknowledged by the Administration as having a necessary and valuable role to play.

5/15/2016 1:13 AM

2 It should continue to exist and should be reporting in some kind of pipeline, but it must improve its processes and alsobe acknowledged by the Administration as having a necessary and valuable role to play.

5/15/2016 1:13 AM

3 It should continue to exist and should be reporting in some kind of pipeline, but it must improve its processes and alsobe more acknowledged by the Administration as having a necessary and valuable role to play.

5/15/2016 1:11 AM

4 It should continue to exist and should be reporting in some kind of pipeline, but it must improve its processes and alsobe more acknowledged by the Administration as having a necessary and valuable role to play.

5/15/2016 1:06 AM

5 In spite of the Administration changes and commotion - the chair and the committee have tried its best to stay focusedon our tasks.

5/11/2016 2:49 PM

6 Most effective the way meetings are Conducted. Useful, you gained a better understanding of the college facilitiesneeds.

5/11/2016 12:30 PM

11 / 12


Q12 What could be done to improve thiscommittee?


# Responses Date

1 Needs better time line for minutes, agendas, reports, etc, and a sense of anyone paying real attention to its functionswould be nice. Its current role now seems to be to rubber stamp the FMP consultants activities even though when thecommittee voted for those consultants,, it was with the agreement of then committee chair, Mr. Sturner, that hisrecommended consultants would work with and through the CPPC, not mostly removed from it which seems thepresent situation.

5/15/2016 1:13 AM

2 Needs better time line for minutes, agendas, reports, etc, and a sense of anyone paying real attention to its functionswould be nice. Its current role now seems to be to rubber stamp the FMP consultants activities even though when thecommittee voted for those consultants,, it was with the agreement of then committee chair, Mr. Sturner, that hisrecommended consultants would work with and through the CPPC, not mostly removed from it which seems thepresent situation.

5/15/2016 1:13 AM

3 Needs better time line for minutes, agendas, reports, etc, and a sense of anyone paying real attention to its functionswould be nice. Its current role now seems to be to rubber stamp the FMP consultants even though when thecommittee voted for those consultants , it was with the agreement of then committee chair, Mr. Sturner, that hisrecommended consultants would work with the CPPC, not mostly removed from it which seems the present situation.

5/15/2016 1:11 AM

4 Needs better time line for minutes, agendas, reports, etc, and a sense of anyone paying real attention to its functionswould be nice. It's current role now seems to rubber stamp the FMP consultants even though the when the committeevoted for those consultants , it was with the agreement of then committee chair, Mr. Sturner, that his recommendedconsultants would work with the CPPC, not totally removed from them.

5/15/2016 1:06 AM

5 Get an expert in the field of facilities, maintenance, and construction buildings and grounds hired and in place asap. 5/11/2016 2:49 PM

6 Clarify accountability by officially joining PGC. 5/11/2016 1:35 PM

12 / 12


0% 0 43% 3

44% 4 -- --

33% 3 43% 3

22% 2 14% 1

0% 0 0% 09 70 0

100% 9 100% 7

100% 9 71% 5

0% 0 0% 0

0% 0 29% 2

9 70 0

22% 2 29% 2

22% 2 29% 2

56% 5 0% 0

0% 0 29% 2

0% 0 14% 19 70 0

0% 0 0% 0

44% 4 43% 3

11% 1 0% 0

44% 4 14% 1

0% 0 43% 39 70 0

33% 3 29% 2

22% 2 14% 1

33% 3 0% 0

0% 0 29% 2

11% 1 29% 2

9 70 0

Department chair

answered question

answered question


skipped question

Strongly Disagree

Not a member but attend regularly (more than half of the meetings)

Note, responses shown for Capital Projects Planning Committee only.

Disagree

2. Indicate which college committee you are evaluating.

3. Indicate your relationship to the committee:

4. Agendas were provided prior to committee meetings.

Not a member but attend occasionally (fewer than half of the meetings)

Committee member or alternate

answered question

skipped question

1. Indicate your status:

Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Agree

skipped question

skipped question


Strongly Agree

5. Meeting notes or minutes were provided prior to committee meetings.

6. Meetings were conducted in a constructive and efficient manner.

2016

Strongly Agree

Student


Strongly Disagree

Classified staff member

Strongly Agree

answered question

Evaluation for College Committees - CPPC

2015

Agree

Agree

Faculty member

Administrator

answered question

skipped question

2016 2015

11% 1 14% 1

33% 3 43% 3

0% 0 0% 0

44% 4 0% 0

11% 1 43% 3

9 70 0

22% 2 29% 2

22% 2 14% 1

0% 0 14% 1

56% 5 43% 3

0% 0 0% 0

9 70 0

33% 3 29% 2

11% 1 43% 3

56% 5 0% 0

0% 0 14% 1

0% 0 14% 1

9 70 0

11% 1 29% 2

44% 4 14% 1

0% 0 14% 1

44% 4 14% 1

0% 0 29% 2

9 70 0skipped question

answered question

Agree


8. All members were encouraged to participate in discussions and provide input.

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Agree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Strongly Agree

answered question

skipped question

Agree


7. Committee members had appropriate information to make informed recommendations.

Strongly Agree

Strongly Agree


Disagree


answered question

skipped question

skipped questionanswered question

Strongly Disagree

10. The committee worked effectively towards fulfilling its purpose and responsibilities.

9. I understand the committee's purpose and responsibilities.

Agree

For the complete copy of survey results see: http://www.ccsf.edu/PGC/2016/August_18/PGC%20Evaluation%202016.pdf

(see comment #4)

COMMITTEE-RELATED EXCERPT (Q6 & Q7) FROM OVERALL PGC SELF EVALUATION SURVEY

636 9th Street | Oakland, CA 94607 | P. 510.873.8866 | F. 510.873.8868 / www.sandis.net

SUNNYVALE ROSEVILLE OAKLAND SAN FRANCISCO

September 9, 2016 615100.A Phil Newsom

tBP Architecture 1777 Oakland Boulevard, Suite 320, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 RE: CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO – OCEAN AVENUE CAMPUS SUMMARY OF FINDINGS OF PRELIMINARY PARKING ANALYSIS SAN FRANCISCO CA, CA Dear Phil, The intent of this letter is to provide a summary of the parking demand study (Study) prepared for the Ocean Avenue Campus of the City College of San Francisco (Campus). The study included the collection of parking occupancy data, analysis of this data to determine the existing peak parking demand, and forecasts of future parking demands. Campus Parking Supply Overview The Campus is generally bound by Judson Ave to the north, I-280 to the east, Ocean Ave to the south, and Plymouth Ave to the west. There are a total of 2964 available parking stalls located both along internal campus roadways and a series of parking lots. These stalls include both designated student and employee parking as well as accessible parking stalls. Refer to Figure 1 for an overview of the individual parking lots and on-street parking locations.

September 9, 2016 Phil Newsom

615100.A Page No. 2



Campus Parking Demand Survey The parking demand survey involved the collection of occupancy counts for all parking stalls located within the Campus on an hourly basis. Hourly data was collected between 8am and 8pm on Wednesday, August 17, 2016. Table 1 provides a summary of the data collected. Review of Table 1 will indicate that the overall Campus parking demand peaked at 78% of available stalls occupied between 11am and 12pm. To allow for efficient circulation and turnover best engineering practice is to operate a parking lot at no more than 85% full. Refer to Appendix A for an hourly breakdown of occupancy for each individual lot and on-street parking grouping. Table 1 – Parking Occupancy Summary

Start Time 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM Noon 1:00 PM

Su

pp

ly

De

ma

nd

Pe

rce

nt

Occ

up

ied

De

ma

nd

Pe

rce

nt

Occ

up

ied

De

ma

nd

Pe

rce

nt

Occ

up

ied

De

ma

nd

Pe

rce

nt

Occ

up

ied

De

ma

nd

Pe

rce

nt

Occ

up

ied

De

ma

nd

Pe

rce

nt

Occ

up

ied

Total 2964 801 27% 1747 59% 2214 75% 2309 78% 2076 70% 1872 63%

Start

Time 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM

Su

pp

ly

De

ma

nd

Pe

rce

nt

Occ

up

ied

De

ma

nd

Pe

rce

nt

Occ

up

ied

De

ma

nd

Pe

rce

nt

Occ

up

ied

De

ma

nd

Pe

rce

nt

Occ

up

ied

De

ma

nd

Pe

rce

nt

Occ

up

ied

De

ma

nd

Pe

rce

nt

Occ

up

ied

De

ma

nd

Pe

rce

nt

Occ

up

ied

Total 2964 1622 55% 1380 47% 1122 38% 916 31% 1047 35% 1086 37% 849 29%

Future Parking Demand Projections Using Facilities Master Plan projections of future student enrollment, the near-term (2020) and long-term (2026) Campus parking demands are forecast in Table 2 below. Review of Table 2 will indicate that the Campus is not anticipating a measureable increase in student enrollment in the near-term and therefore the parking demand is expected to remain relatively consistent. Long-term enrollment is however forecast to increase by 25%, which is forecast to result in a similar level of parking demand. The peak parking demand forecast for 2026 is 2,886 stalls. The 2020 and 2026 forecasted demand assumes that there is not a change in transportation mode split. To preserve efficient operations in the parking lots the total occupancy rate should be kept to 85%. To achieve this under the forecasted 2026 peak conditions the total parking supply would need to be 3,395 stalls.

September 9, 2016 Phil Newsom

615100.A Page No. 3



Table 2 – Future Paring Demand

Year of

Fall

Semester

Day Graded

Enrollment,

Ocean Campus

% Increase from

Current

Enrollment

Peak Parking

Demand (# of

Stalls)

Peak Parking

Demand (%

of Stalls)

Notes

2016 19,600* Current 2309 77.9% Year of Parking Survey

2020 19,600* 0% 2309 77.9%

Near-term horizon of Facilities

Master Plan (no enrollment increase)

2026 24,500* 25% 2886 97.4%

Long-term horizon of Facilities

Master Plan (25% enrollment

increase)

*CCSF Facilities Master Plan, Space Needs Analysis, tBP/Architecture dated 9-1-16 Daily Enrollment Variations After the parking occupancy survey was completed CCSF compiled daily enrollment totals and hourly enrollment breakdowns for the week during which the survey was performed. The enrollment totals showed that Wednesday is the day of highest enrollment at 20,072 with the busiest hour being 9am with 3,857 enrolled students and 3,055 enrolled students for the 11am hour. The adjacent days of Tuesday and Thursday have lower total enrollment however the peak at 9am is larger reaching 4,233 on Tuesday and 4,224 on Thursday. Similarly the enrollment at 11am on those days is higher than Wednesday reaching 3,784 and 3,792 respectively. These variations reflect the impacts of class schedules and part time students who may be on campus for only a part of the week. Further analysis is needed to extrapolate the impacts this data will have on parking demand. Please feel free to contact me at 510.590.3421 should you have any questions or require additional information. Regards,

Ron Sanzo, PE, TE, PTOE Senior Traffic Engineer

Attachments: Appendix A – Parking Survey Results Appendix B – Parking Survey Results Exhibit

City College of San FranciscoParking Occupancy Counts at CCSFWednesday, 8‐17‐2016

Appendix A – Parking Survey Results

Type

Supp

ly

Dem

and

Percen

t Occup

ied

Dem

and

Percen

t Occup

ied

Dem

and

Percen

t Occup

ied

Dem

and

Percen

t Occup

ied

Dem

and

Percen

t Occup

ied

Dem

and

Percen

t Occup

ied

Dem

and

Percen

t Occup

ied

Dem

and

Percen

t Occup

ied

Dem

and

Percen

t Occup

ied

Dem

and

Percen

t Occup

ied

Dem

and

Percen

t Occup

ied

Dem

and

Percen

t Occup

ied

Dem

and

Percen

t Occup

ied

R 15 11 73% 15 100% 15 100% 15 100% 15 100% 15 100% 15 100% 15 100% 15 100% 14 93% 15 100% 13 87% 13 87%HC 2 0 0% 2 100% 2 100% 1 50% 2 100% 2 100% 1 50% 1 50% 1 50% 2 100% 2 100% 2 100% 1 50%

Total 17 11 65% 17 100% 17 100% 16 94% 17 100% 2 12% 16 94% 16 94% 16 94% 16 94% 17 100% 15 88% 14 82%

R 21 17 81% 16 76% 17 81% 17 81% 16 76% 15 71% 12 57% 12 57% 9 43% 7 33% 7 33% 8 38% 6 29%

Total 21 17 81% 16 76% 17 81% 17 81% 16 76% 15 71% 12 57% 12 57% 9 43% 7 33% 7 33% 8 38% 6 29%

R 9 9 100% 9 100% 9 100% 9 100% 9 100% 9 100% 8 89% 8 89% 7 78% 8 89% 8 89% 8 89% 8 89%

Total 9 9 100% 9 100% 9 100% 9 100% 9 100% 9 100% 8 89% 8 89% 7 78% 8 89% 8 89% 8 89% 8 89%

R 8 6 75% 8 100% 7 88% 8 100% 8 100% 6 75% 7 88% 8 100% 8 100% 7 88% 8 100% 8 100% 5 63%

Total8 6 75% 8 100% 7 88% 8 100% 8 100% 6 75% 7 88% 8 100% 8 100% 7 88% 8 100% 8 100% 5 63%

R 9 5 56% 4 44% 6 67% 5 56% 9 100% 6 67% 4 44% 4 44% 5 56% 5 56% 9 100% 9 100% 10 111%HC 7 3 43% 5 71% 7 100% 5 71% 5 71% 4 57% 5 71% 5 71% 6 86% 7 100% 7 100% 4 57% 6 86%

Total 16 8 50% 9 56% 13 81% 10 63% 14 88% 10 63% 9 56% 9 56% 11 69% 12 75% 16 100% 13 81% 16 100%

R 18 10 56% 16 89% 17 94% 17 94% 17 94% 17 94% 15 83% 13 72% 13 72% 9 50% 14 78% 17 94% 13 72%HC 1 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 1 100% 1 100% 1 100% 1 100% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 1 100% 1 100% 0 0%

Total 19 10 53% 16 84% 18 95% 18 95% 18 95% 18 95% 16 84% 14 74% 13 68% 9 47% 15 79% 18 95% 13 68%

R 164 65 40% 151 92% 164 100% 163 99% 160 98% 146 89% 142 87% 125 76% 106 65% 79 48% 87 53% 103 63% 85 52%

Total 164 65 40% 151 92% 164 100% 163 99% 160 98% 146 89% 142 87% 125 76% 106 65% 79 48% 87 53% 103 63% 85 52%

R 64 2 3% 58 91% 68 106% 68 106% 65 102% 48 75% 38 59% 30 47% 16 25% 10 16% 7 11% 2 3% 2 3%

Total 64 2 3% 58 91% 68 106% 68 106% 65 102% 48 75% 38 59% 30 47% 16 25% 10 16% 7 11% 2 3% 2 3%

R 136 25 18% 84 62% 118 87% 130 96% 114 84% 98 72% 95 70% 81 60% 59 43% 39 29% 48 35% 54 40% 38 28%HC 10 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 30% 4 40% 4 40% 3 30% 3 30% 3 30% 1 10% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Total 146 25 17% 84 58% 118 81% 133 91% 118 81% 102 70% 98 67% 84 58% 62 42% 40 27% 48 33% 54 37% 38 26%

R 10 6 60% 10 100% 10 100% 10 100% 10 100% 7 70% 8 80% 6 60% 7 70% 5 50% 7 70% 7 70% 8 80%

Total 10 6 60% 10 100% 10 100% 10 100% 10 100% 7 70% 8 80% 6 60% 7 70% 5 50% 7 70% 7 70% 8 80%

R 10 12 120% 6 60% 7 70% 7 70% 10 100% 11 110% 11 110% 13 130% 14 140% 11 110% 11 110% 10 100% 12 120%

Total 10 12 120% 6 60% 7 70% 7 70% 10 100% 11 110% 11 110% 13 130% 14 140% 11 110% 11 110% 10 100% 12 120%

R 29 24 83% 26 90% 27 93% 28 97% 28 97% 25 86% 26 90% 22 76% 19 66% 25 86% 25 86% 29 100% 23 79%HC 2 2 100% 2 100% 2 100% 1 50% 1 50% 0 0% 0 0% 2 100% 1 50% 1 50% 2 100% 2 100% 0 0%

Total 31 26 84% 28 90% 29 94% 29 94% 29 94% 25 81% 26 84% 24 77% 20 65% 26 84% 27 87% 31 100% 23 74%

s/o Cloud Hall(4) HC 2 1 50% 1 50% 1 50% 1 50% 1 50% 2 100% 2 100% 1 50% 1 50% 1 50% 2 100% 1 50% 1 50%

n/o Cloud Hall HC 3 3 100% 3 100% 3 100% 3 100% 3 100% 2 67% 2 67% 3 100% 3 100% 1 33% 2 67% 1 33% 1 33%

Total 5 4 80% 4 80% 4 80% 4 80% 4 80% 4 80% 4 80% 4 80% 4 80% 2 40% 4 80% 2 40% 2 40%

Notes:R ‐Regular parking (2) 10 marked spaces, vehicles park every which way; 4 ‐ 8 pm vehicles double park. 0% ‐ 49%HC ‐ Handicapped parking (3) Total supply includes 3 stalls for loading (yellow zone); vehicles park there as well 50% ‐ 84%EMP‐ Employee (4) Besides 2 HC stalls, there are also 3 stalls for Police 85% ‐ 100%STU‐Student (5) Total supply includes 5 stalls for PoliceFAC‐Faculty

Legend

8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM

Parking btwn Library & Wellness Center

Science Circle (3)

Parking by maint. shop

Parking on West Rd.

11:00 AM Noon 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PMStart Time

S Lot ‐ Student Parking

D Lot ‐ Student Parking

Parking behind Visual Arts

Howth Extension Parking

C Lot ‐ Employee Parking

Parking by maint. shop

N Lot ‐ Employee Parking

Maintenance Parking (2)

Accessible Parking

4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM

Page 1 of 2

City College of San FranciscoParking Occupancy Counts at CCSFWednesday, 8‐17‐2016

Appendix A – Parking Survey Results

Type

Supp

ly

Dem

and

Percen

t Occup

ied

Dem

and

Percen

t Occup

ied

Dem

and

Percen

t Occup

ied

Dem

and

Percen

t Occup

ied

Dem

and

Percen

t Occup

ied

Dem

and

Percen

t Occup

ied

Dem

and

Percen

t Occup

ied

Dem

and

Percen

t Occup

ied

Dem

and

Percen

t Occup

ied

Dem

and

Percen

t Occup

ied

Dem

and

Percen

t Occup

ied

Dem

and

Percen

t Occup

ied

Dem

and

Percen

t Occup

ied

8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM Noon 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PMStart Time 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM

R 81 38 47% 79 98% 79 98% 79 98% 78 96% 79 98% 79 98% 76 94% 76 94% 58 72% 59 73% 55 68% 41 51%HC 4 0 0% 3 75% 4 100% 4 100% 4 100% 4 100% 2 50% 1 25% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Total 85 38 45% 82 96% 83 98% 83 98% 82 96% 83 98% 81 95% 77 91% 76 89% 58 68% 59 69% 55 65% 41 48%

R 63 35 56% 63 100% 62 98% 63 100% 63 100% 64 102% 65 103% 62 98% 60 95% 43 68% 21 33% 14 22% 9 14%HC 4 1 25% 1 25% 2 50% 3 75% 4 100% 4 100% 3 75% 1 25% 2 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Total 67 36 54% 64 96% 64 96% 66 99% 67 100% 68 101% 68 101% 63 94% 62 93% 43 64% 21 31% 14 21% 9 13%

R 39 36 92% 35 90% 27 69% 34 87% 37 95% 37 95% 37 95% 39 100% 33 85% 33 85% 32 82% 33 85% 32 82%HC 29 9 31% 21 72% 22 76% 23 79% 17 59% 17 59% 12 41% 13 45% 12 41% 7 24% 14 48% 16 55% 5 17%

Total 68 45 66% 56 82% 49 72% 57 84% 54 79% 54 79% 49 72% 52 76% 45 66% 40 59% 46 68% 49 72% 37 54%

R 7 0 0% 0 0% 1 14% 3 43% 3 43% 3 43% 3 43% 3 43% 3 43% 4 57% 2 29% 4 57% 4 57%

Total7 0 0% 0 0% 1 14% 3 43% 3 43% 3 43% 3 43% 3 43% 3 43% 4 57% 2 29% 4 57% 4 57%

WEST R 34 34 100% 34 100% 34 100% 34 100% 34 100% 32 94% 32 94% 30 88% 28 82% 32 94% 35 103% 35 103% 25 74%

EAST R 27 26 96% 27 100% 27 100% 27 100% 27 100% 26 96% 27 100% 26 96% 25 93% 27 100% 27 100% 28 104% 26 96%

Total61 60 98% 61 100% 61 100% 61 100% 61 100% 58 95% 59 97% 56 92% 53 87% 59 97% 62 102% 63 103% 51 84%

STU R 984 6 1% 161 16% 407 41% 457 46% 344 35% 228 23% 140 14% 89 9% 48 5% 27 3% 16 2% 11 1% 7 1%

STU HC 20 1 5% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Total1004 7 1% 161 16% 407 41% 457 46% 344 34% 228 23% 140 14% 89 9% 48 5% 27 3% 16 2% 11 1% 7 1%

EMP R 57 18 32% 37 65% 54 95% 54 95% 51 89% 51 89% 52 91% 51 89% 42 74% 29 51% 27 47% 35 61% 30 53%

STU R 704 365 52% 709 101% 705 100% 699 99% 653 93% 652 93% 552 78% 440 63% 331 47% 295 42% 441 63% 486 69% 385 55%

Total 761 383 50% 746 98% 759 100% 753 99% 704 93% 703 92% 604 79% 491 65% 373 49% 324 43% 468 61% 521 68% 415 55%

EMP R 132 17 13% 47 36% 80 61% 96 73% 94 71% 97 73% 85 64% 91 69% 91 69% 73 55% 48 36% 35 27% 20 15%

EMP HC 27 0 0% 9 33% 20 74% 19 70% 13 48% 13 48% 19 70% 7 26% 8 30% 5 19% 9 33% 10 37% 7 26%

STU R 198 14 7% 92 46% 188 95% 198 100% 158 80% 143 72% 104 53% 84 42% 60 30% 44 22% 46 23% 41 21% 23 12%

STU HC 7 0 0% 3 43% 1 14% 1 14% 1 14% 1 14% 1 14% 1 14% 1 14% 1 14% 1 14% 0 0% 0 0%

FAC R 27 0 0% 10 37% 20 74% 23 85% 17 63% 18 67% 14 52% 13 48% 9 33% 6 22% 7 26% 4 15% 3 11%

Total391 31 8% 161 41% 309 79% 337 86% 283 72% 272 70% 223 57% 196 50% 169 43% 129 33% 111 28% 90 23% 53 14%

2964 801 27% 1747 59% 2214 75% 2309 78% 2076 70% 1872 63% 1622 55% 1380 47% 1122 38% 916 31% 1047 35% 1086 37% 849 29%

Notes:R ‐Regular parking (2) 10 marked spaces, vehicles park every which way; 4 ‐ 8 pm vehicles double park. 0% ‐ 49%HC ‐ Handicapped parking (3) Total supply includes 3 stalls for loading (yellow zone); vehicles park there as well 50% ‐ 84%EMP‐ Employee (4) Besides 2 HC stalls, there are also 3 stalls for Police 85% ‐ 100%STU‐Student (5) Total supply includes 5 stalls for PoliceFAC‐Faculty

Legend

Upper Reservoir Lot

Q Lot

Phelan Ave. (1)

Total

Parking behind bungalow 200's

A Lot ‐ Employee Parking

H Lot ‐ Employee Parking

Cloud Circle (5)

Lower Reservoir Lot

Page 2 of 2

N-Lot Employee Parking

S-Lot Student Parking

D-Lot Student Parking

A-Lot Employee Parking

H-Lot Employee Parking

C-Lot EmployeeParking

Parking by Maintenance Shop

Parallel parking between Library and Wellness Center

Parking on West Road

Parking by Maintenance Shop

Howth Extension ParkingOCEAN AVENUE

PH

ELA

N A

VE

NU

E

Angled (including police) parking along Cloud Circle

Parking behind Visual Arts

Maintenance Parking

Accessible parking north of Cloud Hall

Accessible parking south of Cloud Hall

Parallel parking along Science Circle

N

SANDIS8/17/16 Parking Survey Results

Q-Lot Employee Parking

Upper Reservoir Lot Student Parking

Upper Reservoir Lot Employee Parking

Q-Lot Student Parking

Lower Reservoir Lot Student Parking

Parking behind Bungalow 200's

Phelan Ave.

Legend 0% - 49% 50% - 84% 85% - 100%

Appendix B - Parking Survey Results Exhibit

Prepared by the Ocean Avenue Association’s Street Life Committee Approved by the Balboa Park Station Community Advisory Committee in April 2016

Urban Design Issues and Proposals for

City College of San Francisco’s Ocean Campus

Rendering of Ocean Campus entrance at Howth Street from 2004 Facilities Master Plan

Corridor improvements from Phelan Avenue to I280 Freeway from March 2015 Ocean Avenue Corridor Design Study

1

RAMPANT JAYWALKING During the week, thousands of pedestrians illegally cross the four vehicle lanes and two streetcar lanes back and forth from Ocean Campus and to the Balboa Park Station. Mainly they are students seeking quick access to and from City College of San Francisco’s Ocean Campus. Ever since BART opened the Ocean Avenue entrance in 2011, this has increasingly occurred without being addressed. PROPOSALS The San Francisco Community College District Police Department officers should educate, warn and possibly cite jaywalkers—even if only during the beginning of each semester. CCSF staff should engage the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency in investigating the installation of a median barrier between the outbound and inbound streetcar tracks to prevent jaywalking like on 19th Avenue for the MOcean View streetcar line. GENEVAPHELANOCEAN INTERSECTION This intersection is frequently congested to the point of gridlock and does not adequately serve all modes of transit. Pedestrians and bicyclists are ill served and can often be put in danger. The right turn lane often backs up all the way to the I280 offramp. The Ocean Avenue Corridor Study’s longterm plan addresses this. PROPOSALS CCSF should urge SFMTA should investigate installing a pedestrian traffic scramble. These offer a modern solution to the problem of jaywalking across short thoroughfares, incorporating expected patterns of pedestrian behavior to reduce the likelihood of pedestrianvehicle collisions. CCSF should urge SFMTA to beautify crosswalks, landscaping, and creative art including mosaics or unique painted designs. PHELAN AVENUE CROSSWALKS The Phelan Avenue crosswalks should be more userfriendly and safe. Many pedestrians jaywalk because the timing is off and they have to wait for a long time. PROPOSAL CCSF should consult with the SFMTA about the light timing and putting continental crosswalks to make pedestrians more visible. Additional pedestrian lighting should be installed.

2

OCEAN AVENUE COMPLETE STREET In 2014, San Francisco’s Planning Department, the Ocean Avenue Association and BART Director Tom Radulovich met with CCSF Vice Chancellor of Finance and Administration Ron Gerhard and Director of Facilities Fred Sturner about improving Ocean Avenue. It was determined that moving the streetcar stop to Howth Street—as suggested in the Balboa Park Station Area Plan—was the best way to create a Complete Street, which is defined as a street that gives equal and effective access to all modes of transportation. As it stands, Ocean Avenue does not offer enough space to pedestrians and bicyclists on this block to meet the Complete Street criteria. City College Streetcar Stop: The existing nonADA compliant streetcar stop narrows the intersection causing increased traffic, preventing the aforementioned Complete Street. The stop would be much more useable if moved to Howth Street where CCSF and LickWilmerding High School students could use it to better effect. CCSF should urge the the appropriate city agencies to pursue this. Pedestrian Bridge: After two LickWilmerding High School students were injured by a speeding car on Ocean Avenue in the 1970s, the remedy was to put in an expensive pedestrian bridge instead of managing traffic at the street level. The bridge has been poorlymaintained. It is not ADA accessible. It has not been upgraded so its stairs do not meet code. Moreover, the actual convenience of this bridge is deceptive. It gets a fraction of the number of pedestrians since the Ocean Avenue BART entrance opened in 2011. Land Swap for Complete Street from PhelanGeneva to San Jose Avenues: In order to create a complete street, CCSF must give up some land to accommodate all traffic lanes, a twoway dedicated bicycle lane, an exclusive rightturn lane to Phelan Avenue and sidewalk widening. PROPOSAL CCSF should urge the appropriate city agencies to immediately begin planning on moving the streetcar stop to the Health and Wellness Center and LWHS at Howth Street in order to provide a more useable/ADA facility for the eastern side of Ocean Campus.

3

CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO FACILITIES MASTER PLAN For too long has the Ocean Campus turned its back on its budding urban neighborhood to the detriment of both entities. Modern higher education institutions, like the exemplary University California Berkeley for example, integrate with the neighborhoods they surround to great effect. PROPOSALS The Facilities Master Plan should include building along the Ocean Avenue sidewalk to create an urban and pedestrianfriendly environment. This would entail removing the extant retaining wall. CCSF should urge the SFMTA to enhance the crosswalks at Howth Street to give the impression of an entrance like the 2004 Facilities Master Plan rendering shows. (See Page 1) Lighting around the edges of the campus should be enhanced for safety. Landscaping the West Ocean Campus building(s) is needed. The MultiUse Building and former Bookstore Annex lack the trees and landscaping as detailed in the 2004 Facilities Master Plan. With so many students driving to campus and buildable land at a premium, a parking structure on campus is an inevitability. The entrance should be located as close to the freeway on and off ramps as possible, but should not allow a parking structure to define and dominate the campus. CCSF should encourage public transit use by faculty, staff and students—perhaps with some sort of an incentive program. CCSF should encourage pedestrians and bicyclists by providing better facilities and protection from motor vehicles for them. The Facilities Master Plan should prepare for the eventuality of the I280 offramp straightening project which will install a traffic light allowing vehicles to turn left or right onto Ocean Avenue from the 280 freeway. There is a yield sign and crosswalk at the offramp currently. The college should actively pursue making its Ocean Avenue frontage a walkable landscaped and properly lighted pedestrian area. The college should use its extensive art collection. There should be a sculpture garden created in an easily accessible street facing location where art can be shown. The Facilities Master Plan should take more input from neighbors. Students stay for a few years. Neighbors are there for the duration.

4

www.sfplanning.org

CCSF Facilities Master Plan Update Meeting (September 16, 2016) Planning Department Comments on Ocean Campus Options Presentation to FMP Advisory Working Group – August 29, 2016

Overall Planning Department Priorities

1. Activate the public realm by 1) siting and orienting buildings towards City streets, public spaces, and pedestrian access; and 2) avoiding large clusters of parking, maintenance, and service facilities that front public streets or other public spaces.

• Buildings fronting City streets should be sited at the sidewalk edge, not set back behind parking or large open spaces.

• In Options 4 and 5, consider uses other than/in addition to parking on the parcels west of Phelan. Concentrating on parking, almost exclusively, will ensure Phelan remains highly auto-oriented, will create a barrier between the campus and surrounding uses, and will reduce safety and attractiveness for students, employees, and neighbors walking in the area. Programming a greater diversity of uses for this opportunity site is preferred.

• In all Options, the child care facility is located behind a large parking structure and/or parking lot. It is recommended to incorporate child care and all buildings into a coherent urban design that lines city streets and public spaces with active uses, pedestrian-oriented entries, and sidewalks.

• The Phelan/Ocean intersection is an important campus gateway; whether a building or open space is planned for this corner, it should be a signature campus facility that is community-facing and inviting. Parking should not be the outward face of the campus.

o As shown in Option 2, having student services at Ocean/Phelan corner is optimal for creating an active frontage along Ocean and a campus gateway (as opposed to options 1 and 3 where it is parking).

o As shown in Option 4, arts complex at Ocean/Phelan could work, but it is important to make sure this corner is highly activated/outward facing.

• Consider pedestrian-oriented uses – including potential buildings or facilities – to replace the parking areas to the south and east of the MUB.

• Understanding the constraints of underground geothermal facilities, consider site designs for the parking area west of the MUB to complement Unity Plaza, the affordable housing at 1100 Ocean Avenue, and future housing on the Balboa Reservoir site.

2. Design the campus to foster openness, connection, and compatibility with the surrounding

neighborhood, including the Balboa Reservoir development. • Design the campus around a coherent urban form and public space concept that

encourages neighborhood use of its open spaces and facilities.

2

• Scale buildings to respect surrounding neighborhoods. • In relation to the Balboa Reservoir development, work with City to identify potential

street routes, pedestrian pathways, and development interfaces. Utilize adjacent block patterns and pedestrian connections to inform campus design.

• Orient east-west streets west of Phelan to prioritize the view to/from Science Hall, to connect to surrounding streets, and to encourage pedestrian and bicycle access from surrounding neighborhoods.

3. Minimize the size of parking facilities and reduce their visual presence from the public realm. • Work with the City to improve student access to campus while reducing long-term

demand for parking and construction of new parking facilities. This is a primary objective of the Balboa Area TDM plan.

• Prioritize design, policy, and transportation services for the entire district that reduce the need to construct large parking structures – for a fraction of the cost. If large parking structures are considered (particularly at primary campus gateways such as Ocean & Phelan, Judson & Phelan, and on Phelan south of High School), they should be wrapped at ground level (at a minimum) with active uses along the street-facing sides. Street-fronting surface parking at these locations is highly discouraged.

• Consider how parking can be supplied in existing facilities and how the campus can be designed around a future when car use is lower. When parking structures are considered, design them so they can be adaptively reused for other uses in the future.

4. Site parking facilities and vehicular entries to minimize congestion and vehicle circulation in surrounding residential neighborhoods.

• For Options 1, 2, and 3, how would vehicular access to the large parking structure east of the stadium be handled?

5. Coordinate efforts with the City to implement the Ocean Avenue streetscape design articulated in the Ocean and Geneva Corridor Design project.

• Consider how the campus’s important southern edge on Ocean Avenue can be programmed and designed to improve connectivity to the surrounding community and transit facilities while complementing the proposed streetscape design. Ocean Avenue is a critical interface with the community and should be programmed to enhance the pedestrian experience and act as a “front door” to campus.

• View the design here: http://sf-planning.org/ocean-avenue-corridor-design

http://sf-planning.org/ocean-avenue-corridor-design

3

Additional Feedback

FMP Goals, Slide 19

• Recommended edits to goal 24: “Improve access between each campus and the surrounding communities by encouraging and incentivizing ever greater numbers of students and employees to access City College by walking, cycling, and transit.”

• Recommended edits to goal 25: “Accommodate vehicles at the Ocean Campus for students and employees, while incentivizing transportation sustainability, safety and choices.”

• Recommend additional goal: “In order to better establish City College as an integrated part of the communities it serves, improve the physical interface between each campus and the surrounding community, emphasizing land use and design compatibility, proper scale, and multi-modal connectivity.”

Other Comments on FMP Options/Alternatives

• General Questions/Comments for All Options: o What do red and blue arrows indicate? o What do blank grey areas represent? Parking? o Consider opportunities to engage SFFD and MTA in reimaging the northwestern corner

of Ocean/Phelan as a gateway to the campus and community. • Option 1

o Large new open spaces created on north side of campus; what is the plan for these spaces? Rather than as “negative space,” we encourage open spaces to be scaled appropriately to nearby buildings, to invite public use, and to be programmed based on student or public need. Consider complementing and coordinating with future open spaces on the Balboa Reservoir site.

• Option 2 o Large new open spaces created; what is the plan for these spaces?

• Option 4 o Has feasibility of podium parking been assessed, both from an architectural/structural

and traffic circulation perspective? Concern with bringing high traffic volumes to the center of campus.

capital projects planning committee / facilities master plan … · 2016-09-21 · capital projects...

Documents