SFSU Campus Master Plan 2007

Campus Master Plan
S a n F r a n c i s c o S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
July 2007
2 0 0 7 - 2 0 2 0

Acknowledgements
The SF State 2007–2020 Campus Master Plan is the product of efforts by many that have spanned almost two years.
From initial discussions about the campus to development of the final plan, thanks are due to those on the following lists.
As with any project of this magnitude, there may be individuals whose names were overlooked. We apologize for any
oversights, but please accept our thanks for your contribution.
First and foremost, thank you to all the students, faculty, staff, and community members who took time to attend meet-
ings and open houses, and provided their valuable comments
SF State Campus Master Plan Steering Committee
John Gemello
Co-Chair; Provost and Vice President, Academic Affairs
Leroy Morishita
Co-Chair; Vice President and CFO, Administration & Finance
Lee Blitch
Vice President, University Advancement
Gene Chelberg
Director, Disability Programs & Resource Center
Caran Colvin
Associate Dean, College of Business
Maire Fowler
President, Associated Students
John Kim
Acting Associate Vice President, Academic Resources
Simon Lam
Associate Vice President, Capital Planning, Design and
Construction
David Meredith
Chair, Academic Senate; Professor, Mathematics
Enrique Riveros-Schafer
Associate Vice President, Academic Affairs
Don Taylor
Dean, College of Health & Human Services
Jo Volkert
Associate Vice President, Enrollment Planning &
Management
Nancy Wilkinson
Chair and Professor, Geography & Human Environmental
Studies

Rob Wlliams
Vice-Chair and Statewide Senator, Academic Senate;
Associate Professor, Counseling
Staff to Steering Committee
Robert Hutson
Associate Vice President, Facilities & Service Enterprises
Richard Macias
Campus Planner, Capital Planning, Design & Construction
Zelinda Zingaro
Director, Campus Asset & Space Administration
SF State Campus Master Plan Subcommittees
Academics
John Gemello
(Committee Chair) Provost and Vice President, Academic
Affairs
Andrea Boyle
Associate Professor, Nursing
Kimberly Castillo
Student Representative
Gene Chelberg
Caran Colvin

Ken Fehrman
Professor, Consumer & Family Studies/Dietetics
Saran Indigo Goodeson
John Kim
Acting Associate Vice President, Academic Resources
David Meredith
Chair, Academic Senate; Professor, Mathematics
Amy Nichols
Associate Professor/Associate Director, Graduate Program,
Nursing
Christopher Wenshen Pong
Associate Professor, Engineering
Associate Vice President, Academic Affairs
Genie Stowers
Director/Professor, Public Administration
Don Taylor
Dean, College of Health & Human Services
Jo Volkert
Associate Vice President, Enrollment Planning &
Management
Nancy Wilkinson
Chair/ Professor, Geography & Human Environmental Studies

Rob Williams
Associate Professor, Counseling Department; Vice-Chair and
Statewide Senator, Academic Senate

Darlene Yee
Professor/Director, Health Mobility & Safety Lab
Campus Community
Alastair Smith
(Committee Chair) Director, Student Health Services
Jack Brewer
Director, Career Center
Guy Dalpe
Managing Director, Student Center
Joey Greenwell
Director, Office of Student Programs/Leadership
Development
Richard Macias
Campus Planner; Capital Planning, Design & Construction
Kevin Mikami
DJ Morales
Director, Residential Life, Housing & Residential Services
Willie Mullins
Clinical Director, Counseling Center, Counseling &
Psychological Services
Bita Shooshani
Prevention Education, Counseling & Psychological Services
Mike Simpson
Director, Athletics
Brett Smith
Director, Undergraduate Advising Center
Nina Jo Smith
Coordinator, S.A.F.E. Place, Student Affairs
Rob Strong
General Manager, SFSU Bookstore
Rob Williams
Ginger Yamamoto
Director, EOP
Zelinda Zingaro
Director, Campus Asset & Space Administration
Enrollment and Housing
Jan Andreasen
(Committee Co-Chair) Executive Director, University Housing
Jo Volkert
(Committee Co-Chair) Associate Vice President, Enrollment
Management & Planning
Mark Goodrich
Director, Conference & Residential Services

Ann Hallum
Dean, Graduate Studies
Jim Kohn
Chair/Professor, English
Richard Macias
Christopher Oropeza
Rob Williams
Zelinda Zingaro
Director, Campus Asset & Space Management
Communications and Outreach
Ellen Griffin
(Committee Chair) Director, University Communications
Derek Aitken
Associate Director, Government & Community Relations
Jack Brewer
Director, Career Center
Caran Colvin
Richard Macias
Sheila McClear
Director, Special Projects, President’s Office
Jason Porth
Associate Director, Government & Community Relations
Jon Rood
Associate Vice President, Division of Information Technology
Joicy Serrano
Lisbet Sunshine
Director, Government & Community Relations
Zelinda Zingaro
Transportation, Circulation and Parking
Robert Hutson
(Committee Chair) Associate Vice President, Facilities &
Service Enterprises
Gene Chelberg
Rick Forster
Sr. General Manager, Stonestown
Lily Gee
Administrative Analyst/Specialist, Department of Public
Safety/Parking
Simon Lam
Associate Vice President, Capital Planning, Design &
Construction
Richard Macias
Bert Polacci
Executive Regional Director, Alliance Residential Company
Heather Wallace-Slack
Vice President, Northwest Region, Alliance Residential
Company
Nancy Wilkinson
Chair/ Professor, Geography & Human Environmental Studies
Zelinda Zingaro
Facilities and Infrastructure
Simon Lam
(Committee Chair) Associate Vice President, Capital Planning,
Design & Construction
Mike Blagoyevich
Executive Director, Operations; College of Science &
Engineering

Gene Chelberg
Ryszard Dziadur
Director, College Operations/Comptroller, College of Health
& Human Services

Robert Hutson
Associate Vice President, Facilities & Service Enterprises
Richard Macias
Raquel Rivera Pinderhughes
Professor/Program Director, Urban Studies
Associate Vice President, Academic Resources
Jon Rood
Associate Vice President, Division of Information Technology
Brian Weiner
Administrator, Creative Arts Technical Service
Zelinda Zingaro
Consultant Team
WRT | Solomon ETC
Campus Planning + Urban Design (Prime Consultant)
Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates
Transportation + Parking
Sandis
Civil Engineering (Engineering Lead)
Cammisa & Wipf Consulting Engineers
Electrical Engineering
Mazzetti & Associates, Inc.
Mechanical Engineering
Forell/Elsesser Engineers, Inc.
Structural Engineering
Davis Langdon
Cost Estimating
URS Corporation
Environmental Impact Report
03.TILT
Website Creation

San Francisco State University
Campus Master Plan
Chapter 1.
Executive Summary

San Francisco State University Campus Master Plan
Executive Summary

1. Executive Summary
Setting the Bar
San Francisco State University aspires to be the nation’s preeminent public
urban university.
—San Francisco State University Strategic Plan 2005–2010
Although ambitious, this goal is ultimately achievable because of the University’s
history of academic excellence, its clear strategic vision, and its unique setting in one
of the world’s great cities. The 2007–2020 San Francisco State University Campus
Master Plan provides a vision and clear action plan for the physical development of the
campus through 2020 that will enable the University to continue to provide access to
high-quality higher education.
This is a physical master plan. Its purpose is to create the physical and functional
setting that will facilitate achievement of the University’s strategic goals and support
its academic mission. Specifically, the plan identifies facility, site, and infrastructure
projects that address existing deficiencies and accommodate an increase in enrollment
from 20,000 to 25,000 full-time equivalent students (FTES) by the year 2020. While
Aerial Photo of Existing Campus

Executive Summary

Existing Conditions Analysis
0.4 mile0.2 mile0 mile 0.8 mile
Ecological/Hydrological Context
1905 historic map obtained through the David Rumsey
Historical Map Collection (http://www.davidrumsey.com)
© 2000 by Cartography Associates
Project Boundary
SF State’s unique setting in an area rich
in ecological heritage provides inspira-
tion to the master plan.
the master plan adds roughly 800,000 gross square feet of new academic and aca-
demic/support space to the campus by 2020, all new buildings, with the exception
of Creative Arts and Facilities/corporation yard, are located on the sites of existing
outmoded buildings that are slated for replacement. All new development occurs
within the existing campus boundary.
The starting point for the physical master plan is the University’s strategic plan,
which is based on a set of core values that underlie all areas of campus endeavor.
They are:
Equity and Social Justice
Community Engagement
International Perspectives
Opportunities for Personal and Professional Growth
•
•
•
•

Executive Summary

These core values are expressed in the common themes that run throughout the stra-
tegic plan. They are:
Academic Excellence
Improved Access and Flexibility for Diverse Communities
Engaged and Expanded Intellectual Community
Institutional Culture that Supports Change and Innovation
In particular, one statement in the strategic plan served as a guiding force for the plan-
ning process, suggesting the potential of the master plan to make the University’s core
values evident in the design of the physical environment:
SFSU remains committed to modeling on campus...the world in which we would like
to live.
The characteristics of that world—social responsibility, equity, community engage-
ment, innovation, and achieving individual excellence—coupled with the California
State University (CSU) system’s commitment to sustainability set a clear agenda and
high standard for what this master plan must accomplish.
Using the strategic plan as a starting point, a group of students, faculty, staff, and ad-
ministrators met early in the planning process to brainstorm about the future campus.
The resulting vision statement guided exploration of options and is the foundation of
a long-term vision and master plan characterized by:
Strong Connections to the Surrounding City
Universal Access and Safety
Emphasis on the Pedestrian and Alternative Transportation
A Continuous Greenbelt between 19th Avenue and Lake Merced
A Vibrant On-Campus Community
Recognition in the City and Region
A Campus that Models Sustainability
As the planning team explored ways to give physical form to the campus vision, one
question persisted: What are the physical indicators of a preeminent urban university
campus? To find an answer, the team investigated numerous precedents to determine
which physical characteristics distinguish them as premier urban campuses. Three
important traits emerged:
Distinctive Urbanism
Memorable Public Open Space
Vibrant Campus Community
Distinctive urbanism describes the quality and character of the campus’s architecture,
edges, and deliberately shaped spaces. Memorable public open space defines the na-
ture and quality of the collective outdoor social and recreational spaces. And a vibrant
campus community describes a residential community well integrated with a variety
of social uses and destinations. By embodying all these characteristics, the master plan
lays the groundwork for the University to achieve its strategic aspirations.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Executive Summary

Master Plan Overall Perspective. New campus axes—reinforced by
buildings and tree rows—clarify the campus organization and extend
the core westward. The valley becomes the important central green
space of the campus.
Organizing Framework
Achieving the Vision
The master plan is guided by a set of principles based on
a broader long-term vision for the campus. This vision
describes a sustainable residential campus community or-
ganized around the central valley as a prominent greenway,
strongly connected to the neighboring districts, and served
by public transportation and neighborhood services.
The University seeks approval from the Board of Trustees
for the specific elements contained in the master plan.
Elements of the long-term vision that extend beyond 2020,
described in Chapter 5, are presented as a conceptual
guide, but are considered too uncertain in terms of tim-
ing, configuration, and program to include in the master
plan for approval at this time. A clear vision for the future,
however, does ensure that each decision about the campus
is deliberate, and contributes to the overall functional and
aesthetic clarity of the campus.

Executive Summary

The master plan gives form to the campus vision and principles through the
following key moves:
Reinforcing the academic core and extending it westward
The declining condition of existing academic buildings around the historic
Quad together with the proposed location of the Creative Arts complex at
the western edge of campus present a significant opportunity to strengthen
the academic core and extend it westward. The master plan positions new
replacement academic buildings over time on “redevelopment” sites freed by
the demolition of outmoded facilities. New buildings are sited both to rein-
force the orientation of the Quad and to integrate new east-west axial align-
ments. New academic buildings sited along these axes extend the academic
core westward.
Strengthening the University’s connections to Lake Merced and the
surrounding neighborhoods
The University is uniquely positioned in proximity to Lake Merced and other
important recreational resources such as Fort Funston and Harding Park Golf
Course, and is adjacent to Stonestown Galleria and to several San Francisco
neighborhoods, including Lakeside, Lakeshore Acres, Merced Manor, and
Parkmerced. Yet, the University remains isolated and disconnected from its
surroundings due not only to the significant barriers posed by 19th Avenue
and Lake Merced Boulevard, but also to a general lack of connective net-
work. The master plan removes barriers and enhances connections to these
surrounding areas through paths, public space connections, crossings, open
views and vistas, and a campus edge that is more inviting to the larger com-
munity.
Creating east-west functional and visual connections
The Arts Allée, which connects the Quad to the Creative Arts complex, is
a strong pedestrian connector and signature landscape element within the
academic core. A second east-west axis runs diagonally through the Quad,
visually and physically connecting the core to the valley and Lake Merced be-
yond. These new axes better link the campus internally and to the surround-
ing neighborhoods and visually reinforce the relationship of the campus to
Lake Merced. The east-west alignments and north-south connectors together
form a strong organizing framework that determines the location of new
buildings, clarifies wayfinding, and provides universal access throughout the
campus.
Creating strong north-south connections across the valley and Hol-
loway Avenue that link the University to its residential districts
With the recent acquisition of University Park North (UPN), the valley, which
once formed the northern edge of campus, now can play a central role. Yet,
it also presents a significant obstacle between UPN and the academic core.

Executive Summary

View from Millennium Bridge looking
southwest across Cox Stadium to the
new Science and Ethnic Studies
Psychology complex. Thornton Hall is
on the left.
Likewise, Holloway Avenue—once the southern edge of campus—acts as a barrier to
circulation between the academic core and University Park South (UPS). The master
plan firmly links the campus across the valley by way of a distinctive pedestrian and
bicycle bridge and creates better links across Holloway, making this corridor a more
pedestrian-oriented, functional, and integrated part of campus.
Establishing the valley as the central open space of campus
With the extension of the campus northward to encompass UPN, the valley assumes
a more central role as an open space amenity, improved for outdoor recreation and
enhanced as an ecological resource with native plant communities and natural drain-
age. A key addition to the valley is a surface creek, which evokes the former stream
lost through an underground piping project in the 1940s. The creek captures the
stormwater runoff only from the immediate campus drainage basin and flows west-
ward through a proposed underpass/bridge beneath Lake Merced Boulevard into
Lake Merced, re-establishing this historic connection. A natural stormwater treatment
network ensures a high level of water quality. Recreational trails run across and along
the length of the valley, eventually tying into the Lake Merced trail network via the
proposed underpass.

Executive Summary

Beacons and an expanded green mark
the campus entry at 19th and Hol-
loway Avenues.
Positioning semi-public uses at the corners of campus to create icons that
redefine the University’s external identity
Landmark buildings containing semi-public uses mark the corners of campus. These
uses—the Creative Arts complex, gym/recreation-wellness center, and University Con-
ference Center—not only serve the campus community, but also attract outside users
for performances, conferences, lodging and the like. Placed strategically at prominent
campus corners, they serve as icons that project a strong and identifiable image for
the University and invite the larger community into the campus.
Creating an identifiable and inviting campus perimeter
Through the establishment of architectural and landscape guidelines, the master plan
strengthens the University’s visual identity along the perimeter of campus. The master
plan creates a permeable building edge, with landscape and portals that invite the
public into campus.
Emphasizing transit, walking, biking, and other non-auto modes
As an urban public university in California, SF State already enjoys low drive-alone
commute rates. To provide even better transportation choices, the plan includes
significant on-campus improvements for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users, and it
also proposes partnerships with other agencies and landowners to improve access off
campus.

Executive Summary
10
Decentralizing parking
To restore the valley as the central open space of the campus and reduce the impact of
automobile traffic on the campus and its neighbors, the plan proposes decentralizing
its parking supply over time in a series of facilities located at the campus perimeter.
This promotes the dispersal and interception of traffic from various directions, and it
allows the efficient sharing of parking resources with a variety of users.
Minimizing parking spillover and keeping the parking system financially
solvent
California state law restricts the use of academic funds for parking facilities, requiring
instead that parking construction and operations be financed through parking fees.
Because building parking is expensive—about $20,000 a space in a structure—adding
new parking on campus will significantly increase current parking fees. The result will
be greater demand for transit and other non-auto modes, and also greater potential
for spillover parking into surrounding neighborhoods.
To minimize spillover parking and keep the parking system financially solvent, the
master plan calls for carefully balancing parking additions and losses in such a way
that resulting price increases hold demand steady. The plan also supports working
with the City and the surrounding neighborhoods to make adjustments to Residential
Parking Permit programs to better protect neighborhood from the negative impacts of
spillover parking.
Establishing the 19th Avenue edge as a transit-, bike-, and pedestrian-
friendly parkway
19th Avenue was originally part of San Francisco’s grand plan for a network of park-
ways connecting the city’s diverse neighborhoods. While Sunset Boulevard and Park
Presidio were implemented, the plan for 19th Avenue was not. Although improve-
ments to 19th Avenue are beyond the scope of this study and must to be undertaken
jointly with the City and Caltrans, the master plan offers recommendations for this
important corridor for two reasons: to enhance the campus’s most public and visible
urban edge and to advance the original concept of 19th Avenue as a landscaped park-
way that balances transit, auto, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation. The City’s recent
Green Streets initiative is compatible with this approach.
Redefining Holloway and Buckingham as “college main streets” that an-
chor the residential districts
Urban universities throughout the country have recognized the importance of housing
in recruiting and retaining students and faculty, and in building campus community.
Equally important are vibrant campus main streets that offer a variety of services,
social activities, and amenities. The addition of UPN and UPS expands SF State’s ability
to provide housing. To support the University’s growing residential community and to
serve the neighborhoods, the master plan locates “college main streets” on both the
north and south edges of campus. Holloway Avenue and Buckingham Way are con-

Executive Summary
11
View looking west along Holloway.
Bicycle lanes, tree-lined sidewalks, and
ground-floor shops and cafés make
Holloway a vibrant campus main street.
ceived as vibrant retail streets with housing and a mix of uses that offer opportunities
for shopping, dining, entertainment, and social services, ensuring that the campus and
district operate as a walkable, integrated, and sustainable community.
Modeling sustainability
Through a number of interrelated strategies—close-in affordable housing for faculty,
staff, and students, green building and site design, native landscape, natural storm-
water management, emphasis on public transit and bicycle commuting, walkable
neighborhood retail—the master plan makes sustainability an integral and visible part
of day-to-day campus life. Collectively, these strategies advance system-wide sustain-
ability goals set forth in California State University Executive Order 987, August 2006,
and make the campus a living laboratory for sustainability to educate students who
are informed and responsible citizens.

Executive Summary
12

Campus Master Plan
Chapter 2.
Introduction

Introduction
14
2. Introduction
Purpose and Scope
The 2007–2020 San Francisco State University Campus Master Plan provides a vision
for the physical development of the SF State campus and a detailed implementation
strategy through 2020. The campus master plan treats the campus property in its
entirety and in the context of its unique location in San Francisco. The master plan
embodies SF State’s aspiration to become a “model urban university.”
The campus master plan offers a comprehensive framework to guide physical growth
and change in support of the University’s academic mission. It identifies facility, site,
and infrastructure projects to accommodate an increase in enrollment from 20,000
to 25,000 full-time equivalent students (FTES) and defines the capacity of the cam-
pus for future growth. Specifically, the master plan establishes development sites and
sequencing for projects in two consecutive construction cycles, beginning with those
identified in the University’s 2007-2008 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
The master plan will serve as a reference for all physical improvements—regardless of
scale—to ensure that every project undertaken by the University contributes to the
overall campus vision. The master plan updates and supersedes the 1989 master plan.
It will be used in tandem with the University’s 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan and
summary master plan approved annually by the California State University (CSU) Board
of Trustees.
The master plan is accompanied by the Master Plan Envi-
ronmental Impact Report (EIR), as required by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIR presents a de-
tailed discussion of SF State’s existing environmental setting,
potentially significant physical environmental impacts of the
master plan, proposed mitigation measures, and an analysis
of possible alternatives.
Project Boundary
The campus master plan addresses only the SF State main
campus and does not include the University’s satellite cen-
ters. The project boundary contains 141.6 acres of state-
owned campus land and the 2.5-acre School of the Arts
(SOTA) property, under negotiation for purchase at the time
of this writing. The master plan study treats the entire 144.1
acres as one planning area.
Planning Process
The master plan is the product of close to two years of
collaborative planning, guided by the SF State Master Plan
Steering Committee—composed of faculty, staff, admin-
istrators, and student representatives—and supported by
Wallace Roberts Todd, LLC / Solomon E.T.C., a firm of
campus planners, urban designers, architects and landscape
The Quad is the heart of the SF
State campus
Project Boundary

Introduction
15
architects, and its team of subconsultants. The full planning team brings expertise
in transportation planning; civil, mechanical, electrical, and structural engineering;
environmental consulting; cost estimating; and Web site design.
From early November 2005 through October 2006, the steering committee met
regularly with the planning team to review work produced at each stage of the pro-
cess—from the analysis of existing campus conditions through the various iterations
of the campus design concept.
Members of the six master plan sub-committees—Academics, Campus Community,
Enrollment and Housing, Communications and Outreach, Facilities and Infrastruc-
ture, and Transportation, Circulation and Parking—met with the planning team at
the outset of the project to provide insight on the campus from their respective areas
of expertise, and again at a workshop in May 2006 to evaluate preliminary design
concepts. Additional coordination and information exchange occurred with the indi-
vidual committees as needed, independent of the formal workshops. The President’s
Cabinet also met with the planning team to review work at key milestones through-
out the process.
A visioning charrette held in early December 2005 engaged a group of 35 students,
faculty, staff, and administrators in a half-day of brainstorming about the future
campus and ways to translate into physical terms the core values and related themes
articulated in the University’s strategic plan. The charrette proved to be a seminal
event in the planning process, resulting in a collective vision for the campus that
guided development of the master plan and served as the litmus test as each design
option was explored.
A series of open houses engaged the broader campus community and SF State’s
neighbors and confirmed the campus vision and design approach. The planning team
presented the analysis findings, vision statement, and initial design concepts at two
open houses in April 2006; further concept refinements at an open house in May
2006; and preferred master plan concepts at two open houses held in September
2006. The team presented the draft master plan at three open houses in early Decem-
ber 2006—the first held on campus and the following two in the neighborhoods, at
Parkmerced and Lowell High School, respectively. Throughout the process, the campus
master plan Web site—www.sfsumasterplan.org—chronicled the progress of the
master plan and provided an additional vehicle for community review and comment. It
will serve as a comprehensive and dynamic record of the planning process and master
plan.
The visioning charrette provided an op-
portunity for campus stakeholders to
express their ideas about a future vision
for the campus.
Open house events provided a
forum for community review and
comment.
“It gives me the feeling of being at a really great
school...The campus vision really brings out a new
feeling of excitement.”
“I like how there will be more student housing. It
appears this will create a community that is
currently nonexistent.”

Introduction
16
Development of the Plan
The planning team studied seven options for organizing the campus and locating and
sequencing new development projects before arriving at an eighth and final preferred
concept. Of all future projects, the gym/recreation-wellness center, with its large foot-
print and high-volume spaces, proved to be the most challenging and pivotal element
to site. A further key factor in selecting options was the need to minimize disrup-
tion to departments and programs, avoiding multiple moves into surge space to the
extent possible as new facilities are constructed. Finally, opening up the central valley
remained a strong guiding force for the future arrangement of functions, consistent
with the campus vision.
Because of these complexities, and in order to allow sufficient time to explore options
fully, the University extended the concept phase of the planning process. The selected
concept, described in detail in this report, resolves a number of key challenges: it finds
an ample and relatively unencumbered site for the proposed gym/recreation-wellness
center, allows for the seamless phasing of new construction with minimal disruption to
the academic program, and preserves the campus vision of an open valley greenway.
“The clear lines and
connections through
campus will be a welcome
relief to the convoluted
methods of getting around
now—giving a clear line
from 19th Avenue
down the valley to
Lake Merced.”
“I really like the idea of opening up the green space and re-creating aspects of the
original ecosystem,such as restoring the watershed with the creek and freeing up
the view of Lake Merced from 19th Avenue.
“I want this campus to become more visible to the surroundings and
more attractive to the studentshere.”
“I like the progressive, environmental stance that
emphasizes sustainability. Also, the integration into
the community, like the pedestrian and transit access.”
Quotes from public open house, May 18,
2006, Cesar Chavez Student Center

Campus Master Plan
Chapter 3.
Planning Context

Planning Context
18
3. Planning Context
Location in San Francisco
One of SF State’s great draws is its location in San Francisco, with access to the
cultural richness and natural beauty of the Bay Area. SF State is the city’s only public
4-year undergraduate institution.
Located in the southwest corner of the city, the campus sits along 19th Avenue (State
Route 1), the major north-south connector between Interstate 280 and Highway 101.
Bus stops, such as Muni’s Route #28, are located at the northeast and southeast cor-
ners of the campus. Muni’s M line provides light rail service directly between SF State
and downtown San Francisco, the location of the University’s Downtown Center. The
nearest BART stations are at Daly City and Balboa Park.
The campus is bordered to the east by 19th Avenue and the Lakeside residential area;
to the south by the Parkmerced residential development; to the north by the Ston-
estown Galleria shopping center; and to the west by Lake Merced Boulevard and, be-
yond it, the lake and its associated open spaces, including Harding Park Golf Course,
Fort Funston, and the San Francisco Zoo. Stern Grove is located approximately one
mile north of the academic core of campus (see Neighborhood Context map).
1989 Master Plan
The last comprehensive master plan for the campus was completed in 1989, almost
20 years ago. While many of the principles of the 1989 plan continue to apply,
fundamental changes have occurred in the planning context—notably, acquisition of
significant new property, a new strategic plan for the University, and a system-wide
commitment to sustainable growth—that present opportunities to rethink the campus
in ways that were not possible previously.
Enrollment Growth to 25,000 FTE
The 1989 SF State master plan anticipated enrollment growth to 20,000 full-time
equivalent students (FTES) over a 20- to 30-year period. As of fall 2005, enrollment at
SF State was already approaching its cap of 20,000 FTES.
To continue to meet demand among the state’s growing population for high-quality,
accessible higher education, the California State University (CSU) Office of the Chan-
cellor has set a target of 2.5 percent annual enrollment growth. At this rate, SF State is
projected to reach 25,000 FTES by fall 2015. Since construction of new academic and
support space typically lags behind enrollment growth, the University is not expected
to attain capacity to accommodate 25,000 FTES until 2020.
The charge of the master plan is to provide the physical infrastructure and the most ef-
ficient sequencing of new construction to support an additional 5,000 FTES, as well as
to define the capacity of the campus for growth in the future.
San Francisco downtown skyline—
location in the city is one of the
University’s great assets
SF State’s central Quad

Planning Context
19
Neighborhood Context with Transit Lines
5 min
walk
0’ 1 mile10 min
walk
Muni System Map © MUNI San Francisco Municipal Railway
5 min walk
10 min
walk
SF
STATE
A New Strategic Plan
In August 2005, the University adopted an ambitious strategic plan that calls for San
Francisco State University “to become the nation’s preeminent public urban universi-
ty.” Translating this vision into physical terms was the challenge of the campus master
plan study.
The strategic plan is based on a set of core values that underlie all areas of university
endeavor. They are:
Neighborhood Context

Planning Context
20
Equity and Social Justice
Community Engagement
International Perspectives
Opportunities for Personal and Professional Growth
These values are expressed in a set of common themes that run throughout the strate-
gic plan. They are:
Academic Excellence
Improved Access and Flexibility for Diverse Communities
Engaged and Expanded Intellectual Community
Institutional Culture that Supports Change and Innovation
The task of the master plan is to translate the University’s core values and strategic
themes into a corresponding set of physical strategies that help to strengthen the
intellectual and social fabric of the University—physical moves that build campus com-
munity, foster collaboration, improve accessibility, strengthen the University’s visibility
and image, and forge stronger connections to the surrounding city.
Commitment to Sustainability
Institutions of higher education are making sustainability a central tenet of campus
policy and practice, extending to all aspects of the campus environment, including
green building and site design, energy and water conservation, transportation, pro-
curement, food systems/recycling, and curriculum.
Colleges and universities have a particular responsibility to embrace sustainability in
an exemplary way as they prepare students for lives of responsible citizenship. In his
August 2006 annual address to the faculty, President Robert Corrigan reiterated SF
State’s commitment to educating students who are informed, ethical citizens, and he
called for a campus-wide initiative to make social and personal responsibility integral
to the curriculum and a signature of San Francisco State.
The master plan provides an opportunity to make sustainability not only central but
demonstrable—to express through the campus landscape, buildings, transportation,
and infrastructure the University’s commitment to environmental health and social
equity. Or, as stated in the University’s strategic plan,“to model on campus the world
in which we would like to live.”
Executive Order 987, signed by Chancellor Charles Reed on August 2, 2006, establish-
es policies for energy conservation, sustainable building practices, and physical plant
management for the CSU system. It sets a new goal of reducing energy consumption
by 15 percent by the end of fiscal year 2009/2010 as compared to 2003/2004, and
establishes goals for energy independence and renewable energy procurement, includ-
ing the requirement for each campus to develop a “campus-wide integrated strategic
energy resource plan...to drive the overall energy program.”
Executive Order 987 calls for the development of a CSU Sustainability Measurement
System based on LEED™ principles. It specifies that all new buildings or major renova-
tions constructed beginning in FY 2006-2007 meet or exceed the minimum require-
ments of that system—the equivalent of LEED™ Certified—and that each campus
“strive to achieve a higher standard…equivalent to LEED™ Silver.”
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Intellectual engagement and access for
diverse communities are cornerstones
of the University’s value system and
strategic plan.
Vegetated roofs and walls and cisterns
to collect rainwater are among the
green design techniques that conserve
energy and water.

Planning Context
21
Land Acquistion since 1989
� ��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
The Lewis Center for Environmental
Studies at Oberlin College was a
pioneer project in raising the standard
of sustainable campus design.
Among the attributes considered “sustainable” are “siting and design considerations
that optimize local geographic features to improve sustainability, such as proximity to
public transportation and maximizing vistas, microclimate, and prevailing winds” and
“systems designed for optimization of energy, water, and other natural resources”—all
clearly applicable to the SF State University campus master plan.
Universal Design and Access
Accessibility to the University’s programs and services by diverse communities is a cen-
tral theme of the strategic plan, translated into the specific objective: “enhance and
develop programs to make SFSU physically safe and accessible.”
Universal design—providing an environment comfortably usable by the widest range
of people possible—is a guiding principle of the master plan. Specifically, the master
plan calls for direct and comfortable routes across campus, welcoming entrances into
buildings, and inviting gathering places, using solutions that are imaginative and well
designed, even where physical constraints are daunting given the extreme topographic
changes on the SF State campus. The University is committed to providing gracious,
inclusive accessibility to all facilities.
Expansion of the Campus Footprint
Since completion of the previous master plan in 1989, the
campus has increased its footprint markedly, as illustrated
in the accompanying Land Acquisitions map. With the
addition of Lakeview Center, University Park South (UPS)—
formerly the northernmost blocks of the Parkmerced
property—and University Park North (UPN)—formerly the
Stonestown Apartments—the campus has grown from 95
to 141.6 acres, an almost 50 percent increase in area. At
this writing, negotiations are underway with the San Fran-
cisco Unified School District to purchase the 2.5-acre prop-
erty that formerly housed the School of the Arts (SOTA).
Integrating these new properties into a coherent, well-func-
tioning campus is another major challenge of the master
plan—in particular, bridging the extreme topographic divide
between the core campus and the UPN property.
Increased Campus Housing
SF State is transitioning from a predominantly commuter
to a more residential campus. Between 1989 and 2005,
the University essentially doubled the number of students
it houses, from 6 to 11 percent. With construction of the
Towers (1991) and the Village at Centennial Square (2001),
SF State now provides 2,242 undergraduate beds in a
cohesive residential zone. UPN and UPS have added 959 1-,
2-, and 3-bedroom units, greatly expanding the University’s
capacity to provide affordable, close-in housing to faculty,

Planning Context
22
0.4 mile0.2 mile0 mile 0.8 mile
Ecological/Hydrological Context
1905 historic map obtained through the David Rumsey
Historical Map Collection (http://www.davidrumsey.com)
© 2000 by Cartography Associates
Project Boundary
Historic Ecology Map - depicts the
natural landscape features of this area
and the shared history of the campus
and Lake Merced
staff, and graduate students and supervised housing for
undergraduates. The UPN and UPS units are being made
available to SF State students, faculty, and staff as previous
tenants vacate.
Student demographics also are changing. Fall 2005 marked
the first time that SF State admitted more first-time fresh-
men than transfer students, 47 percent from outside the
Bay Area. This shift to a younger student population from
a wider geographic area creates a need not only for more
housing, but also for an array of student-life services, pro-
grams, and activities that support a residential community.
As of academic year 2005-2006, approximately 30 per-
cent of the UPN and UPS units were occupied by SF State
affiliates. As the University gradually increases occupancy
of these units, replaces some over time with higher-density
units, and adds neighborhood retail and other support
services, the campus will become a more vibrant and self-
sufficient residential community.
Shared History with Lake Merced
The SF State campus is located immediately adjacent to
Lake Merced, the largest natural freshwater lake and wet-
land habitat in San Francisco. The northeastern arm of Lake
Merced once occupied the lower portion of the campus. A
seasonal stream, part of a network of streams and creeks
within the watershed, flowed through the central valley of campus into Lake Merced.
This shared ecological history, graphically illustrated in the accompanying historic
map, has been obscured over time. The valley, which runs east-west through the cam-
pus and contains the parking garage and playing fields, is the remnant of the former
stream canyon and lake bed. Dominated by the garage and overgrown with trees and
brush on its perimeter, the valley is barely discernible at present. The formidable bar-
rier of Lake Merced Boulevard further separates the campus from the lake.
Lake Merced is an extraordinary environmental and recreational resource. Recon-
necting the campus to the lake—visually, hydrologically, physically—offers multiple
benefits to both the campus and larger community.
Evolution of the Campus
The historic evolution of the campus provides important cues for its future. As illus-
trated in the accompanying series of drawings, the site has evolved over a period of
50 years from open farmland to a fairly dense urban university campus. Key features
depicted in the earliest drawing—proximity to Lake Merced and access to public
transportation by the M streetcar line—remain two of the campus’s greatest assets,
despite existing barriers.

1935
MUNI “M” line in operation, 19th Avenue
Evolution of Campus
1936 - 1948
Cox Stadium built, Parkmerced started
1949 - 1958
Campus built, together with Stonestown and Parkmerced
1959 - 1978
Parking garage, Student Center and Hensill / Thornton
Halls built
1979 - 1997
Humanities Building The Towers built and
Administration expanded
1998 - 2005
Student Housing expansion - Village at Centennial Square
1600’800’0’
5 minute walk

Planning Context
24
From the beginning, however, development of the new campus turned away from the
lake. In the early 1940s, the existing stream canyon was filled to create level terraces
for Cox Stadium and playing fields, and the stream was routed underground into a
storm sewer that ran below the roadway and emptied into the lake. At that time, Lake
Merced Boulevard still curved around the northeastern arm of the lake.
The first major academic buildings were constructed a decade later, in the 1950s.
Clustered around the Quad, they formed the core of campus, much as it appears
today. Several of the existing buildings—Science, Business, Creative Arts and the
gym—date back to this period, as do the original wings of the Administration Building
and the library. Significantly, the library—the symbolic font of knowledge—was sited
directly on axis with the Quad. The distinctive northeast-southwest alignment of the
Quad and the surrounding buildings does not conform to the city street grid, but in-
stead appears to follow the orientation of the former farm fields and the natural slope
of the land. The Quad remains the heart of the campus.
In the early 1950s, Lake Merced Boulevard was straightened, blocking off about 10
acres of the lake and its shoreline marsh. This reclaimed land became part of the
campus, used for tennis courts as it is today. The barrier now posed by Lake Merced
Boulevard firmly separated the campus from the lake. Concurrent with the 1950s
building boom on campus, Stonestown and Parkmerced were completed, radically
changing the neighboring areas.
The 1960s and 1970s saw the continued development of the campus core, with the
construction of a new student center, two library expansions, and a pair of towering
new science buildings. The first student housing was constructed to the west, and in
the early 1960s, the parking garage was sited in the valley, which was then the north-
ern edge of campus.
The last 15 years on campus have seen development across all building types, includ-
ing new academic and student support facilities and the expansion of student hous-
ing. Collectively, these additions have extended the campus decidedly westward.
The recent acquisition of the UPN and UPS properties has added approximately 44
acres to the campus, mostly north of the core, greatly expanding the University’s resi-
dential capacity.
Future Development Sites
Even with the acquisition of significant new property, SF State remains a landlocked
campus, with few, if any, unencumbered sites for development. To maintain the
open landscape character that gives the campus its identity and to provide adequate
outdoor gathering and recreation space for the growing campus population, the only
viable option is to redevelop existing building sites, increasing density where appropri-
ate to maximize efficient use of land.
One of the initial tasks in the planning process was to assess the condition of existing
buildings to determine potential candidates for redevelopment. Using data from re-
cent studies and information gathered from SF State facilities staff, the planning team
evaluated the condition of the structural, mechanical, and electrical systems of all
major campus buildings except those recently constructed or renovated or planned for
renovation in the near term. Each building system was ranked, with structural weight-

Planning Context
25
ed more heavily due to the higher repair cost and greater threat to life safety posed
by a deficient structural system. A composite score for each building determined its
overall ranking, with the highest score indicating the worst condition.
Three additional building evaluation criteria were combined with the building systems
ranking to arrive at an overall score. They are FAR (floor area ratio), a typical measure
of a parcel’s efficient use; the building’s contribution to the character and quality of
the campus environment; and suitability of the building to the program or use housed
within it. Based on their overall score, buildings were grouped into four categories in-
dicating their potential for redevelopment within the short to long term. The order of
priority shown in the accompanying Building Conditions Matrix corresponds generally
to the sequence of new construction proposed by the master plan, with buildings in
the worst condition being high-priority replacement candidates.
The building rankings are also shown in the accompanying Building Redevelopment
Potential diagram, which uses the same color coding as the matrix to illustrate where
on campus opportunities exist for redevelopment.
Facility No. Building
Building
Condition
FAR
Contributionto
Campus
Characterand
Quality
Suitabilityto
Program/Use
Total
Redevelopment
Potential
023D Science Building 4 4 3 3 14
005 Lakeview Center 4 4 2 3 13
089 Sutro Library 3 4 3 3 13
074 Creative Arts 4 3 3 3 13
007 HSS 4 3 3 3 13
095 Gymnasium 3 4 2 3 12
092 University Park South - Block 42 4 4 2 2 12
050 University Park North -Towers 4 3 3 2 12
027 Central Plant 2 4 3 2 11
021 Residence Dining Center 3 4 2 2 11
030 Student Health Center 2 4 2 3 11
097 University Park North - Garden 3 4 2 2 11
098 Administration Building 4 2 3 2 11
057 Business 4 3 1 2 10
032 Psychology 4 3 1 2 10
025 Child Care Center 1 4 2 2 9
073 Corporation Yard 1 4 3 1 9
002 Mary Park 2 3 3 1 9
100B Mary Ward 2 3 3 1 9
029 Fine Arts 3 2 2 2 9
088 Thorton Hall 3 1 3 2 9
001 Parking Garage 2 1 3 2 8
026 Burk 3 3 1 1 8
008 Cesar Chavez Student Center 1 2 2 2 7
003 Humanities Building 1 3 2 1 7
091 J.P. Leonard Library (future GSF) 1 1 2 3 7
022 Towers 1 1 3 2 7
004 Hensill Hall 1 1 3 1 6
006 Student Services 1 2 1 1 5
Rankings:
Building Condition FAR
1 - Building Systems in good condition. 1 - +3.0
2 - Building Systems in moderate condition. 2 - 1.5-3.0
3 - Building Systems in fair condition. 3 - 1.0-1.5
4 - Building Systems in poor condition. 4 - 0-1.0
Contribution to Campus Character and Quality Suitability to Program/Use
1 - Contributes 1 - Space well-suited to program
2 - Neutral 2 - Adequate
3 - Detracts 3 - Deficient
high / short-term
moderate / mid-term
no
low / long-term
Facility No. Building
Building
Condition
FAR
Contributionto
Campus
Characterand
Quality
Suitabilityto
Program/Use
Total
Redevelopment
Potential
023D Science Building 4 4 3 3 14
005 Lakeview Center 4 4 2 3 13
089 Sutro Library 3 4 3 3 13
074 Creative Arts 4 3 3 3 13
007 HSS 4 3 3 3 13
095 Gymnasium 3 4 2 3 12
050 University Park North -Towers 4 3 3 2 12
027 Central Plant 2 4 3 2 11
021 Residence Dining Center 3 4 2 2 11
030 Student Health Center 2 4 2 3 11
097 University Park North - Garden 3 4 2 2 11
098 Administration Building 4 2 3 2 11
057 Business 4 3 1 2 10
032 Psychology 4 3 1 2 10
025 Child Care Center 1 4 2 2 9
073 Corporation Yard 1 4 3 1 9
002 Mary Park 2 3 3 1 9
100B Mary Ward 2 3 3 1 9
029 Fine Arts 3 2 2 2 9
088 Thorton Hall 3 1 3 2 9
001 Parking Garage 2 1 3 2 8
026 Burk 3 3 1 1 8
008 Cesar Chavez Student Center 1 2 2 2 7
003 Humanities Building 1 3 2 1 7
091 J.P. Leonard Library (future GSF) 1 1 2 3 7
022 Towers 1 1 3 2 7
004 Hensill Hall 1 1 3 1 6
006 Student Services 1 2 1 1 5
Rankings:
Building Condition FAR
1 - Building Systems in good condition. 1 - +3.0
2 - Building Systems in moderate condition. 2 - 1.5-3.0
3 - Building Systems in fair condition. 3 - 1.0-1.5
4 - Building Systems in poor condition. 4 - 0-1.0
Contribution to Campus Character and Quality Suitability to Program/Use
1 - Contributes 1 - Space well-suited to program
2 - Neutral 2 - Adequate
3 - Detracts 3 - Deficient
high / short-term
moderate / mid-term
no
low / long-term
Building Condition Matrix

Planning Context
26
Building Redevelopment Potential

Campus Master Plan
Chapter 4.
Enrollment and Capacity

28
4. Enrollment and Capacity
Enrollment Growth
SF State is seeking to increase its enrollment cap by 5,000 full-time equivalent students
(FTES) from 20,000 to 25,000 FTES. Increased capacity is essential for keeping higher
education open and accessible to all qualified Californians. If spaces are not created
to meet demand, qualified students may be turned away through more selective and
limiting admissions processes.
With a fall 2005 enrollment of 19,895 FTES on the main campus, the University
already is nearing its current ceiling. At a projected annual increase of 2.5 percent,
the campus is expected to reach 25,000 FTES by fall 2015. Even if the number of high
school graduates in California levels off in 2008 as anticipated, SF State’s increasing
draw outside the Bay Area suggests that enrollment will remain steady or continue to
rise.
Student demographics also are changing. Fall 2005 marked the first time that SF
State admitted more first-time freshmen than transfer students, with 47 percent from
outside the Bay Area. This shift to a younger, more geographically diverse student
population has physical and programmatic implications, including the need for more
freshmen-level courses and space to conduct them, more study and gathering space,
and more housing and student life facilities and services to support a residential com-
munity.
5-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
To accommodate enrollment growth and program needs, and to rectify existing
building deficiencies, the University each year identifies capital improvement projects
in 5-year increments, approved by the CSU Board of Trustees. SF State’s proposed
2007-2008 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) includes six replacement buildings:
Creative Arts Phases 1 and 2, Clinical Sciences, Behavioral and Social Sciences (BSS),
Health and Human Services (HSS), and a gym/recreation-wellness center. The renova-
tion of the Paul Leonard Library, currently in design, was part of the previous funding
cycle.
Based on the building conditions evaluation described in the previous chapter and
the particular siting requirements of the gym/recreation-wellness center with its large
footprint and high-volume spaces, the master plan identifies and locates additional
projects that will be included in subsequent CIPs. A new Facilities Building and corpo-
ration yard relocated to Lot 25 becomes the seventh replacement building in order to
free a key site for the gym/recreation-wellness center. Five subsequent projects include
replacement buildings for Science, Business, and Ethnic Studies and Psychology, and
two unassigned academic buildings, one of which will house the University Club. Col-
lectively, these proposed 2007/2008 CIP and subsequent projects add approximately
800,000 gross square feet (GSF) of academic and academic/support space to the
campus by 2019/2020 as illustrated in the accompanying table.

29
Master Plan Building Program—academic and support space 1 existing HSS includes BSS and HHS
2 new BSS Building includes 30,377 GSF of interdisciplinary space
3 new HHS Building includes 22,792 GSF of interdisciplinary space
4 CIP calls for 212,000 GSF for gym
5 existing Business Building to be converted to faculty offices
P=preliminary plans; W=working drawings; C=construction; E=equipment
Capacity Space
The charge of the master plan is to accommodate an enrollment of 25,000 FTES on
campus. The CIP and subsequent building projects add “capacity space” of roughly
5,000 FTE to the campus to meet this enrollment increase.
Capacity space, measured in FTE, consists of instructional space that, by CSU formula,
determines the physical capacity of the campus to support enrollment. The total
capacity of the campus cannot exceed its approved enrollment ceiling; for example, a
campus with an enrollment cap of 25,000 FTES is limited to capacity space of 25,000
FTE.
All academic departments contribute to the total capacity of the campus. A combina-
tion of formulas translates each program’s entitlement for space, as determined by
historical and projected FTE enrollment, from ASF (assignable square feet) into FTE
capacity.
Three types of instructional space—lecture, lower-division teaching laboratory, and up-
per-division teaching laboratory—generate FTE capacity as follows:
Lecture (classroom) – 2.33 FTE per station
Lower division teaching lab – 0.52 FTE per station
Upper division and graduate teaching lab – 0.39 FTE per station
•
•
•
SF State Campus Master Plan Study
Proposed Five-Year Capital Improvement Program 2007/2008 – 2011/2012
Existing1
Proposed Net Change
GSF FTE GSF FTE GSF FTE 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 BEYOND
Joint J. Paul Leonard Library
and Sutro Library
282,210 0 377,610 0 95,400 0 E
Clinical Sciences 38,923 0 150,000 380 111,077 380 PWC
Creative Arts Phase 1 133,500 602 133,500 602 P WC E
Creative Arts Phase 2 174,660 1,021 107,200 835 -67,460 -186 P WC E
BSS Classroom2
2,261 174,700 2,353 174,700 92 P WC E
HHS Classroom3
132,964 79,200 2,052 -53,764 2,052 P WC E
Gym Rec Center4
157,011 484 250,000 605 92,989 121 P WCE
Future Projects
Corporation Yard 114,769 0 141,000 0 26,231 0 PWCE
Science 130,679 1,805 169,000 2,286 38,321 481 PWCE
Existing Business5
59,085 2,126 59,085 0 0 -2,126
New Business 0 0 67,000 2,658 67,000 2,658 PWCE
Ethnic Studies Psychology 60,017 394 75,000 493 14,983 99 PWCE
Classroom Faculty Office 0 0 149,000 1,000 149,000 1,000 PWCE
Classroom Faculty Office
/ University Club
0 0 27,000 200 27,000 200 PWCE
Total 1,150,318 8,091 1,959,295 13,464 808,977 5,373

30
All teaching labs—whether a chemistry lab or a dance or painting studio—are assign-
able to a particular department. Lecture space, on the other hand, is shared by all
departments and, thus, is interdisciplinary.
Capacity is not tied directly to the size (GSF) of a building and can vary widely depend-
ing on the type of space the building contains. For example, a building with lecture
rooms will have a much higher FTE capacity than one with a high percentage of class
labs.
According to the SF State 2005 Space and Facilities Data Base (SFDB), the campus has
a total capacity of 19,572 FTE—just short of the University’s enrollment cap of 20,000
FTES. As illustrated in the accompanying graph, once the cap is raised to 25,000 FTES,
enrollment is anticipated to rise at a faster rate than the corresponding increase in
capacity.
Construction typically lags behind enrollment. At SF State, there are a number of
reasons why the gap remains wider during the first several years of the planning hori-
zon. Creative Arts, the first academic building to be constructed, will not be ready for
occupancy until 2011/2012. Moreover, with its auditoriums and large studio spaces,
it is not an FTE-intensive building. That combined with the demolition of the existing
Creative Arts Building keeps the net increase in overall capacity space relatively flat ini-
tially. It is not until the construction of BSS, the first classroom building, in 2013/2014
that the gap between enrollment and capacity begins to narrow significantly. How-
ever, this rise in FTE depends on retaining the existing HSS Building until completion of
HHS, the next building project.
In general, as each new building is designed, the University will need to evaluate that
project’s contribution to the overall FTE capacity relative to enrollment and, if neces-
sary, explore strategies for boosting capacity, such as adding interdisciplinary space to
the building program.
SFSU Campus Master Plan - Increase in FTE Capacity related to FTE growth
FTE 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/2020
Projected Fall FTE Enrollment 21,425 21,960 22,509 23,072 23,649 24,240 24,846 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000
27,000
26,000
25,000
24,000
23,000
22,000
21,000
20,000
19,000
Project by Year of Occupancy
FTE from 2005
SFDB
CAB Ph.1 and
Clnical Sciences
CAB Ph.2 BSS HHS GYM SCIENCE BUSINESS
ETHNIC
STUDIES
PSYCHOLOGY
CLASSROOM
BUILDINGS
ADDED
Project FTE 602 +380 835 2,353 2052 605 2,286 2,658 493 1200
Secondary Effects -1,021 0 -2,261 -484 -1,805 -2,126 -394 0
Net FTE added to Capacity 982 -186 2,353 -209 121 481 532 99 1200
Cumulative FTE Capacity 19,572 20,554 20,368 22,721 22,512 22,633 23,114 23,646 23,745 24,945
FTE CAPACITYSPACE
ON-CAMPUS
CAMPUS REACHES ITS 25,000
FTE ENROLLMENT CEILING
PROJECTED FTE ENROLLMENT
FTE ENROLLMENT CEILING
FTE Capacity related to FTE
Enrollment Growth

Campus Master Plan
Chapter 5.
Long-term Vision and
Planning Principles

Long-term Vision and Planning Principles
32
5. Long-term Vision and Planning Principles
A Guiding Vision for the Master Plan
The 2007–2020 campus master plan—the subject of this report—provides the level of
campus development needed to support an increase in student enrollment to 25,000
full-time equivalent students (FTES) and leverages the University’s resources to make
the larger district function in a more sustainable manner. Guiding the master plan is a
long-term vision for the campus that looks beyond 2020.
As the master plan is implemented, a clear vision for the future will ensure that all
decisions about the campus—whether small or large—are deliberate and mutually
reinforcing. To understand the master plan, it is essential to place it in the context of
this long-term vision.
Articulating the Vision
The long-term vision shown here gives form to ideas articulated early in the planning
process. In December 2005, a group of deans, vice presidents, faculty, staff, and
students participated in a visioning charrette. The purpose of the workshop was
to arrive at a collective vision for the physical development of the SF State campus
consistent with the University’s strategic plan, focusing on two of its key concepts—
making SF State “a unified and vibrant community” and building “better bridges to
the world outside campus borders.”
Long-term vision for the
campus—aerial perspective

34
The resulting vision statement, excerpted here and documented in a separate report
(Campus Vision Statement, February 2006), was the starting point and touchstone
as campus design concepts were explored. Key themes articulated in the initial vision
statement remain central to the long-term vision and are the basis for principles that
guide the 2007–2020 campus master plan, summarized as follows:
Planning Principles
A vibrant on-campus community
Reinforce the academic core and extend it westward
Integrate residential properties to create a unified campus
Provide more close-in, affordable housing that enables faculty, staff, and students
to walk to school and work.
Redefine Holloway and Buckingham as “college main streets” offering neighbor-
hood retail and services
Strong connections to the surrounding city
Strengthen the University’s connections to Lake Merced and the surrounding
neighborhoods
Work with neighbors, the City of San Francisco, and other entities to improve
public transportation and other services that benefit the entire district
•
•
•
•
•
•
Left: Organizing Framework
Right: Land Use Plan
Strong north-south and east-west
axes, a central valley greenway,
and landmark buildings at the four
corners of campus constitute the
organizing framework in the long-
term vision. The land use plan builds
upon that framework, extending
the academic core westward and
creating distinct residential villages.

35
Emphasis on the pedestrian and alternative transportation
Cluster development around high-frequency transit connections to encourage
transit use
Establish bicycle and pedestrian networks that provide safe, direct and attractive
connections to work and school
Develop the 19th Avenue edge as a transit-, bicycle-, and pedestrian-friendly
parkway
Implement Transportation Demand Management strategies to reduce parking
demand
Decentralize campus parking over time from the current central garage to a series
of smaller perimeter parking facilities to disperse traffic and parking impacts,
claim the campus core for pedestrians and bicycles, and allow for the eventual
removal of the central parking garage from the valley
Recognition in the city and region
Position semi-public uses at the corners of campus, creating icons that redefine
the University’s external identity and engage the larger community
Create an identifiable and inviting campus perimeter
A continuous greenbelt between 19th Avenue and Lake Merced
Establish the valley as the central open space of campus
Provide expanded recreational fields
Restore ecological landscapes in the valley
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Left: Campus Ecological Zones
Right: Stormwater
Management System
In the long-term vision, a fully
integrated open space and stormwater
management system restores some
measure of natural drainage and
native ecology to the campus, with
the valley as its centerpiece.

36
Universal design and access
Ensure that all aspects of the campus physical environment—notably primary
circulation routes and main building entrances—are comfortably usable by and
inviting to the widest group of people possible
Organize and design primary pathways and signage to facilitate wayfinding, using
a combination of visual, tactile, and auditory cues
Establish strong north-south connections across the valley and Buckingham Way
and Holloway Avenue that link the University to its residential districts and to the
surrounding neighborhoods
Establish clear east-west functional and visual connections across campus and to
the surrounding district
A campus that models sustainability
Develop transportation and land use patterns that encourage greater use of tran-
sit, walking, and bicycle commuting and reduce dependence on automobiles
Make efficient use of redevelopment sites
Promote sustainability through green building and site design, native landscape,
natural stormwater management, alternative transportation, higher-density hous-
ing, and walkable neighborhood retail
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Top: In the long-term vision, a second
pedestrian bridge crosses the valley
between Centennial Walk and UPN.
Shown here is the view across the open
valley to the gym/recreation-wellness
center and Lake Merced beyond.
Bottom: Birdseye view from 19th
Avenue and Buckingham Way, with
the University Conference Center and
neighborhood retail along Buckingham.

37
While this vision of a sustainable campus community sets the stage for the master
plan—it is both a starting point and a goal—the University seeks approval from the
Board of Trustees only for those elements contained in the 2007–2020 master plan.
Because proposals beyond 2020 are far less certain in terms of timing, configuration,
and program, it is neither practical nor prudent to include them in the master plan at
this time. To develop the campus beyond what is explicitly outlined in the master plan
will require a new round of planning and environmental review. The long-term vision
is simply that—a vision for the future that informs the campus master plan and each
step in its implementation.
Playing Field Section
PathBaseball Field Clear ZoneScrub Zone
30’
Soccer Field Clear Zone
Path
Turf Area Scrub Zone
30’
Pedestrian
Bridge
Student Housing
Gymnasium /
Recreation-Wellness
Center
In the long-term vision, a continuous
valley greenway connects 19th
Avenue and Lake Merced. Pedestrian
bridges span the valley, linking the
campus and the neighborhoods
to the north and south.
New
Multi-Purpose
Field
New Creek
Corridor
Connecting to
Lake Merced
Maloney Field
New Athletic
Field
Cox Stadium
Stonestown
Galleria
Buckingham Way
University
Conference
Center
Replacement
Softball Field
FontBoulevard
LakeMercedBoulevard
New Creek
and Pedestrian
Underpass
Lake
Merced
Winston Drive
North State Drive
Parking
Garage
University Park
North
CentennialBridge
MillenniumBridge
University Park North
Science
Ethnic
Studies
Psychology
Dining Center /
Early Childhood
Educational Center
Student
Housing
Future
Academic /
University
Club
Thornton
Hall
Gymnasium/
Recreation-Wellness
Center
Greenhouse
Top: Valley Plan
Bottom: Valley Section
Section

38
Looking into the future…
SF State is a vibrant urban campus—a visible and active presence in
the city. An iconic structure on 19th Avenue clearly announces SFSU,
and major portals invite entry from all sides of campus.
A variety of in- and outdoor gathering places foster a strong sense of campus
community. Expanded student, faculty, and staff housing—supported
by a range of services—contributes to the vitality of campus life. Myriad
programs and events draw the greater community to campus.
Transit is the travel mode of choice, with frequent, reliable service to
downtown and points south. A gracious arrival area provides a safe and
welcoming entry into campus. Ample bicycle storage and easy access
to city and regional trails make bicycle travel a desirable choice.
SFSU has partnered with its neighbors to share resources and create numerous
venues and destinations for students, faculty, and staff. Lively, pedestrian-
oriented streets and promenades form the core of a well-defined and
accessible network of paths that connect the campus and community.
Green buildings responsive to the local climate enhance productivity and
health. Along all the campus edges, buildings and landscape engage
the street, frame views, and create gateways into campus.
A continuous greenbelt connecting 19th Avenue and Lake Merced claims the
central valley as a place for recreation and environmental study. Playing fields,
pedestrian and bicycle trails, and a recreation/wellness center animate this
area. The valley—a great expanse of green that traces the former stream and
lakebed—becomes a focal feature and connection to the larger community.
Throughout the campus, public art celebrates SF State’s spirit of creativity,
its international character, and the diversity of its community.
—SF State Campus Vision Statement, February 2006

Campus Master Plan
Chapter 6.
Framework and Land Use

40
6. Framework and Land Use
Based on the planning principles described in the previ-
ous chapter, the master plan establishes an overarching
framework and land use plan that guide campus growth
and change. Along with internal factors, an equally
compelling influence on the organization of the campus
is the need to connect the University with its district.
District Connectivity
Strengthening the University’s connection to the
city and region
SF State’s location in San Francisco is one of the Universi-
ty’s great assets and a major draw beyond the Bay Area.
Forging stronger connections to the city is a strategic
objective of the University and a major thrust of the
master plan.
The campus is fortunate to be located close to transit
routes and regional arterials. The master plan strength-
ens connections to transit services—Muni M line, bus
lines, and Daly City BART—and to the surrounding street
network. The framework configures the main entrance
to campus and the 19th Avenue frontage and establishes cross-campus connections to
take full advantage of district networks and services.
Strengthening the University’s connections to Lake Merced, district open
space, and the surrounding neighborhoods
The SF State campus is uniquely positioned in proximity to Lake Merced and other
important recreational resources such as Fort Funston and Harding Park Golf Course.
It also enjoys proximity to Stonestown Galleria and several San Francisco neighbor-
hoods, such as Ingleside and Parkmerced. Yet the University remains relatively isolated
and disconnected from its surroundings due to the significant barriers posed by 19th
Avenue and Lake Merced Boulevard and a general lack of connective network. The
master plan removes barriers and creates connections to the lake and surrounding
areas through public open space, pedestrian and bicycle paths, crossings, views and
vistas, and gateways into campus (see District Connectivity diagram).
District Connectivity. The campus
circulation network can help fill gaps
in the district network, enhancing
access to district open space.
Stern GrovePine Lake Park
San Francisco Zoo
Harding Park
San Francisco Golf Club
Olympic Country Club
Fort Funston
Lake
Merced
Project Limit
District Networks
Open Space
Campus Connections
District Connectivity 2,000’1,000’0’ 4,000’
Chapter Title

41
Organizing Framework
The campus framework is responsive to both the district
context and internal factors. The framework strengthens
connections to the city street network and district open
space system, enhances the campus’s visibility, improves
wayfinding to and through the campus, recognizes the
western expansion of the academic core, and integrates
the newly acquired properties to the north and south. The
organizing framework consists of the following elements
as illustrated in the accompanying diagram:
The valley as the central feature of campus
The framework establishes the valley as the central feature
of campus connecting from 19th Avenue to Lake Merced.
With a new surface creek flowing through it to the lake,
the valley is part of a larger campus vision to demonstrate
the ideal of sustainable living and to reconnect the campus
to its ecological past. The master plan takes steps toward
returning the valley to its natural form and accommodat-
ing much-needed new recreational fields.
The Quad as the symbolic heart of campus
Framed by the library and iconic student center, the Quad is the heart of the academic
core and original center of the SF State campus. With its expansive lawn and towering
stands of cypress and pine, the Quad is the most memorable part of the campus. The
framework recognizes the centrality of the Quad and its importance as the crossroads
and symbolic center of campus. The Arts Allée, a tree-lined promenade, extends the
Quad westward and becomes the organizing open space element along which new
academic buildings are located.
Circulation and axes that clarify wayfinding
Primary circulation spines and axes organize the campus, connecting new facilities to
the core and improving wayfinding. In the east-west direction, the Arts Allée connects
19th Avenue and the Quad to the new Creative Arts complex, and the Pacific Allée
follows the diagonal orientation of the Quad to link 19th Avenue to the undergradu-
ate housing complex on the west. In the north-south direction, Millennium Walk
and Bridge link the campus and neighborhoods across the valley. Buckingham Way
is realigned to improve circulation, clarify organization, and take advantage of views
across the valley.
The framework recognizes the visual and historic importance of Cox Stadium, the first
structure built on campus. The stadium’s axes define the location of new residential
and academic buildings and organize views across the valley between the Quad and
University Park North (UPN) and along the length of the valley from 19th Avenue
westward.
Organizing Framework. New circulation
axes through campus create a frame-
work for organizing campus facilities.

42
Campus Land Use Plan
Landmark buildings that strengthen identity
The plan locates landmark buildings at the corners of campus to house semi-public fa-
cilities used by neighbors and visitors, as well as members of the campus community.
These include the Creative Arts complex in the southwest, the gym/recreation-wellness
center to the northwest, and the University Conference Center to the northeast. These
buildings—along with the student center—serve as powerful icons for SF State and
help to strengthen the University’s presence and identity in the city.
Campus Land Use
As illustrated in the accompanying land use plan, the master plan envisions a clear
definition of districts with a tight academic core flanked by residential villages to the
north, south, and west, with open space as the connective fabric. Each of the districts
provides clarity of function within the campus, as well as presenting a distinct and de-
finable edge character to the external community. Semi-public uses anchor the corners
of campus presenting an attractive and welcoming identity to the community at these
visible points.
Academic
The campus land use plan reinforces existing patterns and creates new linkages. It
concentrates academic uses around the Quad, strengthening the academic core and
extending it westward along the new Arts Allée.
Residential
The plan establishes distinct residential districts, with
undergraduate housing to the west and new housing
villages to the north and south on the University Park
North and South properties. The land use plan also
establishes college main streets along Holloway and
Buckingham as the anchors to the residential districts.
Semi-public
Semi-public uses are located at the corners of campus
to heighten the University’s visibility and provide invit-
ing and convenient access for visitors and community
members attending campus events. These uses have
both an internal campus function—whether academic,
recreation, or other—and a public function that serves
the larger community.

43
Open space
Open space unifies and gives the campus its distinctive identity. By clustering like uses
and utilizing land more efficiently, the master plan allows for significant areas of open
space—the valley, Quad, 19th Avenue entry—that provide needed gathering and rec-
reation space and serve as a powerful emblems for the University, making the campus
uniquely memorable.
Facilities and maintenance
The Facilities Building and the corporation yard are located to the northernmost part
of campus, freeing land closer to the core and to the valley for academic and recre-
ation use.

44

Campus Master Plan
Chapter 7.
Urban Design Plan

Urban Design Plan
46
7. Urban Design Plan
Defining Elements
The urban design plan for the campus, described in the accompanying Master Plan
Buildout diagram, expands upon the framework and land use concepts discussed in
the previous chapter. The following key elements govern the location and form of
future buildings.
Quad as the heart of campus
Framed by existing buildings such as the library, Business, and the iconic student
center, the Quad is the most memorable part of the SF State campus. The master plan
locates and configures new academic buildings to define its edges more strongly and
to reinforce the Quad as the symbolic heart of campus.
Iconic buildings at campus corners
The plan locates iconic buildings at the corners of campus to house facilities that are
used by neighbors and visitors as well as by members of the campus community.
Left: Defining the Quad
Right: Iconic Campus Buildings

Urban Design Plan
48
Top: New Circulation Spines
Bottom: Build-to lines
New circulation spines
The plan establishes new circulation spines and axes across
the campus to connect new facilities to the campus core
and improve wayfinding. Two east-west axes span the
campus, one linking the Quad to the new Creative Arts
complex, and the other connecting the campus entry with
the core undergraduate housing complex. A north-south
axis connects the University Park North (UPN) housing and
University Conference Center to the heart of the campus
via a pedestrian bridge that crosses the valley.
Build-to lines
The plan establishes build-to lines across the campus that
reinforce the axes and public spaces. Build-to lines define
the limits of new construction, ensuring that the location
and massing of new buildings shape the larger campus
spaces.
Courtyards
One of the most attractive features of the existing campus
is the scale and character of courtyards, such as those
Courtyards

Urban Design Plan
49
Top: Campus Main Streets
Bottom: Portal Elements
behind Burk Hall and the newly constructed Village. The
plan continues the pattern of intimately scaled courtyards
within the new academic and residential buildings as places
for quiet activity and respite.
Campus main streets
The plan calls for two campus main streets, on Buckingham
Way and Holloway Avenue, as a way of integrating the
campus with the surrounding neighborhoods. Both streets
can become mixed-use environments with ground-floor
retail below housing or academic uses, or at the street
level of the University Conference Center. Retail may be
continuous or intermittent along the street; the specific
configuration will depend on detailed retail analysis once
projects come forward. The streets should allow enhanced
pedestrian activity with sidewalk cafes, slow-moving traffic,
and lush landscaping including planters and shade trees.
Campus edges
Adherence to build-to lines creates a consistent but
permeable edge that defines the campus and shapes
adjacent streets.
Campus Edges

Urban Design Plan
50
Portal elements
Portal elements aligned with major axes reinforce the overall campus structure, clarify
wayfinding, and provide inviting points of entry.
Future Building Sites
Key decisions about building location shaped the urban design plan and have major
implications for the layout and configuration of the campus. These include:
The location of the new Creative Arts complex on the western side of campus
along Lake Merced Boulevard shifts the center of gravity of the campus to the
west, requiring improved access and pedestrian linkages from the rest of the
campus. The location of the building’s entrance is of critical importance if this new
facility is to be an active part of the campus as a whole.
Siting the new gymnasium/recreation-wellness center on the current site of
Lakeview Center and corporation yard enhances the recreational uses of the val-
ley. This location is one of the few sites large enough to accommodate this facility
without compromising its efficiency and avoiding the need to stack one element
above another. The new gymnasium/recreation-wellness center looks out over the
athletic fields to the southwest and has public access from Lake Merced Boulevard
and Winston Drive.
The University Conference Center is sited at the corner of 19th Avenue and a
realigned Buckingham Way. This location takes advantage of proximity to Stones-
town Galleria, the Muni M line stop, and the heart of the campus.
•
•
•
Birdseye view from 19th Avenue
and Buckingham Way, with the
University Conference Center
to the left, mid-ground.

Urban Design Plan
51
Academic Buildings
The urban design plan locates new academic buildings close to the Quad on
redevelopment sites vacated by buildings slated for demolition. Early projects include
a Clinical Sciences Building on the SOTA site at Tapia Drive and Font Boulevard, which
offers good access for drop-off to the child care and nursing facilities housed in the
building; BSS and HHS Buildings relocated to the former Creative Arts site; and a new
Science Building on the site of the existing gym, close to the existing science facilities
in Hensill and Thornton Halls.
Semi-Public Buildings
Each of the proposed semi-public buildings has an impact on the external identity of
the campus, public accessibility, and the relationship with surrounding buildings and
spaces:
Creative Arts complex. The new Creative Arts complex is located on the existing
softball field, between Font Boulevard and Lake Merced Boulevard. This facility
is slated to be built in phases and is intended to house both academic facilities
as well as auditoriums for public performances. In keeping with the character of
other academic buildings on the campus, the new buildings are located around
an internal courtyard that serves as an outdoor gathering space and breakout
area during public events.
Gymnasium/Recreation-Wellness Center. This new facility houses an NCAA
•
•
Birdseye view looking west along
the Arts Allée, with Creative
Arts in the background.

Urban Design Plan
52
regulation-size basketball/volleyball court, an Olympic-size swimming pool, and a
multi-court gym and fitness center, in addition to locker rooms and other support
spaces. It also houses academic and office space for Kinesiology. It is one of a new
breed of recreation centers that take a holistic approach to wellness and play a
much-expanded role as a social center on campus.
The gym/recreation-wellness center is located on the site of the existing Lakeview
Center and corporation yard, overlooking the existing and expanded athletic
fields in the valley. Pedestrian access to the center from the rest of the campus is
via a new network of paths described in the Campus Circulation chapter. Public
vehicular access is from Lake Merced Boulevard and Winston Drive.
University Conference Center. Located in the northeast corner of the cam-
pus at the intersection of the realigned Buckingham Way and 19th Avenue, the
University Conference Center takes advantage of proximity to transit and the
Stonestown Galleria.
The center is envisioned as a small conference facility—which can accommodate
both University-related as well as outside events—combined with a mix of guest
rooms and housing for University affiliates. Although the exact mix of guest
rooms and University housing would be determined as a part of a detailed
programming and design process, the center is envisioned as a flexible facility that
could accommodate guests at conferences and other University-related activities
such as prospective student/parent orientations, as well as providing some
overflow housing for graduate students, permanent and visiting faculty, and staff.
The new facility will contain a conference center of approximately 35,000 square
feet with limited ground-floor retail and restaurant, along with a combination
of guest rooms (approximately 80 rooms), and University suites and apartments
(approximately 50 units with a mix of 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom units), and a visitor
center, overlooking the valley, for prospective students and families and other
University guests.
The new University Conference Center is intended to serve SF State as well as
the larger community. The center provides much-needed space for University-
sponsored conferences and events, and a venue—unique in this area of the city—
for programs, meetings, retreats, seminars, public receptions, press conferences,
weddings, etc.
Housing
Expanding the supply of campus housing has multiple benefits: it allows the University
to recruit and retain qualified faculty, staff, and students; enables more SF State
affiliates to commute to campus by walking rather than driving; significantly shifts
students from off-campus rentals to supervised on-campus housing, and builds a
strong and cohesive campus community.
Housing is located north (UPN), south (UPS), and west of the academic core. The
student housing complex west of the core is designated primarily for freshmen, with
easy access to the dining center and student support services. UPN and UPS offer a
combination of housing options to faculty, staff, graduate students, students with
families, and upper division students.
•

Urban Design Plan
53
As of fall 2005, SF State faculty, staff, and students occupied approximately 30 percent
of the units in UPN and UPS. That number will increase over time as units become
available through natural attrition. In addition, as illustrated in the accompanying
Master Plan 2020 Buildout diagram, the master plan calls for a number of UPN and
UPS sites to be redeveloped with housing in more compact and denser configurations
pulled close to the street in order to increase the supply of housing and to create an
active and pedestrian-friendly interface between the buildings and the campus streets
that they front.
New housing is planned on the existing Sutro Library site along Winston Drive; in
UPN, on existing low-rise building sites north of Cox Stadium and east of the existing
towers; in UPS, on the block west of Cardenas Avenue; and as part of the proposed
University Conference Center. The Sutro Library site offers an ideal location for early
construction of for-sale faculty and staff housing. The two redeveloped housing sites
in the central area of UPN, east of the towers and near the Buckingham/Winston
intersection, begin to organize the neighborhood, defining view corridors and street
edges.
The interior site offers the opportunity for denser housing in a structure of up to
70 feet. Redeveloped housing further south in UPN along the realigned section of
Buckingham Way takes advantage of views across the valley and Cox Stadium, helps
to redefine Buckingham as a campus “main street,” and anchors the northern end of
the new Millennium Bridge that links UPN with the campus. Similarly, the redeveloped
housing on the UPS site begins to define Holloway as a campus main street. A limited
amount of ground-floor retail can be provided to animate both these streets and offer
needed services for the campus community and neighbors.
With the exception of the taller UPN structure—6 stories over structured parking—
new housing is conceived as 4-story stacked flats over structured parking. All
residential buildings contain a mix of 1-, 2- , and 3-bedroom units that the University
can rent either by bed (to upper division students) or by unit. The University
Conference Center provides approximately 50 units in a mix of 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom
configurations for use by SF State affiliates. Collectively, the new housing in UPN
(including the Sutro Library site), UPS, and the University Conference Center provides
a net gain of 657 units to the University’s housing supply. With the existing UPS
and UPN units that are expected to become available gradually to SF State affiliates
through attrition, the University will gain approximately 1,200 housing units overall by
2020.
Student Services
Building C of the Village, which currently contains 37 units (148 beds) of student
housing, will be converted to much-needed space for Student Services facilities.
The building is immediately adjacent to the existing Student Services Building on
Centennial Way, centrally located to housing and the academic core.
Support
The corporation yard and Facilities offices are relocated to Lot 25 on Winston Drive,
vacating an ideal site for the gym/recreation-wellness center. A new vehicular
underpass beneath Winston Drive permits maintenance and delivery vehicles to have
unimpeded access to the rest of the campus.

Urban Design Plan
54
5 LEVELS OF RESIDENTIAL
OVER PARKING
4 LEVELS OF RESIDENTIAL
OVER RETAIL
4 LEVELS OF OFFICES /
SMALL CLASSROOMS
3 LEVELS OF LARGE CLASSROOMS /
STUDIOS / LABORATORIES
50’
16’8”16’8”16’8”
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
50’
12’6”12’6”12’6”12’6”
1
2
3
4
5
50’
9’3”9’3”9’3”13’9’3”
1
2
3
4
5
50’
9’3”9’3”9’3”9’3”10’9’3”
Height Limits
Building Sections – For a 50-foot height limit, the
number of stories varies depending on building type.
Parking
The parking strategy is discussed in detail
in Chapter 9: Campus Circulation.
Architectural and Urban Design
Standards
At present, SF State does not have an
immediately identifiable, distinctive,
unifying architecture. However it does
have a number of buildings that display a
response to function, climate, and setting
that can be used as a precedent or source
of inspiration for future design.
In order to achieve a unified and
coherent architectural identity in keeping
with the master plan principles of
sustainability and environmentalism,
the following standards will govern the
design of all new buildings:
Adherence to build-to lines
The build-to lines define campus spaces,
pedestrian and landscape spines, and
axes. The build-to lines should determine
each new building’s configuration and
major frontages on the main campus
spaces in a manner similar to the street
and block-pattern of a town.

Urban Design Plan
55
30’ MAX
NARROW WIDTH 50’ MIN NARROW WIDTH
12’6”
TYP 50’
75 0
28 0
12 NOON
JUNE 21
12 NOON
DECEMBER 21
LIGHT SHELVES TO
AVOID GLARE
BOUNCE LIGHT INTO
INTERIOR
NORTH
LIGHTS ON
TOP FLOOR
MAX
DAYLIGHT
PENETRATION
LIGHT SHELVES /
GLARE BAFFLE /
SUN-SHADE
Height limits
Height limits maintain a consistent scale to the campus, relating to existing buildings
where appropriate, and allow iconic buildings such as the student center to retain
their unique identity. As illustrated in the Building Heights diagram, academic
buildings around the Quad and most residential buildings maintain a 50-foot height
limit, which accommodates a number of floor-to-floor arrangements, depending on
the building type, as shown in the accompanying sections.
The height limit is raised to 70 feet along 19th Avenue to reinforce the campus’s
urban frontage, along Centennial Walk consistent with the existing Humanities and
Village buildings, and in UPN on the interior site close to the Buckingham/Winston
intersection. A 100-foot limit applies only to high-volume spaces in the gym/
recreation-wellness center and Creative Arts complex.
Daylighting
Daylight should be used as the primary means of lighting campus buildings. As part of
the campus goal of creating a sustainable environment, new buildings are required to
rely on daylight for all spaces unless program requirements dictate otherwise. Narrow-
width buildings are preferred instead of deep-plan configurations to avoid the need
for extensive artificial lighting. Because of the ambient light and frequent occasions
when the campus is shrouded in fog, the majority of building elevations can be
transparent. Sun shading is appropriate on southern exposures and the use of light-
shelves is advantageous in avoiding the problems of glare and the need to bounce
light deep into interior spaces. In large spaces such as studios, skylights and north-
lights are encouraged. Where site restrictions require a building configuration that
Daylighting
Interior light shelves facilitate deep
daylight penetration without glare.
Interior circulation corridor receives
direct daylight from window at end
of hallway and borrowed light from
transom window above internal
partition wall of classroom.
An atrium with clerestory windows
and heavily glazed interior walls

Urban Design Plan
56
CLERESTORY
CLOSED
CROSS
VENTILATION
OFFICE /
CLASSROOM
DOUBLE-LOADED
CORRIDOR
SINGLE-LOADED
CORRIDOR
DOUBLE HEIGHT
OFFICE / STUDIO
OFFICE /
CLASSROOMS
OPEN AIR CORRIDORS
CROSS
VENTILATION
SKYLIGHT
VENTILATION
CLERESTORY VENTILATORS
OPERABLE TRANSOM LIGHT
WITH AUTOMATIC CLOSERS
FOR FIRE PROTECTION
OPERABLE
WINDOWS
LIGHT SHELF
GLARE BAFFLE
employs an atrium, there is an opportunity to provide borrowed light into otherwise
buried interior spaces.
Natural ventilation
Natural ventilation should be used for all offices, classrooms, labs, and teaching
spaces, except for those that code requires to be mechanically ventilated. Because
of SF State’s benign oceanside climate and wind patterns, natural ventilation is easily
achieved through operable windows, louvers, and the use of skylights and north-lights
to achieve a thermal chimney stack-effect.
Tracking windvanes atop stair
cores ensure that natural
suction creates a thermal
chimney effect, exhausting
warmed air on this classroom
building at the University of
Nottingham’s Jubilee Campus.
Operable windows and
external shading devices on
the Student Services building
Thermal chimney atop a new
research facility at the Centre
for Mathematical Sciences,
Cambridge University
Cross ventilation through operable
windows and skylights
Vertical exhaust ventilation
through corridor atrium
Continuous ridge vents along
the shallow-pitched roof of this
office building at the Inland
Revenue Centre in Nottingham.
The glass cylinder stair tower
has a fabric roof that lifts to
allow the escape of exhaust air.

SFSU Campus Master Plan 2007

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to SFSU Campus Master Plan 2007

Similar to SFSU Campus Master Plan 2007 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

SFSU Campus Master Plan 2007