Academic and strategic plans are used to assess priorities and to help justify projects. The enrollment plan is an important component of the academic plan. These plans feed into LRDP, PDF, and the CFP. Ideally, capital improvement projects are the result of comprehensive and coordinated planning that includes an analysis of the effectiveness of existing space for academics, physical planning, and resource allocation. Each location is responsible for maintaining a balanced CFP that  considers growth, renewal, improvement, infrastructure, environmental impact, and life safety. The enrollment plan is an important component of the academic plan. 

Strategic planning is the deliberate and disciplined process designed to produce fundamental decisions and actions that define what an institution is, what it does, and why it does it. At UC, this process occurs within the context of a shared governance system, which encompasses the structures and processes by which the University’s administration and the University Senate work collaboratively. 

Every other year, campuses submit Five-Year Planning Perspectives (“Perspectives”) for academic programs and academic units to UCOP. The Perspectives list the anticipated actions for creating and/or transferring, consolidating, disestablishing, or discontinuing undergraduate degree programs, graduate degree programs, schools, and colleges.

UCOP collects and analyzes Perspectives data, distributes it to select groups, and posts it on the UCOP website. While Perspectives reports are no longer sent directly to the State, information from these reports has the potential to be used in other reports to a wide range of stakeholder groups, including the Governor’s Office, the Department of Finance, and the UC Regents.

Programs. Locations consider which programs are to be initiated, terminated, expanded, consolidated, or relocated. Student enrollment, the number of faculty and staff, the types of degrees offered, patient care goals, and program time frames all impact a project's design and planning. Pedagogy, research needs, and supporting utilities and technologies are appraised before a project begins.

Facilities. Program, design, and planning issues affect the size of a structure and its construction, renovation, or demolition. A program's impact on existing space is evaluated. 

A LRDP is a comprehensive plan that guides physical development, such as the location of buildings, including academic and administrative space needs, housing, buildings, open space, circulation, parking and other land uses. An LRDP identifies the physical development needed to achieve academic goals and is an important reference document for the campus, the University, and the general public, and addresses long-term physical growth. In connection with other plans, the LRDP provides the overarching vision and priorities that the PDF and CFP support. See Bylaws of the Regents of the University of California; Charter of the Finance and Capital Strategies Committee, Appendix C; and Regents Policy 8103: Policy on Capital Project Matters. 

Campuses prepare LRDPs based on their academic goals and the projected on-campus population, primarily comprised of students, faculty, and staff, for an established future date (often referred to as the “horizon year”). The Regents approve each LRDP and its accompanying Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which evaluates the environmental effects of the proposed development anticipated under the LRDP. There are no University requirements for the content, organization, or longevity of an LRDP. The following sections are guidelines for the organization, elements, and organizing concepts that can be included in an LRDP.

The organization of an LRDP may vary, but it usually includes the following information:

1. Historical perspective, including historical plans for the campus and the evolution of those plans over time.
2. Location, physical setting, and relationships to the neighboring community, including surrounding land uses, circulation and transportation systems, and environmental resources.
3. Planning process for the LRDP, including community outreach.
4. Projected development, including academic and administrative facilities, housing, transportation, and utility infrastructure.
5. Natural or environmentally sensitive areas to be preserved, enhanced, and/or used in limited fashion. 

In addition, the LRDP shows how and where space needs will be met on the site and generally contains the following elements:

1. Land use
2. Landscape and open space
3. Circulation and transportation
4. Utilities

Land Use. This element shows the location of proposed land uses. The goal is to provide guidance for locating future structures and uses while maintaining adequate flexibility for future decision making. The level of detail in this element varies. Academic uses may all be under a single "Instruction and Research" land use designation, or there may be separate designations for academic uses, administration, recreation, student housing, family student housing, support services, and open space.

Landscape and Open Space. Each campus has different types of open space: formal paved plazas and courtyards, less formal landscaped areas, and undeveloped natural areas. The LRDP indicates the role of open space, for example, whether buildings are integrated into the predominant landforms and vegetation (e.g. the Santa Cruz campus), or buildings are predominant and open spaces are connections among building clusters.

Circulation and Transportation. The LRDP shows how people move to and through the site in the future. All forms of travel are considered: pedestrian, bicycle, mopeds, motorcycles, cars, service and delivery vehicles, emergency vehicles, and hazardous material transportation. The LRDP indicates which paths and roads are shared by one or more forms of travel and which are segregated. Parking for all vehicle types is addressed.

Utilities. This element focuses on the campus systems for domestic and irrigation water, wastewater, storm drainage, sanitary sewers, chilled water and steam, electrical distribution, natural gas, and communications. Each type of utility's expansion strategy is planned to accommodate the growing campus population and technology changes.

Because an LRDP affects an area's physical environment, an evaluation of its impacts is required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Because an LRDP may create significant impacts, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. Environmental evaluations are normally managed by the planning office at each location. Once the comprehensive evaluation of environmental effects is completed and approved, subsequent projects may have simpler environmental documentation requirements if they were covered in the LRDP EIR.

At the initiation of a new or major LRDP update, each location must consult with the UCOP about format and content, as well as location and public participation processes. Preparation of an LRDP includes consultation with a wide variety of people on- and off-campus: faculty, students, staff, adjacent jurisdictions, and community groups. The mechanism and extent of consultation vary by location. A location submits a draft LRDP and an administrative draft LRDP EIR to the UCOP for review. Once the draft LRDP and EIR are finalized, they will be presented to the Regents for approval. The LRDP is considered a draft plan until it is approved by the Regents. A campus prepares the Regents’ item and a presentation about the LRDP and the EIR requesting the Regents' approval. An LRDP may be amended at any time and is in effect until a new LRDP replaces it. LRDPs may be amended for individual building projects, area plans, or to accommodate different future uses in certain areas, or they may be totally revised when they become out of date. LRDP amendments are approved by the Finance and Capital Strategies Committee, unless classified as “minor,” for which authority has been delegated. 

A PhDF outlines the principles and objectives for designing the physical environment, their relationship to the LRDP, and how they are integrated into project planning and design. A PhDF’s purpose describes the core planning principles that underlie the LRDP and sets forth the location’s vision for physical development. It translates high-level goals and principles found in the LRDP into design strategies at a more immediate scale. In connection with other plans, it translates the broad goals of the LRDP into tangible spatial concepts and design standards. See Bylaws of the Regents of the University of California; Charter of the Finance and Capital Strategies Committee, Appendix C; and Regents Policy 8103: Policy on Capital Project Matters.

A PhDF translates the broad goals of the LRDP into principles for the layout and character of buildings, open spaces, circulation, and landscape. It describes the desired physical qualities of the campus and the relationships among its districts, public spaces, and natural features. The PhDF helps ensure that individual projects support the location’s vision, reinforce a sense of place, and contribute to a coherent, functional, and sustainable environment. It is an important reference for campus planners, architects, and decision-makers, linking long range planning with project-level design and review.

While specific content may vary by location, a PhDF typically includes:

1. Introduction / Context. Describe the campus setting, including its physical characteristics, history, existing development pattern, and environmental context such as topography, vegetation, and open space systems.
2. Design Principles and Objectives. Define the overarching principles that guide campus development and express the desired physical qualities of the built environment. These principles often address themes such as coherence, connectivity, sustainability, inclusivity, and sense of place.
3. Spatial / Campus Organization. Present the organizing structure for campus development, including land use districts, open space networks, circulation systems, and key visual and spatial relationships that establish the framework for future projects.
4. Circulation / Mobility and Access. Describe the hierarchy and design of movement systems, including pedestrian pathways, bicycle routes, transit connections, vehicular circulation, and service access.
5. Open Space / Landscape Framework. Identify the network of open spaces—plazas, quads, courtyards, gardens, and natural areas—and outline strategies for landscape character, planting, stormwater management, and sustainability
6. Building Siting, Massing, and Design Guidance. Provide direction on building siting, height, massing, orientation, and architectural character. Address relationships among buildings, open space, and circulation, as well as design responses to climate, context, and sustainability goals.
7. Standards, Guidelines, and Design Criteria. Include design criteria or performance measures for building and site elements such as materials, lighting, signage, furnishings, and paving. These standards promote consistency while allowing design flexibility.
8. Implementation / Phasing / Review Process. Describes how the PhDF is to be used in project-level review (design review committee, alignment checks).
9. Maps, Diagrams, Illustrations. Incorporate visual materials that communicate the physical structure and design intent of the location, such as maps, diagrams, plans, sections, and illustrative perspectives.
10. Appendices and Supporting Material. Supplemental studies, related planning, and design documents that support the PhDF.

A campus submits a draft PhDF to the UCOP for review. Once the draft PhDF is finalized, it will be presented to the Regents for approval. A location prepares the Regents item and, if needed, a presentation about the PhDF requesting the Regents' approval. An PhDF may be amended at any time and is in effect until a new PhDF replaces it. PhDF amendments are accepted by the Finance and Capital Strategies Committee, unless classified as “minor,”for which authority has been delegated. 

A CFP outlines a location’s six-year capital investment strategy (the current fiscal year and next five years); it identifies proposed projects, funding sources, and priorities needed to advance academic, research, and public service goals. A CFP presents proposed capital projects, public-private partnerships, and acquisition of real property to achieve the goals of the location’s strategic and academic plans and the LRDP. Its scope outlines the capital projects and funding needed for location growth, infrastructure renewal, housing, hospital and clinical space, seismic and life safety improvements, as well as other capital needs. In connection with other plans, a CFP aligns projects with the physical development envisioned in the LRDP and guided by the PDF. See Bylaws of the Regents of the University of California; Charter of the Finance and Capital Strategies Committee, Appendix C; and Regents Policy 8103: Policy on Capital Project Matters.

A CFP presents a comprehensive, multi-year view of proposed capital projects and the financial strategies required to implement them. It serves as the bridge between academic and physical planning and the capital budgeting process. Each location prepares a CFP that identifies near- and long-term capital needs, funding sources, and project priorities in support of the academic and strategic plan goals. The CFP integrates information from the LRDP and the PhDF, aiming that projects are both programmatically justified and physically and financially feasible. By aligning anticipated resources, such as State funds, external financing, gifts, and reserves, with capital needs, the CFP helps decision-makers assess affordability, debt capacity, and sequencing of projects. The systemwide CFP, compiled annually by UCOP, provides a unified view of the University’s capital needs and informs the Regents and the State about UC’s capital priorities.

While specific content may vary by location, a CFP typically includes:

1. Introduction and Purpose. Explain the purpose of the CFP, its relationship to the academic and strategic plans, and LRDP.
2. Planning Context. Summarize the location’s goals; physical planning context; and other drivers influencing capital needs, such as seismic priorities, sustainability objectives, or housing demand.
3. Capital Needs and Priorities. Identify near-term and long-term capital priorities, including new construction, renewal, infrastructure, and deferred maintenance projects. Discuss how projects support the location’s goals.
4. Funding Plan and Sources. Outline anticipated funding sources for each project, such as State funds, external financing, gifts, grants, auxiliary revenues, and campus funds. Indicate assumptions and constraints related to each funding source.
5. Proposed Project Lists. Provide list of proposed projects within the six-year period (current fiscal year and next five years. The identified funding list includes fund sources and the budget; the funding not identified list only includes estimated budget.
6. Summary Tables and Graphics. Include summary tables that show total capital investment by fund source, program type, and time period. 

Each campus compiles the narrative and data for its CFP and submits it to the UCOP for review. Prior to FY 2023–24, the CFP was a standalone document; beginning in FY 2024–25, its information is incorporated into the University of California Consolidated Capital Report. The UCOP prepares the Regents item requesting the Regental approval of the CFP. The CFP remains in effect until it is replaced by a new CFP. Since the CFP is updated annually, there is no separate process for amendments.

All University projects are required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and UC has adopted the state’s “CEQA Guidelines” (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, § 15000 et seq.); thus, these Guidelines in their entirety and any subsequent updates are automatically applicable to University projects. As environmental health and safety issues become increasingly important in transactions involving land and building construction, Facility environmental health and safety (EH&S) offices play a broader role in project development. EH&S offices assist their Facilities in all aspects of project planning. With new construction projects, EH&S provides guidance on industrial hygiene, laboratory safety, sanitation, radiation safety, hazardous waste management, and environmental site assessment.

On most campuses, fire marshals are located within EH&S. Fire marshals interact with the Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM) to ensure compliance with all applicable codes and standards. Fire marshals assist planners, architects, and engineers by identifying alternative fire safety solutions to be discussed with the OSFM.

CEQA defines “projects” as activities that have the potential to result in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. A “project” constitutes the whole of an action and applies to typical capital projects as well as certain real estate transactions. The Regents adopted the State CEQA Guidelines and all state guideline updates as the guidelines for UC to follow. Key points about the University's application of CEQA are as follows:

1. The University is the lead agency for all University projects; it prepares the appropriate CEQA document and evaluates the environmental significance of each proposed project. 
2. Per Regents Policy 8103: Policy on Capital Project Matters, the certification and adoption of environmental documents is undertaken at the level of associated project approval.
3. An Initial Study, Negative Declaration, Findings, Environmental Impact Report (EIR), or determination of exemption from CEQA must be completed prior to an irrevocable commitment to a project, which for capital projects is typically defined as design approval. 
4. Approval, and execution of ground leases and related documents for which ground lease business terms and design approval following action pursuant to CEQA has occurred would not result in a modification to the physical characteristics of an approved project; therefore, such actions are considered implementing actions that do not require additional review under CEQA.

The Environmental Impact Classification Form (EIC) is an internal University of California form that is used to determine whether a University project or action is exempt from CEQA, or if not, what environmental documentation is anticipated. The EIC is required to be included in the Program Planning Guide (PPG) for each project, or separately prepared if no PPG is required. If a project involves a Regental approval, or an UCOP approval, concurrence, or review of the project’s environmental analysis, an EIC must be prepared and approved by the campus and then sent to UCOP Physical & Environmental Planning for concurrence. If a project does not involve Regental approval or UCOP approval, concurrence, or review of the project’s environmental document, an EIC must be prepared by the campus environmental planner and signed locally. The EIC provides a brief description of the project, the type of environmental documentation anticipated for the project, and whether the project is consistent with the long-range development plan. If a proposed project is determined to be exempt from CEQA, the EIC and any necessary attachments must provide justification for the exemption pursuant to the criteria set forth in the CEQA Statute and Guidelines. Should the scope of a project change substantially following local or OP signature on an EIC, it should be amended and re-signed to confirm that the anticipated CEQA document or determination of exemption remains valid. 

As environmental health and safety issues become more important in transactions dealing with land and building construction, Facility environmental health and safety (EH&S) offices have a broader role in project development. EH&S offices assist their Facilities in all aspects of project planning. With new construction projects, EH&S advises on industrial hygiene, laboratory safety, sanitation, radiation safety, hazardous waste, and environmental site assessment. EH&S is frequently involved in planning issues that require coordination with Facility planning staff and UCOP. In addition, EH&S informs Facilities about environmental and occupational regulatory requirements and University policies and requirements that may affect a project. See Guidelines-EH&S, Fire Marshal, and Site Analysis During Project Planning. The involvement of EH&S in the pre-design through construction of a project offers the following benefits:

• Provides EH&S insight into programmatic development and conceptual planning stages of a proposed project.
• Avoidance of unnecessary project planning and construction delays due to overlooked EH&S issues and resulting cost overruns.
• Reduction in building occupants' health and safety complaints and Workers' Compensation cases as well as avoidance of significant public health and safety problems.

Environmental health and safety concerns are regulated by a number of federal, state, and local agencies including the California Environmental Protection Agency, which now includes the Department of Toxic Substances Control, Regional Water Quality Control Boards, Air Quality Management Districts, and Cal-OSHA; the Office of the State Fire Marshal; and the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Each Facility's administrative structure differs; as such, there may be other Facility organizations that are involved in EH&S matters. For example, some Facilities have separate fire departments or laboratory animal care offices. EH&S offices refer Facilities personnel to the appropriate department that has jurisdiction over a specific programmatic area of EH&S.

Fire marshals are located within EH&S, except at the Davis and Santa Cruz campuses, where there are separate fire departments. Fire marshals interact with the OSFM to ensure compliance with all applicable codes and standards. Fire marshals assist planners, architects, and engineers by identifying fire safety solutions to be discussed with the OSFM. On hospital projects, the Department of Health Care Access and Information (HCAI) is the primary authority during the design and construction period. However, if the hospital facility is a state-owned building, the OSFM still has jurisdiction over occupancy certification. Projects will benefit by coordinating with the fire marshals during the HCAI review process, which includes plan reviews and inspections. See Guidelines-EH&S, Fire Marshal, and Site Analysis During Project Planning.

Pre-design is the phase of analysis that occurs after some form of funding is secured and before design activities begin. Pre-design is the phase of work that begins after some form of funding is available. The phase involves analyzing the goals to be addressed by a project's design. Pre-design activities may include programming and feasibility studies, site analysis, construction cost analysis, and early consideration of value engineering opportunities.

During this phase, studies are conducted to define space requirements, evaluate site constraints and opportunities, and assess cost relative to the budget. The amount of funding available in the pre-design phase varies and is a critical factor in determining which studies take precedence. Funds may be available to develop a detailed project program or only to investigate certain technical issues to determine scope, budget, or project schedule. Studies are conducted to evaluate existing site and building conditions. These may include geotechnical investigations, hydrology studies, land and utility surveys, assessments of existing building conditions, and environmental due diligence, such as hazardous material surveys. Special studies determine if the data gathered for the project program regarding the site are complete, clear, and free of contradictions. A proposed project site is analyzed to understand the constraints and opportunities the site will impose on the project and its design. In many cases, multiple sites are evaluated.

Programming defines the project's functional requirements. It documents the user’s needs, the types and sizes of space, and their adjacencies. A project program provides a clear statement of needs and scope, serving as the foundation for development if the work is advanced to a capital project.

The pre-design phase may include site analysis, programming, construction cost analysis, and value engineering.

Site Analysis. Evaluates potential sites and existing conditions, including site selection, geotechnical investigations, and assessments of existing structures.

Programming. Identifies space and equipment requirements, as well as functional relationships. The resulting program establishes the basis of design and funding.

Construction Cost Analysis. Develops a construction cost estimate to inform the capital improvement budget (CIB) and provides a cost plan that justifies the budget request.

Value Engineering. Analyzes the program, site selection, and project budget to confirm the project goals can be accommodated within available resources and approved amounts.

A site analysis evaluates a proposed location, existing building, and/or infrastructure to identify physical, environmental, and regulatory conditions that may affect the proposed project’s feasibility and design. Typical studies include geotechnical reports, hydrology studies, land surveys (defining boundaries, topography, and utilities), assessment of existing structures, and environmental due diligence, such as hazardous materials surveys. In some cases, multiple sites are analyzed for a single project. The findings inform the project's feasibility, guide project development, and associated environmental impacts. See Professional Services Agreement and Executive Design Professional Agreement Contract Templates.

A location may engage a qualified geotechnical engineer to prepare a geotechnical report that provides information about the soils and geologic conditions on and below the surface at the proposed project site (s). The geotechnical report typically includes data from previous studies of neighboring buildings and results from new sampling.

Geotechnical Hazards. The report should identify potential geotechnical hazards, including: 

• Areas subject to subsidence and liquefaction.
• Landslides and mudflow hazards.
• Fault zones.

Soil Sampling and Testing. Soil samples are tested in a laboratory to determine moisture content, soil type, expansion, percolation, bearing capacity, friction, and other factors pertinent to the proposed building. Other important data include:

• Drainage characteristics and permeability.
• Depth to groundwater.
• Depth to bedrock.
• Susceptibility to compaction and erosion.
• Shrink and swell potential.
• Compressive strength and stability (bearing capacity).
• Evidence of fill.

Recommendations. Findings from the geotechnical investigation inform design and construction, including:

• Site preparation methods, such as compaction or soil replacement.
• Bearing loads and expected settlement.
• Management of groundwater and surface water during construction and the finished project.
• Special foundation design requirements.

UCOP recommends that the location engages the geotechnical engineer to review the construction documents for compliance with the report’s recommendations and findings. It is also beneficial to have the engineer present during excavation to confirm that actual conditions align with those anticipated in the report.

Hydrology studies are performed by environmental consultants or hydrologic engineers. These studies are based on a review of existing maps, records, and data, supplemented by site-specific hydrologic measurements and field observations. The hydrology studies include:

• Surface water drainage patterns (both on and off site).
• Floodplain zones and potential inundation zones.
• Aquifers and groundwater recharge zones.
• Depth to groundwater.
• Storm drainage system capacity and requirements.
• Areas subject to erosion hazards.
• Debris flow and mudslide risks.
• Coastal flooding and tsunami hazards.

The findings of these studies inform site design, grading, and drainage strategies, and are essential for compliance with applicable floodplain management and stormwater regulations.

Land surveys document existing site features, project boundaries, and, when applicable, legal boundaries such as property lines, rights-of-way, and easements. The surveyor locates physical elements (including structures, roads, trees, and landforms) and reviews available records to gather information on utilities and boundaries. The survey determines the site configuration and area. The surveyor's elevation measurements are important for connecting the proposed project to existing roads, utilities, and, if needed, nearby buildings. Grades are measured in relation to a fixed point established for a location.

When a project involves one or more existing buildings, a variety of studies are conducted to assess the feasibility of reusing some or all of the structures. These studies evaluate functional performance, structural integrity, and code issues to determine whether the buildings can meet the project’s requirements. Typical areas of analysis include: 

• Overall building suitability and adaptability for the proposed use (e.g., floor area, column spacing, floor-to-floor heights, and vibration / acoustic performance).
• Capacity and condition of existing engineered systems (e.g., electrical, HVAC, fire protection, and plumbing).
• Vertical load bearing capacity of structural elements (e.g., slabs, beams, girders, and columns).
• Earthquake resistance and lateral load capacity (e.g., shear walls and frame bracing).
• Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Building Code accessibility provisions.
• Fire and life-safety systems.
• Energy efficiency and compliance with the UC Sustainable Practices Policy.

Consultants are engaged to inspect existing sites or buildings that may contain hazardous materials. These consultants identify the presence and extent of the hazards and recommend the proper methods for removal, remediation, or mitigation. While location staff are generally aware of hazards on current sites, new sites or previously occupied sites may present risks, including soil or groundwater contamination resulting from prior use. The University has established procedures to guide location staff in the assessment of toxic and hazardous substances on real property. Procedures are also in place for reviewing gifts of real property for the presence of hazardous materials. Visit the Real Estate Services and Strategies Group website for more information. 

To document existing project conditions, data is collected across various categories, including climate, site features, environmental influences, historical data, land-use and regulatory requirements, building codes, visual analysis, and circulation and access patterns. See Guidelines-EH&S, Fire Marshal and Site Analysis During Project Planning.

UCOP recommends that the site analysis report include any relevant studies and reports, including those previously completed by the University, related to the proposed project. These may include:

• Planning and Development
  • Long-Range Development Plans and related Environmental Impact Reports
  • Precinct or area development plans
  • PhDF and other design guidelines
  • Expansion plans for adjacent or nearby buildings
• Infrastructure
  • Utility and infrastructure plans
• Circulation and Infrastructure
  • Roadway and transportation plans
  • Vehicular circulation plans
  • Bicycle and pedestrian plans
  • Circulation and parking plans
• Environmental and Safety
  • Accessibility studies and compliance reviews
  • Surveys of asbestos, PCBs, and seismic hazards

Site analysis drawings graphically combine a variety of the site analysis studies into a drawing or set of drawings. While these drawings may include environmental information, they are not intended to provide a comprehensive environmental assessment or to substitute for any of the requirements of the environmental impact report process.

A comparative site analysis measures trade-offs among different project locations against a set of criteria and draws conclusions as to the most appropriate project site. The first step in this analysis is to define the criteria and their relative priorities. The criteria are typically derived from goals, objectives, or specific performance requirements. These measures may be divided into threshold criteria, which are absolute either acceptable or not acceptable requirements, and more detailed criteria that have varying degrees of suitability. The criteria may include:

• Accessibility.
• Proximities.
• Hazards.
• Land availability and configuration (area and shape).
• Physical characteristics and constraints.
• Environmental impacts.
• Costs (development, operation, and maintenance).
• Timing.
• Design aspects.
• Acceptability.
• Compatibility of proposed use with existing uses.
• Availability of essential services.

A subsequent step in the comparative site analysis is defining functional and Facility requirements for the intended site. The project program, its phasing, and other operational and management considerations must be understood to test if the program fits the site. A comparative site analysis is a crucial step in preparing an EIR for the project. An EIR requires an evaluation of project alternatives, which can include alternative site locations. The preferred site must be justified based on its satisfaction of project objectives.

Programming defines the user's needs. That includes defining a project's functional needs, interior and exterior functional requirements, including space sizes, contents, activities, and relationships. A project program serves not only as a basis for design and a source of information about a project, but also as a basis for seeking funding. The final product of programming is the project program, sometimes referred to as the Detailed Project Program (DPP). See RD – Project Programmatic Guidelines. 

The programming process concludes with a clear and orderly statement of the problem. Detailed program information is usually separated from the more general functional data. Project programs establish quality and scope. Quality is often defined abstractly in the project goals and more specifically in the project program. Scope is clearly defined and incorporates the following factors:

• The definition of the users and the purpose of the users
• The functions and programs
• The assigned square feet of the proposed facility
• Special factors

This section describes approaches used to establish construction costs for project budgets. The construction cost of a project is part of the total project cost in the present CIB.

Estimating construction costs typically involves using costs from similar prior projects and applying those costs to the present project, allowing for adjustments in location, scope, construction time period, and other factors.

The following methods are used to estimate construction costs (in order of increasing detail):

• Cost per gross square foot. This method utilizes data on the costs of various building types, published by cost information services or compiled in databases by organizations such as the Association of University Architects (AUA).
• Cost by building systems/components. Reference books are available that provide costs for components by building square footage and by square footage of building components.
• Cost by building trade or Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) division. This level of estimate is useful at the Construction Documents Phase when enough detail is available on the project to break the various systems into component parts and do an accurate quantity survey similar to that done by contractors who are bidding a project. 

Contingencies are typically used in conjunction with all methods of estimating to account for unknowns. Avoid adding explicit contingencies on top of implicit contingencies. The CIB includes design and project contingencies. The design contingency accounts for the fact that projects often contain more elements when fully designed than could have been anticipated earlier in the design process. The project contingency is for unknowns during construction. The project contingency allows for unknown factors that could increase construction and related costs beyond the estimate. Project contingency is not the same as the escalation factor. Contact UCOP Design and Construction Services for cost indexing. 

The University capital improvement project funding process requires a level of estimating detail equivalent to the Cost by building systems/components method discussed above before a building design is established with components from which to estimate. Estimating the design cost is done from a written description of what is included in the proposed design. Representative projects can be used as examples. Recommended comparisons are similar University-wide projects. By using the list of factors that influence costs and making assumptions about the factors relevant to the proposed project, these factors can be compared to those identified in the examples. A cost for each building component (factor) can be established by adjusting the related cost (e.g., weight of structure and loading) from the representative project to what are the assumed conditions of the proposed project.

Contact UCOP Design and Construction Services for cost indexing. 

Where all or any part of the labor and/or materials to be used in the design and construction of a project will be donated for no consideration or transferred to the University “at cost”, state contracting laws and University policies may apply. Consult construction counsel and the Guidelines for Donation to properly characterize the donation and determine the best treatment. Where volunteer labor will be used on a project, all volunteers (and their parent or guardian, if applicable) should complete a waiver form and review Volunteer Labor.

Questions regarding this chapter should be directed to campus/medical center capital planning/real estate staff, the UCOP Director of Capital Planning or Director of Real Estate.

Project consistency with the most recently approved CFP, the accepted Physical PhDF, and the approved LRDP are the determining factors for the proper approval path for a capital project.  Consistency with PhDF and LRDP is not required for off-campus projects for which there is no applicable PhDF or LRDP.

Total project budget shall be defined as all costs of the project, including administrative, design, construction, interest accrued during construction, costs related to infrastructure needed to implement the project, and, where applicable, equipment costs, as well as the acquisition cost of land or other real property.

Phased work. A project cannot be divided into separate phases for independent consideration for any of the approvals and/or delegations within this chapter. Phased work includes, but is not limited to, using the same contractor to perform similar modifications on multiple buildings, undertaking multiple projects over a period of years on the same building, and constructing multiple buildings in a complex or separating work into several projects. In such cases, separate projects or phases will be considered part of the same budget.

The consideration of separate projects or phases for determining the appropriate level of project budget approval should not affect the requirements for the bidding and contracting of those separate projects or phases. The approvals and delegations in this chapter are related to capital project budgets that may be for projects that are distinct from “projects” as defined in the PCC. It is possible that an approved capital project budget could be implemented under multiple contracts. Any contract for the implementation of an approved project budget would be subject to relevant bidding and contracting requirements.

Delegated Authority. Regents Policy 8103 on Capital Project Matters delegates specific capital project approval authorities to the President of the University. Delegation of Authority 2629 further delegates some of these capital project approval authorities to Chancellors, Director - Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Executive Vice President - Chief Operating Officer at UCOP, and Vice President - Agriculture and Natural Resources, according to their areas of responsibility as summarized below. Delegation of Authority 2629 also further delegates certain approval authorities.

All projects must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA defines “projects” as activities that have the potential to result in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. A “project” constitutes the whole of an action, and applies to typical capital projects as well as certain real estate transactions.

Information on external financing may be found in the Regents Policy 5300 on External Financing and DA2628 Authority to Approve, Obtain, and Manage External Financing and to Execute External Financing Documents.

Questions regarding this section should be directed to campus/medical center capital planning staff or the UCOP Director of Capital Planning. This section addresses the authority granted to the Chancellor, Director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, and Vice President for Agriculture and Natural Resources for their respective areas of responsibility under DA2629, Regents Policy 8103 on Capital Project Matters, and the requirements for related transactions.

A capital project cannot be divided into separate  phases for independent consideration for any of the approvals and/or delegations within this chapter. See definition of “Phased Work.” The consideration of separate projects or phases for determining the appropriate level of project budget approval should not affect the requirements for the bidding and contracting of those separate projects or phases. The approvals and delegations in this chapter are related to capital project budgets that may be for projects that are distinct from “projects” as defined in the PCC. It is possible that an approved capital project budget would be implemented under multiple contracts. Any contract for the implementation of an approved project budget would be subject to relevant bidding and contracting requirements.

Questions regarding this section should be directed to campus/medical center capital planning staff or the UCOP Director of Design and Construction. This section addresses the authority that has been granted to Chancellors, Director - Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Executive Vice President - Chief Operating Officer, and Vice President - Agriculture and Natural Resources for their areas of responsibility under Delegation of Authority 2629,  Regents Policy 8103 on Capital Project Matters, and the requirements for related transactions.

Questions regarding this section should be directed to the campus/medical center capital planning staff or the UCOP Director of Capital Planning. This section addresses the authority that has been granted to Chancellors, Director - Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Executive Vice President - Chief Operating Officer, and Vice President - Agriculture and Natural Resources for their areas of responsibility under Delegation of Authority 2629, Regents Policy 8103 on Capital Project Matters, and the requirements for related transactions.

This authority excludes: (1) any substantial program modification in physical characteristics or intended use of a project previously approved by the Regents, the President, or Executive Vice President - Chief Financial Officer; (2) any project funded wholly or in part by State funds; or (3) projects involving Chancellor residences or offices. Those projects involving Chancellor residences and offices are subject to the approval requirements established in the Regents’ policy on University-Provided Housing.

For purposes of determining the appropriate level of approval, Scope changes are evaluated on the basis of the value of the change. Generally, scope changes are those that materially affect the programmatic and/or physical capacity of the project, including but not limited to changes that exceed 10 percent of the project metrics (e.g., square footage, beds, units, parking spaces, height) as defined in the associated budget approval. Scope changes do not include “Implementing Work Changes”, which are defined as "modifications to details in the project construction, delivery methods, and/or design that do not materially affect the project scope and/or design as previously approved, including but not limited to: 

1. Unforeseen site conditions that require minor modifications to site utilities, infrastructure, building footprints, elevations, circulation, or landscaping; 
2. Changes responding to new or unforeseen code requirements including but not limited to fire, life-safety, and accessibility
3. Internal reconfiguration of existing floorplans, internal circulation, or related changes in building efficiency
4. Changes in construction phasing that may require temporary site, landscaping, or utility infrastructure modifications; 
5. Minor errors and omissions in construction documents. Changes related to the above may result in corresponding modifications to the originally approved building metrics, including but not limited to: ASF or GSF, units or beds, parking spaces, or building height. Implementing Work Changes are ministerial in nature. If these changes cannot be reasonably considered as an Implementing Work Change, the budget approval authority must be informed of a potential scope change. Otherwise, implementing work would not be considered a scope change and would not require a new scope approval. A project cannot be divided into separate phases for independent consideration. See definition of Phased Work.

Consideration of scope changes should determine and include any mandated reviews, approval conditions, and/or prior approvals, as well as any associated design amendments and related California Environmental Quality Act compliance, as required. See Capital Project Budget Approvals, Capital Project Design Approvals, Certification Checklist Directions, Reporting for Capital Projects, Information on California Environmental Quality Act Compliance, and Information on external financing may be found in the Regents Policy 5300 on External Financing and DA2628, Authority to Approve, Obtain, and Manage External Financing and to Execute External Financing Documents.

Questions regarding this section should be directed to the campus/medical center capital planning staff or the UCOP Director of Design and Construction. The goal of PhDF is to create a common vocabulary for planning and design at the campus, while demonstrating how processes and standards at the campus support consistent implementation. The PhDF is to be a comprehensive report identifying the campus’s principles and objectives for the design of the physical environment, how those relate to the campus LRDP, and how they are integrated into project planning and design. Pursuant to the Regents Policy 8103 on Capital Project Matters, minor amendments to the PhDF may be approved by the President and this authority has been further delegated to Executive Vice President - Chief Financial Officer through Delegation of Authority 2629. This document sets forth those guidelines and the process for approving changes to a campus PhDF.

Minor amendments to the PhDF are defined below:

• Addition of land or sites not currently in the approved PhDF, that are (i) already owned, leased, or otherwise occupied by the Regents, and (ii) covered in the adopted LRDP. The proposed amendment would identify the land or site, include appropriate principles and objectives for the design of the physical environment at the added location, and articulate how these relate to the current PhDF accepted by the Regents and to the adopted LRDP.
• Changes to the PhDF principles and objectives for the design of the physical environment, when these changes (i) are in compliance with the adopted LRDP and (ii) preserve the fundamental principles and objectives in the PhDF accepted by the Regents. The proposed amendment would explain how the changes relate to the adopted LRDP.
• An amendment to the PhDF that is occasioned by a new or amended LRDP, so long as the proposed PhDF amendment preserves the fundamental principles and objectives in the PhDF accepted by the Regents. This may be prompted by addition of land or sites to be acquired, leased, or otherwise occupied by the Regents, or minor changes related to the design of the physical environment prompted by the new or amended LRDP. The proposed amendment would explain how the changes relate to the new or amended LRDP.
• In each of the above cases, if the proposed changes would be integrated into project planning and design in a different way from the process described in the accepted PhDF, the proposed amendment would describe the revised process.

The campus/medical center shall submit a draft action item that includes:

1. The action to be taken;
2. An executive summary providing a brief general description of the changes to the PhDF, and the context and rationale for the changes;
3. A bulleted summary of previous or concurrent Actions (Regental, Presidential, Administrative or Chancellorial) that are relevant to the requested Action;
4. A complete accounting, with brief descriptions and depictions, of the changes to the PhDF, accompanied by documentation establishing that the changes (i) are within the President’s authority as outlined above in the Guidelines, and (ii) preserve the fundamental principles and objectives in the PhDF accepted by the Regents; and,
5. Attachment of the section(s) of the PhDF proposed to be revised, in “redlined” and clean final proposed formats.

Completed draft action items will be reviewed by Capital Programs and UCL. Within fifteen working days after initial receipt, Capital Programs will either forward the Item for Presidential approval if no changes are required or will provide comments back to the campus. Upon the President’s approval, the changes to the PhDF will be effective immediately.

CEQA defines “projects” as activities that have the potential to directly or indirectly affect the physical environment. The University of California plans for physical development through the LRDPs for each campus and individual project approvals. Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) are prepared to support each LRDP. After the LRDP approval and EIR certification, CEQA evaluation is done for individual projects as needed. PhDFs are guidance documents that do not entitle or allow physical development, but rather further define design principles and material choices. Minor amendments to PhDFs are similarly not considered “projects” as defined by CEQA, as they do not themselves allow development. Any project that requires a minor amendment to the PhDF will have project specific CEQA evaluation to support the design approval of the project. See Capital Project Design Approvals, Certification Checklist Directions, and Information on California Environmental Quality Act Compliance. 

Non-State-funded projects are eligible for budget and design approval using the Delegated Authority Project Certification Checklist (RD - Certification Checklist). State-funded projects are eligible for design approval using the Certification Checklist. Questions regarding this section should be directed to campus/medical center capital planning staff or the UCOP Director of Capital Planning. The Certification Checklist is used to document a project’s eligibility for delegated budget approvals and design approvals following action pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. See Regents Policy 8103: Policy on Capital Project Matters; DA2629, Delegation of Authority - Capital Project Matters; and Regents Policy 5307: University of California Debt Policy.

This section defines eligibility criteria and provides guidance on the information required in the RD - Certification Checklist. Each capital project must demonstrate:

• Total cost between $10 million and no more than $70 million (Projects of $10 million or less do not require the use of the Certification Checklist to document eligibility for delegated approvals.)
• CFP consistency
• PhDF consistency as applicable
• LRDP consistency as applicable
• CEQA and University/Regental Policies
• Financial feasibility as applicable
• No special circumstances exist that may merit review by the Regents

Guidelines for consistency with the CFP, PhDF, and LRDP, and compliance with University/Regents policies are below:

1. CFP Consistency

Consistency with the CFP is verified if the project has the same budget, scope, and funding source(s) as those identified in the most recently approved CFP and supplemental materials included with that CFP. 

Generally, a project is considered consistent if the proposed budget is within 15% of the budget in the approved CFP. It is recommended that campuses consult with UCOP Capital Assets Strategies for projects with budgets near the $70 million ceiling at the time of approvals to ensure the project will not risk exceeding the maximum budget threshold during project delivery.

The location, program, square footage, purpose, and distribution of funding across sources will be evaluated by UCOP to confirm that they support the project as described in the most recently approved CFP and supplemental materials included with that CFP. Reasonable variations in these elements are anticipated; however, any significant variations that are not supported by sufficient justification for the changes could result in the action being recommended for Regental approval.

Early consultation with UCOP regarding funding or scope changes is recommended to facilitate timely review.

2. PhDF Consistency

The Certification Checklist and attachments demonstrate that the stated planning principles, design objectives, specific design guidance, and the campus design review and approval process have been or will be met by the project. Consistency with the accepted PhDF is not required for off-campus projects for which there is no applicable PhDF.

3. LRDP Consistency

A project that demonstrates general conformance with the land use designations for the site is considered consistent. Consistency with the approved LRDP is not required for off-campus projects for which there is no applicable LRDP.

4. Compliance with CEQA and University/Regental Policies

Several key policies are outlined in the RD - Certification Checklist. Additional documentation may be requested depending on project-specific attributes (e.g., gift policy, student fee policy with respect to capital facilities, etc.).

5. Financial Feasibility

Capital Markets Finance (CMF) coordinates with campuses on financial feasibility and debt-funded projects are subject to the UC Debt Policy.

Third-Party Funding: Financial feasibility requirements apply to all capital projects, even those fully or primarily funded with resources other than campus funds or UC external financing. In circumstances where the nature of these projects means the typical documentation of total project cost (i.e., the CIB) is not available, the campus should consult with UCOP Capital Assets Strategies to determine acceptable substitute documentation.

6. Special Circumstances

Despite the authority in Delegation of Authority 2629, at the recommendation of the Executive Vice President - Chief Financial Officer (UCOP) or the UCL and Vice President - Legal Affairs, the President of the University may determine that a project merits review and approval by the Regents because of special circumstances related to budget matters, external financing, fundraising activities, project design, environmental impacts, community concerns, substantial program modifications, or potential to create negative system-wide precedent including, but not limited to, compliance with CEQA.

The RD - Certification Checklist must be submitted to UCOP Capital Programs to confirm that the project is eligible to proceed with budget and design approval(s) in accordance with DA2629. Elements of the submittal package are listed on the Checklist. 

If a delegated design action is included, attach the graphics used in the campus design review and approval, including a location plan, representative floor plans, site plan/landscaping plan, exterior elevations, including materials, and renderings. For projects that are not buildings (such as infrastructure) or projects that are entirely interior to a building, provide graphics to describe the scope of the project and document design phase and campus reviews. Graphics should be consistent with the scope described in the environmental documents. Include the dates of design review. 

Once a submittal package is received and completeness confirmed, a 15-working-day review period begins. 

References:

• Capital Project Budget Approvals 
• Capital Project Design Approvals 
• Capital Project Budget Augmentations and Scope Changes 
• Guidelines for Minor Amendments to Physical Design Frameworks 
• Reporting for Capital Projects 
• RD - Environmental Impact Classification Form
• RD - Delegated Authority Project Certification Checklist 
• Information on California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
• Information on external financing may be found in the Regents Policy 5300 on External Financing and DA2628, Authority to Approve, Obtain, and Manage External Financing and to Execute External Financing Documents.

UCOP is committed to expediting reviews of eligible projects. A UCOP Capital Programs Team Leader (Team Leader) will be established for every project to serve as a single point of contact and to coordinate concurrent review by various UCOP units. The Team Leader will be identified in the initial Checklist Submittal and will serve as the primary contact person for every phase of the process. 

• Certification Checklist - Subsequent Approvals. Campuses/medical centers may elect delegated approval of the budget before design begins (or early in design), then have the Chancellor approve design pursuant to CEQA later in the preliminary plans phase.  Final CEQA documents are not required to be completed prior to submitting the Certification Checklist to UCOP Capital Programs for review. The campus/medical center should coordinate with UCOP Physical and Environmental Planning and UCL for the review of administrative draft CEQA documents prior to public review and finalization. The campus/medical center is responsible for assuring all required CEQA documents are complete and appropriately attached to subsequent design approval at the time of the Chancellor’s approval. A second Certification Checklist for design approval is not required. 
• Certification Checklist - Consolidated Review. For projects with no State funding, campuses may opt for a consolidated submittal including budget and design at the same time, usually at or near the completion of the design development phase, but always before bidding the project.

1. Chancellor Approval of Preliminary Plans for Non-State Projects (may be required)

The delegated approval of design generally requires completion of schematic design, and the project’s executive architect must be retained under an Executive Design Professional Agreement (EDPA). In the absence of full budget approval, the EDPA requires that the project must be formally approved for preliminary plans funding (P Approval), consistent with UC policy. The Chancellor action item approving the expenditure funds for preliminary plans or working drawings does not require a Certification Checklist nor is it reviewed at UCOP. This applies to projects that are fully funded by non-State resources.

2. Consultation (Optional)

A consultation phase is available for all projects and is advisable for complex projects to facilitate the collaborative resolution of issues and potentially shorten the final Certification Checklist review time. Upon receipt of the draft Checklist Submittal (campus signatures not required), the Team Leader will acknowledge receipt and will circulate the materials. UCOP will review documents and consult with campus/medical center staff as needed to understand the proposed project and identify issues that require clarification or resolution. UCOP Capital Programs staff are available, even before a draft Checklist is ready, to consult regarding potential issues.

3. Checklist Submittal Review (Required)

UCOP strives to review Checklist Submittals and secure necessary endorsements from UCOP senior leadership within 15 working days. The Team Leader will notify the campus of incomplete submittals and missing information, indicating that coordination and review will begin once missing materials are provided and confirmed. If substantial issues arise during the UCOP review process, the campus will promptly be advised by the Team Leader that the 15-day clock will be paused until the campus can respond with clarification or correction.

1. Capital Programs Review. Capital Programs reviews the provided materials to confirm consistency with campus plans (CFP, PhDF, and LRDP), CEQA, and University/Regental Policies. The CEQA review includes materials included in Attachment 1 of the Checklist (e.g. draft environmental document, draft Notice of Determination/Exemption, draft Findings, and draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, if applicable). Capital Programs also reviews the draft Chancellor action item. Any edits are returned in a strikeout/underline format. For public-private partnerships, authority and real estate documentation are also reviewed.
2. UCL Review. The campus/medical center should coordinate with their designated UCL for the review of administrative draft CEQA documents prior to public review and finalization. The campus/medical center is responsible for alerting their designated UCL of any anticipated community concerns with environmental impacts associated with the project or the environmental review process. UCL’s suggestions rests with the campus based on a balancing of the likelihood of legal challenge against delivery delays, and any financial, political, or community relations issues.
3. CMF Review. CMF reviews the campus Debt Affordability Model and the Summary of Financial Feasibility for any projects requesting external, interim, or standby financing, and those using reserves. CMF reviews this material to confirm that calculations are accurate and assumptions are reasonable, given current and anticipated market conditions, and then makes a recommendation to the Executive Vice President – Chief Financial Officer as to whether the project is eligible for approvals using the Certification Checklist.
4. Executive Vice President’s Determination. On completion of the Checklist Submittal review, the Team Leader will notify the campus whether the Executive Vice President - Chief Financial Officer or UCL has noted issues that may require Regental review.
5. Campus and Medical Center Approval Actions. Upon receipt of the UCOP determination that the project does not require Regental review, the Chancellor may approve the project budget and/or design. The Chancellor may delegate this authority to the Sole Campus Designee and Sole Medical Center Designee. The campus or medical center finalizes the delegated approval as noted below.
   1. Public notification of pending delegated approval. For projects requiring design approval, post notice on website a minimum of 10 days in advance of the design action. Most budget actions do not require supporting CEQA documentation and can skip this step in the process (budget actions that occur after design approval may require CEQA compliance). Typically the notice is posted on the same website used to provide access to the environmental document during public review. This notice may be posted during the UCOP 15-day review period of the Checklist Submittal. The environmental document, if applicable, should be made available. The following is sample notice text:

“In accordance with established University of California procedures, UC [CAMPUS] Chancellor [NAME] will consider approval of the [PROJECT NAME]; approval is anticipated no sooner than [DATE]. In accordance the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the University of California guidelines for the implementation of the CEQA, the campus proposes that a [TYPE OF DOCUMENT (EIR, IS/MND, ETC.)] and [MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)—if applicable] be adopted by The Chancellor on [DATE] in support of the proposed [PROJECT NAME]. The purpose of this notice is to advise the public of the proposed approval action of the project.”

2. Chancellor or Designee Approves Item. Any comments/edits received from UCOP on the draft action item during the 15-day review are incorporated into the final draft, which is signed by the Chancellor or their designee.

3. Signed Project Approval Documents. The campus/medical center retains the original documents and emails a copy to the Team Leader within five working days of approval.
4. CEQA Notices. The campus/medical center is responsible for filing of all applicable notices pursuant to CEQA, such as Notice of Preparation, Notice of Availability, Notice of Determination and, at its discretion, Notice of Exemption to the State Clearinghouse.
5. Capital Projects Database. The campus/medical center enters project information into the Capital Projects Database during the quarterly update immediately following the project approval(s). This data is included in the Major Capital Projects Implementation Report.
6. Notice of Completion. The campus keeps the original Notice of Completion (NOC) and sends a copy to Capital Programs within five working days of filing the NOC.
7. Post-Project CIBs. Within 60 days after the filing the NOC (or Certificate of Occupancy if there is no NOC) the campus or medical center submits, by entering it as approved into the Capital Projects Database, an updated post-construction CIB showing any “as-disbursed” changes to date to the prior approved CIB.
8. Final CIBs. After fiscal close of the project, the campus or medical center submits, by entering it as approved into the Capital Projects Database, an updated final CIB showing any “as-disbursed” changes to date to the post-project CIB.

Questions regarding this section should be directed to campus/medical center capital planning staff or the UCOP Director of Capital Planning. Campus and medical center staff are responsible for ensuring that the capital projects database has current information. See Regents Policy 8103 on Capital Project Matters and DA2629, Delegation of Authority - Capital Project Matters. 

Capital projects shall include the following reporting and accountability requirements:

1. Major Capital Projects Implementation Report, reporting the adherence to plans and aggregated performance on specific metrics of Regental and Presidential interest;
2. Capital Projects Database shall, at a minimum, be updated before the end of each fiscal year to include current budget and schedule information;
3. Project close-out capital improvement budgets (“Post-Project CIBs”) for projects over $10 million within 60 days of the filing of the Notice of Completion (or Certificate of Occupancy if there is no Notice of Completion) and a final CIB at the fiscal close of the project;
4. Physical environment review, reviewing implementation of the PhDF through regular visits, and by a self-assessment survey of faculty, students, and staff; and
5. Periodically, an audit on selected projects to confirm the factual validity of information reported and compliance with Regental policies, Presidential policy and delegations as well as direction provided in the FM.

Questions regarding this section should be directed to campus/medical center real estate staff or the UCOP Director of Real Estate. See Regents Policy 8103 on Capital Project Matters, DA2629, Delegation of Authority - Capital Project Matters, and RD - Easement Checklist.

Chancellors, Director - Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Executive Vice President - Chief Operating Officer (UCOP), and Vice President - Agriculture and Natural Resources do not have delegated authority for acquisitions, dispositions or ground lease of real property under Regents Policy on Capital Project Matters. Therefore, campuses are advised to consult with UCOP at an early stage to confirm policy, budget, and financing parameters and resolve any fundamental business and policy issues well before requesting authorization to proceed with significant action on the transaction (e.g., issuance of a letter of intent, Memorandum of Understanding, or Request for Qualifications/Proposals), or the commitment of significant University resources. 

Prior to acquiring real property to be used for University purposes whether by purchase or ground lease (as lessee), substantial due diligence is required to determine the property’s suitability for the University’s intended use and the extent of any liability associated with taking title to or possession of the property. RESS assesses property title and value and, working with OGC, negotiates contractual terms to permit a thorough due diligence review of all other aspects of the property. All due diligence other than title and valuation is performed by or under the direction of the campus.

The nature and extent of due diligence performed is a function of the type of property and intended use. For example, vacant land for development requires analyses of such items as boundaries, terrain, soils, water table, access, and infrastructure availability; whereas an existing building to be acquired for use as-is requires analyses of such items as building structure and condition, fire life safety systems, ADA, mold, operating systems and existing leases and operating agreements. RESS maintains a checklist to assist in determining the appropriate diligence based on the nature of the property. 

Regardless of property type and intended use, however, an environmental due diligence site assessment is required to be conducted to determine the presence of hazardous materials or hazardous waste whenever the University plans to acquire or ground lease real property. These assessments must meet the current ASTM standard for environmental site assessments (ESAs) which outlines the process for a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and is compliant with the Environmental Protection Agency's All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) Rule.  If any active recognized environmental conditions are noted in the assessment, further risk assessment and investigations may be required.  Such additional investigations may require scoping and permitting, and are difficult to rush.

Questions regarding this section should be directed to campus/medical center capital planning staff or the UCOP Director of Real Estate. This section addresses the authority that has been granted to Chancellors, Director - Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Executive Vice President - Chief Operating Officer, and Vice President - Agriculture And Natural Resources for their areas of responsibility under DA2629, Regents Policy 8103 on Capital Project Matters, and the requirements for related transactions.

A. Authority

The relevant sections of DA2629 Delegation of Authority – Capital Project Matters are included below for reference. 

B. Transaction Requirements

1. If a lease transaction meets all of the following criteria, authority as delegated in DA2629 may be exercised when;
2. The lease is not a lease-purchase or similar transaction pursuant to which UC will ultimately take title to the property;
3. The lease does not include provisions pursuant to which UC will assume liability for conduct of persons other than University officers, agents, employees, students, invitees, and guests (Third Party Indemnification);
4. The indemnity and insurance provisions have been approved by the campus risk manager;
5. The campus has obtained the appropriate approvals for capital expenditures for transactions that include tenant improvement (TI) commitments beyond the TI’s provided by landlord under the lease agreement;
6. any right or option to purchase provision in the agreement has been reviewed by RESS and UCL; and
7. A RD - Lease Checklist has been completed and retained in the campus/medical center project file.

A. Authority

The relevant sections of DA2629 Delegation of Authority – Capital Project Matters are included below for reference. 

B. Transaction Requirements

The license transaction meets all of the following criteria:

1. Does not include Third Party Indemnification;
2. Is not for purposes of facilitating third-party development of projects on campus for gift, sale, or lease to the campus; and
3. A RD - License Checklist has been completed and retained in the campus project file, except that a License Checklist need not be completed for license transactions that: (1) have a term of less than one year, (2) include tenant improvements not exceeding $5,000, and (3) have consideration not exceeding $12,000.

A. Authority

The relevant sections of DA2629 Delegation of Authority – Capital Project Matters are included below for reference and are included below for reference. The specific delegation of authority in this table cannot be changed through edit or updates to this section of the Facilities Manual.

B. Transaction Requirements 

The easement or right-of-way transaction meets all of the following criteria:

1. Is not a conveyance of a fee interest in real property.
2. Does not include Third Party Indemnification.
3. Has a clear and determinable location based on a legal description with a map depicting the area.
4. A determination has been made by the campus planning office that the easement does not interfere with any existing or future use of campus land.
5. If UC is the grantor, the agreement is in a form approved by UCL and contains language requiring that: 
   1. The easement or right-of-way terminates following a period of non-use;
   2. The grantee quitclaims its interest upon termination; and
   3. UC has unilateral right to relocate the easement or right-of-way.
6. An RD - Easement Checklist has been completed and retained in the campus project file.

Approve and execute ancillary documents, amendments, and other modifications to leases, licenses, easements, and rights-of-way consistent with authority granted under DA2629, including the following:

• Subordination and Non-Disturbance Agreements (SNDAs)
• Estoppel Agreements

For all leases approved and executed pursuant to delegated authority under Regents Policy on Capital Project Matters, the following must be submitted to UCOP Real Estate Services & Strategies (RESS), annually by July 31st: annual report, in a form requested by RESS, providing a summary of major lease terms and seismic rating for all current leases.  For all leases, licenses, easements, and rights-of-ways, the campus shall maintain a current inventory together with an electronic copy of the transaction agreements.  The inventory and agreements shall be provided to RESS upon request. 

A. Standard Lease Forms

The Standard Forms listed below are approved for use as a standard form (without review by UCL) when the only changes are business terms:

1. Lease (UC as Landlord)
2. Lease (UC as Tenant)

B. Licenses

Because licenses are used in such a wide variety of situations and require the addition of specialized language to tailor the license to each individual use, it is difficult to create a form that will not require UCL review. We have prepared the following minimum license forms:

1. License (UC as Licensor)
2. License (UC as Licensee)
3. Facility Use Agreement (UC as Licensee)

Contact RESS for guidance concerning the need for UCL review except for licenses which employ the minimum form without significant modification for the following uses: construction, construction laydown areas, and access over existing streets. RESS may have examples of specialized licenses for various purposes.

C. Easements

Easements frequently convey a permanent interest in Regents’ property and frequently involve substantial capital investment by the grantee. The minimum easement form below provides a basic form. UCL review is required for all easements except those using the minimum form, without substantial modification, for utilities to serve a campus and access over existing streets.

1. Grant of Easement and Agreement

Material changes to UC Standard Form agreements and transactions conducted on non-UC forms require prior review and approval by UCL. RESS will coordinate the process of submission of reviews by UCL and responses. Requests for review should be submitted early in the process to ensure adequate time for review in advance of scheduled date of completion or execution. Turnaround times for UCL are dependent upon workload and staffing.

Understanding the differences between a lease of real property, a license, and an easement can help determine which one to use in a specific situation.

A. Lease

A lease is an agreement in which the landlord agrees to give the tenant the exclusive right to occupy real property, usually for a specific term, and, in exchange, the tenant agrees to give the landlord some sort of consideration. A lease transfers to the tenant a leasehold interest in the real property and, unless otherwise provided in the lease, a lease is transferable and irrevocable.

B. License

A license gives the permission of the owner to an individual or an entity to use real property for a specific purpose. Unlike a lease, it does not transfer an interest in the real property. It is personal to the licensee, and any attempt to transfer the license terminates it. It is (usually) revocable and can be either exclusive or non-exclusive. A facility use agreement (FUA) is a short-form license for very limited use of a facility. Licenses are sometimes included in other agreements, e.g. a memorandum of understanding. It is highly recommended that a separate license be created whenever a right to use another party’s space, usually for a shorter term, is part of a larger relationship. The separate license should be attached as an exhibit to the more general agreement.

C. Easement

An easement, like a license, gives the permission of the owner to use or prevent the use of the owner’s real property. However, unlike a license, it transfers to the easement holder an interest in the real property that encumbers the title record. Easements are classified as either appurtenant (benefiting and transferable with a specific piece of real property) or in gross (personal to the grantee). An easement can be transferred. Unless otherwise specified, an easement is presumed to be permanent and non-exclusive. 

To summarize:

* Although both a license and an easement can be unilateral instruments, the University’s licenses and easements are usually structured as agreements between the licensor/grantor and the licensee/grantee because the University requires the other party to agree to certain terms limiting or structuring the use, e.g. maintenance, indemnification, and insurance coverage.

D. Selecting the appropriate form

• If the right to use the property will belong exclusively to the user during the term, even as against the property owner, a LEASE will accomplish that goal.
• If the use/occupancy of the property will be shared with others during the term, then a LICENSE or an EASEMENT is the proper tool. NOTE: For a LICENSE or EASEMENT to convey the right to exclusive use, it must be specified in the document.
• If the use is to be long-term (like the underground installation of fiber optic cable), an EASEMENT is the appropriate form. If the use is to be short-term (like a construction lay down area or a film shoot) or for only part of the time during the term, (like use of a classroom Tuesdays and Thursdays, from 9-10 am, for a semester), a LICENSE is most appropriate. If the use is intermittent, the FUA would be appropriate in the latter example.
• If an owner wants an agreement that his/her view not be blocked by the use of another parcel, such an agreement should be documented with an EASEMENT.

Authority related to Leases, Licenses, and Easements pursuant to DA2629 may be further delegated. The appointment of the delegate shall be in writing. A copy shall be provided to the Executive Director of Capital Programs. See RD – Lease/License Checklist. 

Questions regarding this section should be directed to campus/medical center capital planning staff or the UCOP Director of Real Estate. This section addresses the authority that has been granted to Chancellors, Director - Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Executive Vice President - Chief Operating Officer, and Vice President - Agriculture And Natural Resources for their areas of responsibility under DA2629,  Regents Policy 8103 on Capital Project Matters, and the requirements for related transactions.

The relevant sections of DA2629 Delegation of Authority – Capital Project Matters are included below for reference. are included below for reference. The specific delegation of authority in this table cannot be changed through edit or updates to this section of the Facilities Manual. 

Reimbursement Agreements. For the purposes of this authority, “reimbursement agreements” pertain to those agreements where the University is obligated to reimburse costs incurred by a landlord or third-party development partner when the reimbursement of those costs is contingent upon the future execution of a lease, ground lease, partnership agreement, or similar agreement. In these instances, reimbursable costs are typically limited to expenses related to the planning and design of a capital project. For the purposes of this authority, “reimbursement agreements” are not intended to include the reimbursement of costs incurred by a landlord during the tenancy of the University. For example, if an existing lease agreement allows for the landlord to be reimbursed for minor repairs or alterations to a leased facility, it is not expected that the Chancellor would approve each reimbursement under that lease. However, depending on the nature of the repairs or alterations, other approvals for capital projects could apply.

Stipend Agreements. For the purposes of this authority, “stipend agreements” pertain to those agreements where the University is obligated to pay third-party development partners or design and construction contractors for their participation in a competitive selection process. The amount and conditions of the stipend are expected to be agreed upon prior to their participation.