Capital Planning & Real Estate Approvals

Volume 2, Chapter 7

INTRODUCTION

References:

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

Project consistency (7.5.1) with the: most recently approved Capital Financial Plan (CFP), accepted Physical Design Framework (PhDF), and approved Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) are the determining factors for the proper approval path for a capital project.

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 acquisition cost of land or other real property.

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, performing multiple projects over a period of years on the same building, 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.

Regents Policy 8103 on Capital Project Matters delegates specific capital project approval authorities to the President of the University. Delegation of Authority [2622] further delegates some of these capital project approval authorities to the Executive Vice President - Chief Financial Officer (UCOP), Chancellors, Director - Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Executive Vice President - Chief Operating Officer (UCOP), and Vice President - Agriculture and Natural Resources for their areas of responsibility as summarized below.

Transaction Type Maximum Authority
Consistent with the approved CFP, accepted PhDF, and approved LRDP.[1]

Approve budget (non-State)[2] and design for minor capital projects.[3] Authority may be further delegated.

Approve budget (non-State) and design for capital projects with a total project budget up to and including $70 million.[2] For projects over $10 million, require a Certification Checklist (RD2.8) reviewed by UCOP Capital Asset Strategies and countersigned by the Executive Vice President - Chief Financial Officer (UCOP). Authority may be further delegated to the Sole Campus Capital Designee or the Sole Medical Center Capital Designee, but may not be further delegated.

Not consistent with the approved CFP, or accepted PhDF, but consistent with the approved LRDP.[1]

Approve budget (non-State)[2] and design for minor capital projects.[3] This authority may be further delegated.

Approve budget or design for capital projects with a total project budget up to and including $10 million. Authority may be further delegated to the Sole Campus Capital Designee or the Sole Medical Center Capital Designee, but may not be further delegated.

[1] Consistency with PhDF and LRDP not required for off-campus projects for which there is no applicable PhDF or LRDP.
[2] Projects that include State funds must be approved by the Regents and are subject to any additional approval requirements that may be related to use of those State funds.
[3] Authority excludes budget approvals for any minor or major capital improvement project funded wholly or in part by State funds. Authority includes design approvals for projects that include State funds.

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. For additional information on CEQA compliance see 5.1.

Information on external financing may be found in the Regents Policy 5300 on External Financing and DA2621 Authority to Approve, Obtain, and Manage External Financing and to Execute External Financing Documents.

(Back to top)

7.1 CAPITAL PROJECT BUDGET APPROVALS

References:

Questions on this section should be directed to campus/medical center capital planning staff or the UCOP Director of Capital Planning.

The capital project budget authority delegated to Chancellors, Director - Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Executive Vice President - Chief Operating Officer (UCOP), and Vice President - Agriculture and Natural Resources for their areas of responsibility is described in 7.1.1.

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”.

7.1.1 Authority

A. Non-State minor and major capital improvement projects with a total project budget up to and including $10 million

Approval of:

  1. Budget for non-State minor capital improvement projects (total project budget up to and including $750,000). Authority may be further delegated (7.1.2).
  2. Budget for non-State major capital improvement projects with total project budget up to and including $10 million. Authority may be further delegated only to the Sole Campus Capital Designee or Sole Medical Center Capital Designee (7.1.2).

Capital projects budgets approved under DA2622 have reporting requirements (7.6).

This authority excludes: (1) any project funded wholly or in part by State funds; (2) any project that was denied funding by the State for reasons other than the unavailability of funding; or (3) projects involving Chancellor residences or offices. Category (3) projects are subject to the approval requirements established in the Regents’ policy on University-Provided Housing.

B. Non-State major capital improvement projects consistent with the approved Capital Financial Plan (CFP), accepted Physical Design Framework (PhDF), and approved Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) with a total project budget up to and including $70 million.

Approval of budget for non-State major capital improvement project subject to the following requirements for projects over $10 million and up to and including $70 million:

  1. Consistency with the approved CFP, accepted PhDF, and approved LRDP. Consistency with PhDF and LRDP not required for off-campus projects for which there is no applicable PhDF or LRDP. Information on consistency may be found in Certification Checklist Directions (7.5.1).
  2. Chancellor or Sole Campus Designee or Sole Medical Center Designee has approved the Business Case Analysis (BCA) (RD2.7). Information on the designees is in 7.1.2 below.
  3. Signed Certification Checklist (RD2.8) has been submitted to UCOP Capital Assets Strategies for review and has been countersigned by the Executive Vice President - Chief Financial Officer (UCOP) concluding that no Regental review is required.
  4. Capital projects budgets approved under DA2622 have reporting requirements (7.6).
  5. Authority may be further delegated only to the Sole Campus Designee or Sole Medical Center Designee (7.1.2).

This authority excludes: (1) any project funded wholly or in part by State funds; (2) any project that was denied funding by the State for reasons other than the unavailability of funding; or (3) projects involving Chancellor residences or offices that are subject to the approval requirements established in the Regents’ policy on University-Provided Housing.

C. Transfer of funds for non-State capital projects

Approval of transfer of funds for non-State capital projects approved under DA2622 may be further delegated to the Sole Campus Designee or Sole Medical Center Designee. For non-State minor capital improvement projects, the designee’s authority may be further delegated (7.1.2).

7.1.2 Further Delegation of Authority

Capital project budget authority and augmentation and scope changes delegated in DA2622 may be further delegated to the Sole Campus Capital Designee. This is the official who is vested with the responsibility for the campus’s capital program and is a direct report of the Chancellor. For locations with medical centers, capital project budget authority for medical centers may be further delegated to the Sole Medical Center Capital Designee who is an Officer of the medical center. The appointment of the Sole Designee shall be in writing. A copy shall be provided to the Executive Director of Capital Assets Strategies and Director of Capital Markets Finance. The Sole Campus Capital Designee and or Sole Medical Center Capital Designee may further delegate fund transfer authority and the budget authority for non-State minor capital improvement projects.

7.1.3 Related Material

Related Sections in Facilities Manual: Capital Project Budget Augmentations and Scope Changes (7.3), Capital Project Design Approvals (7.2), Certification Checklist Directions (7.5), Reporting for Capital Projects (7.6), Business Case Analysis (RD2.7)

Information on external financing may be found in the Regents Policy 5300 on External Financing and [DA2622, Authority to Approve, Obtain, and Manage External Financing and to Execute External Financing Documents].

(Back to top)

7.2 CAPITAL PROJECT DESIGN APPROVALS

References:

Questions on this section should be directed to campus/medical center capital planning staff or the UCOP Director of Design and Construction.

The capital project design authority delegated to Chancellors, Director - Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Executive Vice President - Chief Operating Officer (UCOP), and Vice President - Agriculture and Natural Resources for their areas of responsibility is described in 7.2.1 below.

A 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”)

All capital projects must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Environmental documentation pursuant to CEQA must be prepared prior to design approval.

7.2.1 Authority

The following delegations of authority are applicable to all projects on property owned by the Regents or on property that will be owned by the Regents upon completion of the projects.

A. Minor and major capital improvement projects with a total project budget up to and including $10 million

Approval of:

  1. Design for minor capital improvement projects (total project budget up to and including $750,000). Authority may be further delegated (7.2.2).
  2. Design for major capital improvement projects with a total project budget up to and including $10 million. Authority may be further delegated only to the Sole Campus Designee or Sole Medical Center Designee (7.2.2).

Capital projects design approved under DA2622 have reporting requirements (7.6).

B. Major capital improvement projects consistent with the approved Capital Financial Plan (CFP), accepted Physical Design Framework (PhDF), and approved Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) with a total project budget up to and including $70 million.

Approval of design for major capital improvement projects subject to the following requirements for projects over $10 million and up and including $70 million:

  1. Consistency with the approved CFP, accepted PhDF, and approved LRDP. Consistency with PhDF and LRDP is not required for off-campus projects for which there is no applicable PhDF or LRDP. Further information on consistency may be found in Certification Checklist Directions (7.5).
  2. Signed Certification Checklist has been submitted to Capital Assets Strategies for review and has been countersigned by the Executive Vice President - Chief Financial Officer (UCOP) concluding that no Regental review is required (RD2.8)
  3. Capital projects budgets approved under the authority delegated herein have reporting requirements (7.6)
  4. Authority may be further delegated only to the Sole Campus Designee or Sole Medical Center Designee (7.2.2).

7.2.2 Further Delegation of Authority

Capital project design authority delegated under DA2622 may be further delegated to the Sole Campus Capital Designee. This is the official who is vested with the responsibility for the campus’s capital program. For locations with medical centers, capital project design authority for medical centers may be further delegated to the Sole Medical Center Capital Designee. The appointment of the Sole Designee shall be in writing. A copy shall be provided to the Executive Director of Capital Assets Strategies and Director of Capital Markets Finance.

7.2.3 Related Material

Related Sections in Facilities Manual: Capital Project Budget Approvals (7.1), Capital Project Budget Augmentations and Scope Changes (7.3), Certification Checklist Directions (7.5), Reporting for Capital Projects (7.6)

Information on California Environmental Quality Act Compliance (5.1)

(Back to top)

7.3 CAPITAL PROJECT BUDGET AUGMENTATIONS AND SCOPE CHANGES

References:

Questions on this section should be directed to campus/medical center capital planning staff or the UCOP Director of Capital Planning.

The capital project budget augmentation and scope change authority delegated to Chancellors, Director - Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Executive Vice President - Chief Operating Officer (UCOP), and Vice President - Agriculture and Natural Resources for their areas of responsibility is described in 7.3.1.

7.3.1 Authority

A. Approve cumulative augmentations and scope changes (7.3.2) to non-State minor and major capital improvement projects approved under the authority of the Chancellor (or Sole Designee, see 7.1.2), Director Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Executive Vice President - Chief Operating Office (UCOP), and Vice President Agriculture and Natural Resources subject to the following limits:

  1. For non-State minor capital improvement projects with a total project budget (as augmented) which does not exceed the limit to qualify as a minor capital improvement project (7.1.1), authority may be further delegated (7.1.2).
  2. For non-State major capital projects with a project budget (as augmented) up to and including $10 million, authority may be further delegated to the Sole Campus Designee or Sole Medical Center Designee (7.1.2).
  3. For non-State major capital projects with a project budget (as augmented) less than or equal to $70 million, authority is limited to approving cumulative augmentations and scope changes up to 15% of the original project budget approval, but in no event exceeding $70 million.

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 which are subject to the approval requirements established in the Regents’ policy on University-Provided Housing.

B. Transfer of funds for non-State capital projects

Approval of transfer of funds for non-State capital projects approved under DA2622 may be further delegated to the Sole Campus Designee or Sole Medical Center Designee. For non-State minor capital improvement projects, the designee’s authority may be further delegated. (7.1.2)

For interim, standby, and external financing that has been approved by the President or Executive Vice President Chief Financial Officer, the campus/medical center should submit an updated drawdown schedule to Capital Markets Finance at least 60 days in advance of when the funds are needed.

Capital projects budget augmentations and scope changes approved under DA2622 have reporting requirements (7.6).

7.3.2 Scope Changes

A. Scope changes are evaluated on the basis of the value of the change. Scope changes do not include minor errors and omissions in construction documents or to respond to minor unforeseen site conditions. If these changes cannot be reasonably considered as minor or if they alter the programmatic capability or physical characteristics, the budget approval authority must be informed of a potential scope change. A project cannot be divided into separate phases for independent consideration. (See definition of “Phased Work”)
B. Scope change information should consider any mandated reviews and design approvals as well as any required California Environmental Quality Act compliance (5.1).

7.3.3 Related Materials

Related Sections in Facilities Manual: Capital Project Budget Approvals (7.1), Capital Project Design Approvals (7.2), Certification Checklist Directions (7.5), Reporting for Capital Projects (7.6), Business Case Analysis (RD2.6)

Information on California Environmental Quality Act Compliance (5.1)

Information on external financing may be found in the Regents Policy 5300 on External Financing and [DA2621, Authority to Approve, Obtain, and Manage External Financing and to Execute External Financing Documents].

(Back to top)

7.4 GUIDELINES FOR MINOR AMENDMENTS TO PHYSICAL DESIGN FRAMEWORKS

References:

Questions on this section should be directed to campus/medical center capital planning staff or the UCOP Director of Design and Construction.

The goal of Physical Design Frameworks (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 Long Range Development Plan (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 DA2622. This document sets forth those guidelines and the process for approving changes to a campus PhDF.

7.4.1 Minor Amendments to the Physical Design Framework are defined herein: 

  • 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.
  • Amendment to the PhDF that is occasioned by an LRDP amendment whose approval is delegated to the President, 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 changes to the principles and objectives for the design of the physical environment prompted by the minor LRDP amendment. The proposed amendment would explain how the changes relate to the 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.

7.4.2 Process for approval of changes to the PhDF:

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 Assets Strategies (CAS) and the Office of the General Counsel (OGC). Within fifteen working days after initial receipt, CAS 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.

7.4.3 Physical Design Frameworks are not "Projects" as defined by CEQA:

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) defines “projects” as activities that have the potential to directly or indirectly affect the physical environment. The University of California approves physical development through the LRDPs for each campus and individual project design approvals. Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) are prepared to support each LRDP. Subsequent to the LRDP adoption 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.

7.4.4 Related Material

Related Sections in Facilities Manual: Capital Project Design Approvals (7.2), Certification Checklist Directions (7.5)

Information on California Environmental Quality Act Compliance (5.1)

(Back to top)

7.5 CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST DIRECTIONS

References:

Questions on 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 California Environmental Quality Act.

7.5.1 Certification Checklist Eligibility

This section defines eligibility criteria, and provides guidance on the information required in the Certification Checklist (RD2.8).

Each capital project must demonstrate:

A. Total cost between $10 million and $70 million
B. Capital Financial Plan consistency
C. Physical Design Framework consistency as applicable
D. Long Range Development Plan consistency as applicable
E. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act and University/Regental Policies
F. Financial feasibility as applicable
G. No special circumstances exist that may merit review by the Regents

Projects funded wholly or in part by State funds are not eligible for budget approval through the Certification Checklist (RD2.8); however, the design of projects using State funds may be approved under DA2622.

A. Major capital improvement projects with a total project budget up to and including $70 million

With the exception of State funded capital project budget actions, projects of $10 million or less do not need to use the Certification Checklist (RD2.8) to document eligibility for delegated budget and design approvals.

With the exception of State funded capital project budget actions, projects with a total project budget more than $10 million and up to and including $70 million are eligible for approval using the Certification Checklist (RD2.8). 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.

B. Capital Financial Plan (CFP) consistency

The CFP presents proposed capital projects, public-private partnerships, and acquisition of real property for each campus and medical center. The projects and transactions are presented within the context of goals and needs, current economic conditions, and specific circumstances for each location.

Consistency: For purposes of determining eligibility to use the Certification Checklist (RD2.8) for approvals, consistency with the CFP is verified if it has the same budget, scope, and funding source(s) identified in the most recently accepted 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 accepted CFP. Any project with a total project cost over $70 million will require Regental approval.

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 accepted CFP and supplemental materials included with that CFP. Reasonable variations in these elements are anticipated; however any significant variations in these elements 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.

C. Physical Design Framework (PhDF) consistency

The PhDF identifies the campus’s planning principles and objectives for design of the physical environment; how the PhDF relates to the campus LRDP; and how objectives will be integrated into project planning and design. The PhDF is a Regents-approved document with both visual and textual elements and includes key planning requirements such as density parameters, sustainability guidelines, circulation guidelines, vistas and sightlines, physical connections to the adjacent community, and design guidelines. The guidelines may include building heights, build-to lines, building orientation, building materials and colors, site furnishings, landscaping and hardscaping, and architectural style guidance. The PhDF also describes the campus design review and approval process. The PhDF guides campus development in a coherent manner, ensures stewardship of the campus environment, and informs design professionals of design principles and objectives important to the campus.

Consistency: The Certification Checklist and attachments must demonstrate that the stated planning principles, design objectives, specific design guidance, and the campus design review and approval process have 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.

D. Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) consistency

A LRDP is a comprehensive land use plan that guides physical development and includes four standard elements: land use, open space, circulation, and utilities. The plan identifies the physical development associated with projected enrollment and population and is an important reference document for the campus, the University, and the general public.

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.

E. Compliance with CEQA and University/Regental Policies

A number of key University policies are identified in the Certification Checklist (RD2.8) and require documentation of compliance in the submittal. Additional documentation may be requested depending on project-specific attributes (e.g. gift policy, student fee policy with respect to capital facilities, etc.).

F. Financial feasibility [need CMF to review ]

When a project is funded in whole or in part with external financing and/or standby/interim financing, the campus must analyze the affordability of such debt-funded projects on a ten-year pro-forma basis, with the additional debt burden assessed against metrics such as debt service to operations, debt service coverage, and expendable resources to debt. Capital Markets Finance (CMF) coordinates with campuses on the debt model and affordability and debt funded projects are subject to the UC Debt Policy.

Third-Party Funding: The total project cost limits (of up to and including $70 million) and financial feasibility requirements apply to all capital projects, even those fully or primarily funded with resources other than campus funds or UC external financing. For example, projects structured with 100% gift funds or as public-private partnerships have potential impacts on the campuses’ debt affordability and therefore require review. In circumstances where the nature of these projects means the typical documentation of total project cost—i.e., the Capital Improvement Budget—are not available, the campus should consult with UCOP Capital Assets Strategies to determine acceptable substitute documentation.

G. Special circumstances

Despite the authority in DA2622, at the recommendation of the Executive Vice President - Chief Financial Officer (UCOP) or the General Counsel 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.

7.5.2 Submittal Requirements

A Certification Checklist (RD2.8) must be submitted to UCOP Capital Asset Strategies to confirm that the project is eligible to proceed with budget and design approval(s) pursuant to DA2622. Elements of the submittal package are described further below. As described in the checklist, the required elements will vary depending in the type of approval. Once a submittal package is received and completeness confirmed, a 15-working-day review period begins. Examples of submittal materials can be provided upon request.

A. Certification Checklist

  • Chancellor or Sole Campus Designee or Sole Medical Center Designee signature is required
  • General project information must be provided, all relevant checkboxes completed, and applicable dates in blanks provided.
  • Physical Design Framework: provide a brief narrative demonstrating the major points of consistency with the PhDF and include design graphics used in campus design review and relied on by the Chancellor for design approval.
  • Sustainable Practices: Enter minimum planned LEED™ goal and stretch goal, if any.
  • Other Relevant Policies: If “Yes,” note the other policies that apply. A “Yes” answer indicates a project is in compliance with those other identified policies.

B. Draft Action Item

The draft action item is to be signed in final format by the Chancellor or Sole Campus Designee and/or Sole Medical Center Designee after the President or designee endorses the Certification Checklist (RD2.8). The draft action item must reflect the budget, scope, schedule, and other supporting documentation the checklist.

C. Attached documentation

The Certification Checklist requires project documentation that demonstrates the: need being addressed, program description and justification, project scope, Capital Improvement Budget (CIB), schedule, planning and review process, and Environmental Impact Classification (EIC) (RD2.1).

A capital project’s Project Planning Guide (PPG) includes all the above information and may be a convenient way to submit the documentation.

D. Campus Planning and Review Process

Include dates of campus reviews.

E. Environmental documentation

Certification Checklist outlines the submittal package contents, including but not limited to:

  • EIC (RD2.1) signed by UCOP and campus; typically included in the PPG
  • Environmental Documentation-Checklist Attachment 1
    • Draft public notice of availability of environmental document
    • Response to Comments
    • CEQA Findings
    • Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), if applicable
    • Draft Notice of Determination or Notice of Exemption

F. Design Review

Attach the graphics used in 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 scope described in environmental documents. Include the dates of design review.

7.5.3 Process

UCOP is committed to expediting reviews of eligible projects. A UCOP Capital Assets Strategies 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 with the initial Checklist Submittal and will be the contact person for every phase of the process. Review is more expedient with a complete Certification Checklist (RD2.8), consistent information across documents, and readily verified compliance with relevant policies.

Two Certification Checklists: In the first Checklist, campuses/medical centers may elect delegated approval of the budget before design begins (or early in design). Then use a second Checklist to approve design and make a CEQA determination later in the preliminary plans phase. In such a case, separate Certification Checklists with appropriate documentation pertaining to the particular approval are submitted to UCOP Capital Assets Strategies.

One Certification Checklist: Alternatively, for projects with no State funding, campuses may opt for a consolidated submittal including budget, design, and determination of CEQA compliance at the same time, usually at or near the completion of the design development phase, but always before the start of the construction documents.

GENERAL ORDER OF ACTIONS FOR THE DELEGATED PROCESS

A. Chancellor Approval of Preliminary Plans (may be required)
B. Consultation (Optional)
C. Checklist Submittal Review
D. Executive Vice President’s Determinations
E. Campus Actions

A. Chancellor Approval of Preliminary Plans (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 does not require a Certification Checklist nor is it reviewed at UCOP.

B. Consultation (Optional)

For projects that are straightforward, complete and fully coordinated, submittals generally require little consultation between the campus/medical center and UCOP. However, projects are becoming increasingly complex. A consultation phase is available for all projects, and advisable on complex projects, to facilitate 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, consult with the campus/medical center staff as needed to understand the proposed project, and identify issues needing clarification or resolution. UCOP Capital Assets Strategies staff are available, even before a draft Checklist is ready, to consult regarding on potential issues.

C. 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 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 be promptly be advised by the Team Leader that the 15-day clock will be paused until the campus can respond with clarification or correction.

Submittal materials are distributed internally to Capital Assets Strategies, Office of General Counsel (OGC), and CMF for review. At that time, the campus/medical center is notified of the UCOP team members assigned for review (including the Team Leader), and the end date of 15-day review.

Capital Assets Strategies Review: Capital Assets Strategies 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 Assets Strategies also reviews the draft Chancellor action item. Any edits are returned are in a strikeout/underline format. For public private partnerships, authority and real estate documentation is also reviewed.

OGC Review: OGC reviews all submittal documentation to ensure consistency in project description for purposes of design approval and evaluates the CEQA compliance documentation for legal defensibility. OGC provides a written attorney-client privileged communication to the Chief Campus Counsel within the 15-day review timeframe, with copies to the assigned campus/medical center Project Manager and Environmental Planner. OGC’s determination is not provided to Capital Assets Strategies unless, following consultation with the General Counsel, it is determined that the campus’s proposed action will create a negative precedent or pose a significant system-wide risk.

Review by OGC is focused on evaluating the campus’s CEQA compliance approach for design approval and budget actions that follow design approval or involve scope change. If OGC determines that a Checklist Submittal does not involve or otherwise require CEQA compliance, OGC will notify the campus that no OGC Determination will be provided.

The OGC Determination may include suggested revisions to the CEQA compliance documentation, Chancellor action item or other supporting documentation. OGC’s suggestions represent conservative advice that, if taken, will provide the campus with the best legal defense in the event of a CEQA challenge. There is no requirement for a campus to re-submit the project for another 15-day review following its receipt of an OGC Determination. The decision to revise the CEQA documentation or any other information submitted by the campus in support of the proposed approval in accordance with OGC’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.

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 campus reserves. They review this material to confirm that calculations are accurate and assumptions are reasonable, given current and anticipated market conditions. CMF makes a recommendation to the Executive Vice President – Chief Financial Officer as to whether the project is eligible for approvals using the Certification Checklist.

D. Executive Vice President’s Determination

On completion of the Checklist Submittal review, the Team Leader will notify campus whether the Executive Vice President - Chief Financial Officer or Office of the General Counsel has noted issues that may require Regental review.

E. 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. The Chancellor may delegate this authority to the Sole Campus Designee and/or Sole Medical Center Designee (7.1) and Capital Project Design Approvals (7.2). The campus or medical center finalizes the delegated approval as noted below.

Notice of Approval: For projects requiring design approval, post notice on website a minimum of 15 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 Regents/President/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.”

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 that is signed by the Chancellor or designee.

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.

Notice of Determination or Exemption: The campus/medical center submits Notice of Determination and, in its discretion, a Notice of Exemption to the State Clearinghouse and copies the UCOP Physical and Environmental Planning office.

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.

Notice of Completion: The campus keeps the original Notice of Completion (NOC) and sends a copy to Capital Assets Strategies within five working days of filing the NOC.

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.

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.

7.5.4 Related Material

Related Sections in Facilities Manual: Capital Project Budget Approvals (7.1), Capital Project Design Approvals (7.2), Capital Project Budget Augmentations and Scope Changes (7.3), Guidelines for Minor Amendments to Physical Design Frameworks (7.4), Reporting for Capital Projects (7.6), Business Case Analysis (RD2.7), Environmental Impact Classification Form (RD2.1)

Information on California Environmental Quality Act Compliance (5.1)

Information on external financing may be found in the Regents Policy on External Financing and DA2621 Authority to Approve, Obtain, and Manage External Financing and to Execute External Financing Documents.

(Back to top)

7.6 REPORTING FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS

References:

Campus and medical center staff are responsible for ensuring that the capital projects database has current information.

7.6.1 Authority

Capital projects shall include the following reporting and accountability requirements:

A. Major Capital Projects Implementation Report, reporting the adherence to plans and aggregated performance on specific metrics of Regental and Presidential interest;
B. Capital Projects Database shall include current budget and schedule information;
C. 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;
D. physical environment review, reviewing implementation of the Physical Design Framework through regular visits, and by a self-assessment survey of faculty, students, and staff; and
E. 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 Facilities Manual.

7.6.2 Authority

Related Sections in Facilities Manual: Capital Project Approvals (7.0), Capital Projects Budget Approvals (7.1), Capital Project Design Approvals (7.2), Project Budget Augmentations and Scope Changes (7.3), Certification Checklist Directions (7.5)

(Back to top)

7.7 AUTHORIZATION FOR ACQUISITIONS, DISPOSITIONS, OR GROUND LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY

References:

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. This Section sets forth the processes that must be followed prior to negotiating the aforementioned transactions.

7.7.1 Request for Assistance Letter

Chancellors, Director-Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Executive Vice President-Chief Operating Officer (UCOP), and Vice President-Agriculture and Natural Resources are required to submit a letter to the Executive Director of Capital Asset Strategies requesting assignment of Office of the President (UCOP) staff prior to commencing with negotiations for any real property acquisitions, disposition, or ground lease of real property (Authorization Request).

7.7.2 Content of Request Letter

The Authorization Request must include the following information:

A. Programmatic Purpose
Provide a description of the purpose of the transaction, how it serves the University’s mission, and the programmatic rationale for the real estate requirement. If the programmatic considerations support basing some or all of the transaction on other than market terms (e.g. , no rent or below market rent for a ground lease), include a justification for this programmatic offset.

B. Project Description
Provide an abstract of the proposed transaction including the fundamental terms, preliminary schedule through approval, parties to the transaction and respective roles, and a description of the property including any improvements with area, use, and condition information. Provide a discussion of the other properties or transaction alternatives (e.g., on campus vs. off campus, new vs. existing, and lease vs. acquisition) that have been considered and indicate why the selected alternative is preferred. If construction or remodeling is required, a description of the planned work and the estimated cost (however preliminary) should be included. Also, note any special issues or concerns, such as political, environmental, or community relations sensitivities, and any related transactions (e.g., the University leasing back space in a project to be developed on its land pursuant to a ground lease).

C. Funding, Financing and Feasibility
For acquisitions, or ground leases with the University as lessee, provide a summary of the total cost of acquisition (or ground rent) and the estimated cost of any improvements or renovations. Summarize funding sources and University financing required for the project through completion, including preliminary financial feasibility in the one page format accompanying Regents’ Items. For dispositions, or ground leases with the University as lessor, provide a description of the property, estimated price, summary of any debt or restrictions applicable to the property and use of proceeds. For dispositions, also indicate why the property is surplus to the University’s needs. For ground leases on University land in particular, indicate the proposed use and term and how that use fits within the campus Long Range Development Plan and also specify the preferred form(s) of consideration for the use of University’s land.

D. Additional Resources
Provide a description of resources necessary or desired to complete the desired transaction and identification of funding to support the resources or services. This should include legal support through OGC and outside counsel, brokers, financial advisors, third-party consultants and any other specialized assistance.

The content of the request for authorization will vary with the type and complexity of the proposed transaction. UCOP staff members are available to assist in pre-authorization strategic planning, transaction design, and developing information to be included in the Authorization Request.

7.7.3 Timeframe for Submitting Request Letter

The earlier the Authorization Request is submitted, the more opportunity there will be to collaborate on and confirm policy, budget, and financing parameters. Early UCOP involvement will minimize delays resolving fundamental business and policy issues and, when those issues are not resolvable, avoid spending significant time on a form of transaction that is ultimately not feasible and identify workable alternatives. Transactions may undergo significant changes from the conceptual stage through ultimate transaction approval. The benefits of early UCOP involvement noted above, however, far outweigh any duplication of effort that may result from such changes, and in any case, authorization to proceed is required prior to a significant action (e.g., issuance of a letter of intent, Memorandum Of Understanding, or Request for Qualifications/Proposals), or the commitment of significant University resources.

7.7.4 Response to Request Letter

Following receipt of the Authorization Request, the Executive Director of Capital Asset Strategies will either:
(i) send a letter assigning appropriate UCOP staff, including requesting OGC to assign counsel, to pursue formal negotiations and advance the transaction process through final approval, or
(ii) request additional information and clarifications. In some instances, the Executive Director may also request a meeting with appropriate campus and UCOP staff to review the proposed transaction.

(Back to top)

7.8 REQUIREMENTS TO LEASE, LICENSE, AND GRANTING EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY

References:

7.8.1 Leases

A. Authority
Approve and execute lease commitments (including exercising options), subject to the transaction requirements below, for:
(i) a term not to exceed 10 years excluding options when UC is Tenant but including options when UC is Landlord, and
(ii) an initial base annual consideration not to exceed $2 million provided that all commitments with an initial base annual consideration in excess of $1 million shall be memorialized by either:

(a) a UC Standard Form Lease without material modification, or
(b) an instrument approved by Real Estate Services & Strategies (RESS) and the Office of General Counsel (OGC).

Authority excludes approval and execution of ground leases.

Approve and execute ancillary documents, amendments, or other modifications to a lease agreement consistent with the authority granted under DA2622.

B. Transaction Requirements
If a lease transaction meets all of the following criteria, authority as delegated in DA2622 may be exercised when:
(i) the lease is not a lease-purchase or similar transaction pursuant to which UC will ultimately take title to the property;
(ii) 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);
(iii) the indemnity and insurance provisions have been approved by the campus risk manager;
(iv) the campus has complied with the capital approval process (7.1) for transactions that include tenant improvement (TI) commitments beyond the TI’s provided by landlord under the lease agreement;
(v) any right or option to purchase provision in the agreement has been reviewed by RESS and OGC; and
(vi) A Lease Checklist (RD2.9) has been completed and retained in the campus project file.

7.8.2 Licenses

A. Authority
Approve and execute commitments for licenses, subject to the transaction requirements below, that have:
(i) a term

(a) not to exceed 10 years, excluding options when UC is Licensee but including options when UC is Licensor, or
(b) revocable by UC for convenience on notice not to exceed 180 days; and

(ii) an initial base annual consideration not to exceed $1 million, provided that all commitments with an initial base annual consideration in excess of $500,000 shall be memorialized by either:

(a) a UC Standard Form License without material modification, or
(b) an instrument approved by Real Estate Services & Strategies and the Office of General Counsel.

Approve and execute ancillary documents, amendments, or other modifications limited by the authority granted under DA2622.

B. Transaction Requirements
The license transaction meets all of the following criteria:
(i) Does not include Third Party Indemnification;
(ii) Is not for purposes of facilitating third-party development of projects on campus for gift, sale, or lease to the campus; and
(iii) A License Checklist (RD2.9) has been completed and retained in the campus project file.

7.8.3 Leases Easements and Rights-of-Way

A. Authority
Approve and execute the grant of easements and rights- of-way, subject to the transaction requirements below, that are:
(i) revocable by UC for convenience on notice not to exceed 180 days, or
(ii) provide utility services to UC property exclusively, or
(iii) comprise no more than 5,000 square feet of UC land and memorialized by either a

(a) UC Standard Form without material modification, or
(b) an instrument approved by Real Estate Services & Strategies and the Office of General Counsel

Approve and execute ancillary documents, amendments, or other modifications limited by the authority granted under DA2622.

B. Transaction Requirements
The easement or right-of-way transaction meets all of the following criteria:
(i) Is not a conveyance of a fee interest in real property;
(ii) Does not include Third Party Indemnification;
(iii) Has a clear and determinable location based on a legal description with a map depicting the area;
(iv) 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;
(v) The agreement is in a form approved by OGC and contains language requiring that:

(a) The easement or right-of-way terminate following a period of non-use;
(b) The grantee quitclaims its interest upon termination; and
(c) UC has unilateral right to relocate the easement or right-of-way; and

a. An Easement Checklist (RD2.10) has been completed and retained in the campus project file.

7.8.4 Reporting Requirements

For all leases, licenses, easements, and rights-of- way 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: (1) a report (Annual Report) listing each lease, license, easement, and right-of-way agreement approved and executed pursuant to this delegated authority during the preceding fiscal year and (2) an electronic copy of each lease, license, easement, and right-of-way agreement listed on the Annual Report.

7.8.5 Forms 

A. Standard Lease Forms

The Standard Forms listed below are approved for use as a standard form (without review by OGC) when the only changes are business terms.
(i) Lease (UC as Landlord)
(ii) 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 OGC review. We have prepared the following minimum license forms:
(i) License (UC as Licensor)
(ii) License (UC as Licensee)
(iii) Facility Use Agreement (UC as Licensee)
Contact RESS for guidance concerning the need for OGC 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 has 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. OGC 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.
(i) Grant of Easement and Agreement

7.8.6 Process for Legal Review

Material changes to UC Standard Form agreements and transactions conducted on non-UC forms require prior review and approval by OGC. RESS will coordinate the process of submission of reviews by OGC 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 OGC are dependent upon workload and staffing.

7.8.7 Descriptions of Lease, License, and Easement

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:

Characteristics LEASE LICENSE EASEMENT
Agreement between 2 parties   Yes No* No*
Conveys an interest in real property   Yes No Yes

Revocable

No
(usually)
Yes
(usually)
No
Transferable Yes No Yes
Exclusive right Yes Optional Optional

* 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.

7.8.8 Further Delegation of Authority

Authority related to Leases, Licenses, and Easements pursuant to DA2622 may be further delegated. The appointment of the delegee shall be in writing. A copy shall be provided to the Executive Director of Capital Assets Strategies.

(Back to top)

<< Back to Table of Contents Next chapter >>