Academic Project:

Five-Year Capital Outlay Plan (Action Year) Steps

The Five-Year Capital Outlay Plan is split into two components—the first year, also known as the ‘action year’. Projects proposed in the action year are submitted for inclusion in the upcoming governor’s budget. Years two through five are called the ‘out years’. This section focuses on the steps to completing a submittal for action-year projects, beginning with the Feasibility Study and Owner's Project Requirements.

A. ​​​Feasibility Study​​

The first step to programming a project is to complete a feasibility study to analyze the viability of proposed capital projects. Such studies are required for all action year projects to establish the project scope and estimate an accurate budget. A feasibility study will give focus to the project; analyze alternatives; explore new opportunities; identify reasons to proceed or not proceed; and provide documentation that all options were thoroughly investigated. Finally, the study will analyze and recommend the type of construction delivery method most appropriate for the proposed project. All feasibility studies should be reviewed by a Mechanical Review Board (MRB) member and Seismic Review Board (SRB) member, as applicable.

Information about service agreements for feasibility study consultants is available in Stage 4: Design.

A1. Projects with instructional capacity (classrooms, teaching laboratories, faculty offices):

Projects that will include instructional space and/or faculty offices should consider the current classroom and teaching laboratory capacity campuswide and for the disciplines in the proposed projects. The Space and Facilities Database (SFDB) is the official record of campus buildings, and can be used to view current instructional capacity spaces.

A feasibility study should explore how the proposed project will support the campus academic master plan and impact the current instructional capacity. Refer to Stage 1: Strategic Planning for more information.

CPDC forms for determining space needs based on projected enrollment are available. Deviation from the CSU space standards utilized in these forms should be explained in the feasibility study. For more information on CSU Space Standards and calculating instructional capacity, see SUAM Section VI.

A1a. CPDC 1-2: Summary of Campus Capacity
This document reflects annual FTE capacity changes resulting from proposed major capital outlay projects, minor capital outlay projects, and other adjustments to the campus space inventories.
Capacity space is categorized as lecture or teaching laboratory. This report covers classrooms, upper- and lower-division class laboratories and faculty offices. The summary shall correlate assignable square foot capacities to full-time equivalent student enrollments and faculty positions for both existing space and projected space needs.

A1b. Lab Capacity vs Lab Enrollment
As with the CPDC 1-2, this report compares enrollment and capacity, but looks specifically at teaching laboratories by discipline (HEGIS category). The data used for this comparison are derived from the APDB and the SFDB. The total FTES for teaching laboratories at target are from the CPDC 1-2.

A1c. Utilization Reports
A Classroom and Teaching Laboratory Utilization report is generated annually for each campus. Capacity space in the CSU is categorized as lecture or teaching laboratory to serve the Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) student enrollment. The reports are used to show how efficient the CSU is using capacity space based on California’s higher education space standards set by the state legislature. Instructional space needs are calculated in conformity with Space and Utilization Standards approved in September 1966 by the Coordinating Council for Higher Education (re-titled the California Postsecondary Education Commission prior to dissolution) as modified by the Legislature in March 1971 and June 1973. It is based on the hours per week a classroom or laboratory space is scheduled and the student station occupancy per class.

The utilization reports are sent to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) biannually.

A1d. CPDC 2-1: Full-Time Equivalent Enrollment Distribution
The first step in determining academic space need is to understand how the campus will grow over the next five years. This form is set up to collect historic enrollment data organized by discipline from the three most recent fall terms using the Course Section Report (CSR).

Using the historic data, campuses can project forward to the Occupancy Year (three years after the action year) and the Target Year (two years after the Occupancy Year). For purposes of capital planning, the Target Year is used to determine capacity space needs.

Enrollment growth by discipline may either be linear from the historic enrollment, or there may be changes within the distribution of FTE among the disciplines, depending on whether or not there are anticipated changes to existing or future academic programs.

A1e. CPDC 2-2: Enrollment Distribution by Level and Category of Instruction
Using the same historic and projected enrollment by discipline data from the CPDC 2-1, this form collects the breakdown of instructional type for each discipline: lecture, lab, activity, multimode, and other. The sets the foundation for knowing how much instruction within each discipline is taking place on campus in capacity space (classrooms and labs) versus how much takes place elsewhere. Once this information is collected for all disciplines impacted by the proposed project, it’s time to see how much space is needed in the Target Year by using the CPDC 2-3.

A1f. CPDC 2-3: Calculation of Space Requirement for Instructional Projects
This form is used to determine how much physical space is needed by applying the CSU space standards for capacity spaces (lecture, teaching labs, faculty offices), graduate research space, shops/storage, and any special instructional space for each of the impacted disciplines. This form also takes into account existing space to remain online.

A1g. CPDC 2-4: Summary of Space Requirement for a Building
The square footage identified in the CPDC 2-3 form(s) is then used to develop a room-by-room list, complete with square footage, discipline, space type, instructional level, and station count all identified for each space.

A2. Facilities Condition Assessments

Proposed renovation or replacement projects should include analysis conducted in relevant Facilities Condition Assessments (FCA) or similar building studies to determine the feasibility of retaining existing space or proceeding with demolition. Your campus Facilities Condition Assessment reports can be found on the ISES database.

A3. CSU Seismic Priority List

The Chancellor’s Office maintains a seismic priority list of buildings identified by Seismic Review Board for which there are additional seismic retrofit requirements above CBC. This list is divided into two categories:

List 1: Buildings that are a priority for seismic retrofit should be retrofitted as soon as resources are available without regard to other modifications of the building.

List 2: Buildings that must be retrofitted when a major capital project is allocated to the building, notwithstanding an allowance from CBC to not do so.

For more information about the CSU Seismic Priority List.



For Instructional Capacity Projects

B. Owner's Project Requirements

The Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR) are inclusive, detailed description of the Owner’s goals, requirements, and expectations for a proposed project. Owner’s Project Requirements are mandatory for new buildings and renovations over 10,000 GSF by the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6 (California Energy Efficiency Standards).​

The California State University Owner’s Project Requirements include requirements for commissioned systems as well as physical and functional building characteristics desired by the ownerThe Owner’s Project Requirements establish performance and acceptance criteria for the proposed project. The OPR is intended to be developed prior to the design phases and issuance of the project RFP. It will likely leverage information from earlier project planning, such as feasibility studies and programming efforts. While each decision required to complete a full OPR may not be complete at the time of the project’s Five-Year Capital Plan or Amend submission, starting to prepare the OPR earlier can help inform project scope and more accurate project estimates.