CSU Office of the Chancellor

Utilities Infrastructure Master Plan Guide

Utilities Infrastructure
Master Plan Guide
Rev: 12/10/18
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The California State University (CSU) gratefully acknowledges the effort and work of Jai Agaram, John
Andary, Douglas Effenberger, Kent Peterson, Steven Strauss, and Steve Taylor.

Comments or inquiries may be directed to:

The California State University

Office of the Chancellor
Capital Planning Design and Construction
Long Beach, California
Attention: Thomas Kennedy, Chief Architecture and Engineering
Telephone: (562) 951-4129
E-mail: tkennedy@calstate.edu
 CSU Office of the Chancellor
Utilities Infrastructure Master Plan Guide

TABLE OF CONTENTS
S e c t i o n 1 : Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1

Purpose .................................................................................................................................................................. 1

Current Practice ..................................................................................................................................................... 1

Utilities Infrastructure Master Plan Reasons and Objectives .................................................................................. 2

S e c t i o n 2 : Developing a Utilities Infrastructure Master Plan .................................................................................. 4

Utilities and Infrastructure Systems Covered ......................................................................................................... 6

Coordination of Utilities Master Plan with the Campus Master Plan....................................................................... 6
Assessment of Existing Utilities, Loads and Capacities ......................................................................................... 7
Estimation of Growth Impact of the Utilities ............................................................................................................ 8
Evaluation of Alternatives, and Life Cycle Costs Analyses .................................................................................. 35
Formulation of Specific Infrastructure Projects ..................................................................................................... 35
Updating the Utilities and Infrastructure Master Plan ........................................................................................... 37
Maintaining Current Status of the Utilities and Infrastructure Plan ....................................................................... 37

S e c t i o n 3 : Deliverables........................................................................................................................................ 34

General Requirements ......................................................................................................................................... 34

Recommended Details ......................................................................................................................................... 34
SECTION 1:
Introduction
Purpose
This guideline has been prepared for the California State University (CSU), Office of the Chancellor, to assist
campuses in the planning and development of campus utilities and infrastructure master plan. It is
recognized and advocated in this document that utilities and infrastructure plans are the next and immediate
logical extensions of the campus master plans which are periodically developed and updated. As such, the
document outlines the objectives, reasoning, and general methodology for developing the same as
coordinated companion documents to the campus master plans. To assist engineering firms or engineering
teams who may be retained to develop and update such plans, the document presents discussion of key
steps needed, factors to consider and evaluate, and suggested formats for collection and presentation of
information. This document and suggested guidelines should assist the campuses to prepare better for
building growth and plan ahead for the budgeting, design and development of infrastructure projects. As a
result, future campus building growth at each campus can be accommodated cost effectively while reducing
carbon emissions.

Current Practice
Utilities infrastructure and central plant facilities are developed and expanded on campuses in a variety of
ways. Some campuses have utilities infrastructure master plans fully developed along the lines described in
this Guideline. Others have none at all or have very limited versions of plans, which cover only some of the
utilities.

This non-standardized practice extends to project planning and funding. The CSU major capital project
funding for utilities and central plant development varies widely. In some cases, there are discrete major
capital projects exclusively defined as utilities infrastructure and central plant projects. These often flow out of
well-developed infrastructure master plans. In other cases, the Feasibility Studies for new buildings include
assessments of only a limited number of infrastructure components, such as the central heating and cooling
plant. The problem with the latter approach is that there is little systematic assessment of available capacities
of campus-wide utilities and central plant facilities. This leads to an implied assumption that centralized
utilities and central plants have adequate capacities to serve new buildings. This, in turn, can lead to a crisis
response when actual operation reveals that centralized utilities and central plants are loaded beyond their
capacities.

Even when a new building Feasibility Study includes budget and scope for a central chiller or heating source,
it is often included merely for a size and type of equipment to satisfy its specific loads. This usually is not in
the best interests of the campus. For a simplified example, when a central chiller plant has limited physical
space and expands in increments of 1,200-ton chillers, a new building calling for a 400-ton chiller presents a
difficult situation. Neither a 400-ton chiller is desirable, nor is there budget allocated for the proper 1,200-ton
chiller.

California policy and CSU policy is to exhaust all of the more cost-effective and sustainable measures to
reduce demand by implementing a campus energy saving project(s) to reduce the peak campus cooling or

1
heating loads in lieu of expanding the systems to accommodate additional building loads within existing
infrastructure.

Lessons learned from historical practices, as illustrated in the fictitious examples discussed above,
demonstrate the need for an improved, systematic, and methodical approach for planning, budgeting, and
implementing campus-wide utilities infrastructure and central plant facilities.

Utilities Infrastructure Master Plan Reasons and Objectives

Reasons for Utilities Infrastructure Master Plans
The reasons for developing a utilities infrastructure master plan for each campus can be distilled to
the following points:

a. To avoid the perception that campus-wide utilities and central plant facilities have “infinite
capacity”

b. To develop a campus wide highest efficiency and lowest carbon emitting campus utilities and
central plant development plan to support FTE growth and programs vs. a short-sighted plan
designed to support just the building

c. To replace or upgrade as appropriate aging utilities and infrastructure systems before

catastrophic failures and unplanned campus outages

d. To justify major capital project funding for utilities infrastructure and central plant projects

e. To coordinate utilities infrastructure and central plant development over time

f. To procure a comprehensive framework and plan that is documented and supported by studies
that can be easily updated as campus planning changes

g. To procure a framework and plan to assist Physical Plant respond to queries about the impacts
of future expansion

h. To develop and document a transparent, fair, equitable and fiscally sustainable framework for all
services supplied from the Central Plant.

Objectives
A utilities and infrastructure master plan must serve the following primary objectives:

a. It must be comprehensive and cover all applicable utilities and must advocate an implementation
plan that is timely to serve the needs of the buildings planned for the future per the latest campus
master plan. Therefore, it follows that it must be directly linked to the latest adopted Campus
Master Plan.

b. It should include a phase out process for eliminating fossil fuel combustion and take into account
other campus sustainability objectives in evaluating various options.

c. It must embody sizing, design, and development concepts that are cost effective over the life-
cycle while integrating well with the existing infrastructure.

d. It must be based on a careful consideration of uncertainties associated with future building

growth and consider a phased development approach where it makes sense.

2
e. Its implementation plan must be such that it has minimal interruptions to existing campus
operations.

f. It must recognize campus specific constraints as well as utility provider characteristics to fit well
within the scope of overall campus operability.

g. It must remain responsive to the CSU systemwide energy and utility policies as set forth by the
CSU Chancellor’s Office.

3
SECTION 2:
Developing a Utilities Infrastructure
Master Plan
A utilities infrastructure master plan is a systematic approach towards determining the appropriate means for
expanding and upgrading a campus utilities infrastructure and central plant facilities. Such plans are best
developed by retaining the services of engineering firms or teams that have both knowledge of campus
systems and experience in the study and design of utilities, central plant facilities and campus infrastructure
systems.

Any given campus has a large number of utilities and infrastructure systems, each offering its own unique
complexities and challenges. Finding extensive funding for studying all aspects thoroughly and
comprehensively is always a challenge with limited funding. The campus and the engineering firms or teams
retained to provide such planning services are therefore encouraged to review these guidelines and
determine the level of effort warranted in each case prior to establishing a detailed scope for services and
budget estimates for such studies. Specifically, it is recommended to determine and mutually agree on the
extent to which the rigorous methodology presented herein applies for each given situation. It is possible that
on a case by case basis and for certain utilities, a simplified approach or a limited study may be sufficient.
This is especially true if the campus is already well prepared or the long-term changes being contemplated by
the campus master plan are limited in scope.

San Jose State provides an example of the strictest enterprise business model for the CSU. Every user pays
or is shadow billed for their consumed utilities and infrastructure capacity. This includes specific capacity and
use requirements for new construction or renovation to ensure that new projects do not incur unplanned
infrastructure upgrades.

Figure 1 illustrates the basic utilities and infrastructure planning process. Chapter 3 of this guideline presents
a general format of deliverables to be expected as a product of this planning process.

4
 Figure 1 - The Utilities Infrastructure Plan Development Process

Start with a
completed or
updated campus

Access existing
loads and capacity
Metering, plant logs,
of each campus
surveys, video
utility and serving

Estimate impact of
campus master
plan on capacity Update
Rough
required for each concurrently with
estimates,
campus utility and Campus Master
computer
serving utility Plan updates
modeling,
using temporal
analysis of
i id t k

Evaluate capacity
upgrade
alternatives,
including LCC

Start with a
completed or
updated campus

5
Utilities and Infrastructure Systems Covered
Depending on the applicability at each specific campus, the following campus-wide utilities and central plant
facilities should be covered in a utilities infrastructure master plan:

a. Central Cooling System

b. Central Heating System

c. Central Condenser Water System

d. Domestic Cold Water

e. Domestic Hot Water (DHW) Distribution

f. Fire Water

g. Recycled Water (if available)

h. Irrigation

i. Sewer

j. Storm Water Management Systems

k. Legacy Natural Gas Systems

l. Electrical Power Supply Distribution, and Battery Systems

m. Standby/Emergency Generation Systems

n. Legacy Cogeneration and Distributed Generation

o. Carbon free Distributed Energy Resources

p. Photovoltaics and other Renewable Energy Resources

q. Energy Management System (EMS) and Energy Information System (EIS)

r. Data/Telecommunications

s. Fire Alarm System

t. Utility Tunnel/Distribution System Extensions

Coordination of Utilities Master Plan with the Campus Master Plan

Each campus has a campus master plan that is developed articulating future building additions, deletions and
renovations. This plan is used to guide the development of each campus as a whole coordinated entity in
response to accommodating future programmatic needs. Specifically, this development is based on a careful
consideration of many factors including:

a. Expected growth in FTE students and programs (loads)

b. Types of programs and buildings envisioned for each campus (scope)

c. Age of existing buildings and feasibility of renovation versus replacement (age)

d. Major capital funding for new and renovated buildings required to support program expansion and
FTE growth (cost estimates and budgets)

6
 e. Timeline for implementing new buildings to support program expansion and FTE growth (schedule)

Similarly, the campus-wide utilities and infrastructure systems need to be carefully developed and expanded
in a systematic and coordinated manner to support the campus master plan. This development should be
based on consideration of several key factors such as:

a. Types of utilities and central plant facilities that will be the most cost and carbon emissions effective
in serving each campus (scope)

b. Demands placed on those utilities and central plant facilities due to FTE growth and program
expansion, self-funded programs expansion. (loads)

c. Age of existing utilities and infrastructure systems (age)

d. Major capital funding for new, upgraded, and expanded utilities and central plant facilities required to
support program expansion and FTE growth (cost estimates and budgets)

e. Timeline for implementing new, upgraded, and expanded utilities and central plant facilities new
buildings to support program expansion and FTE growth (schedule)

Since the two master plans are inherently linked, both in their campus-wide scope and in their need to
support FTE growth and program expansion, it naturally follows that they should be well coordinated. The
campus master plan establishes the basic FTE growth and program expansion and is developed first.
Concurrent with the master plan CEQA process, the utilities and infrastructure planning effort should be
commenced concurrently. Furthermore, the campus master plan and the utilities master plan should also be
updated concurrently. In this way, the two campus-wide master plans are linked, and the projects that flow
out of them are intelligently coordinated, budgeted, environmental impacts are evaluated and scheduled.

Assessment of Existing Utilities, Loads and Capacities

The first step in developing a utilities infrastructure master plan is to identify and assess the condition and
capacity of the existing utilities, and infrastructure, including central plant system(s). This assessment must
be done in relation to existing buildings and loads that are already served by the utilities. This includes
assessment of the following:

a. Number, location, type, and size of existing buildings

b. Capacities and location of all existing utilities and central plant facilities

c. Condition (remaining useful life) of all existing utilities central plant and distribution facilities

d. Estimation of remaining spare capacity of each utility

e. Existing loads imposed on the utilities and central plant facilities, and the load locations

f. Determine in front of the meter capacities available from the local utilities. If insufficient capacities
exist, determine the added facilities costs to expand the capacity and alternatives such as microgrid
development to support the campus master plan.

g. Research related to known problems, if any, as experienced by the campus

h. Last available updates or studies that may be available related to the utilities

As-built drawings, other documents, physical assessments on site, and interviews with campus physical plant

7
personnel are all useful ways in gathering this information. Research required for an accurate assessment
should not be limited to review of existing documents, records and discussions. Therefore, on site surveys,
cross check of information through analysis, sample metering, spot measurements, videotaping, and such
other tools as may be applicable to the specific utility that is being evaluated should also be considered.

Depending on the situation, determination of existing loads could require some analytical effort, which might
include computer modeling (pipe flow analysis), calculations, and estimations from industry guidelines and
standard practices. It also might entail some empirical evidence from utilities and central plant operational
history. The basis for use of factors and assumptions in computer models should reflect conditions unique to
the campus.

The utilities infrastructure engineer has to use its best judgment in determining the optimal level of effort
associated with characterizing the condition of existing utilities. The level of effort must be commensurate with
the accuracy needed for a given situation and must be mutually discussed and agreed to between the
campus and the utilities and infrastructure engineer prior to the commencement of the planning process.

Estimation of Growth Impact of the Utilities

General Approach
The second step in the planning process deals with evaluating the impact of each master plan
building addition, deletion or renovation on each of the affected utilities. Campus growth information
is derived directly from the campus master plan. Diversity 1 in building usage and loads will also need
to be considered based on historical operating experience at the campus as well as planned future
usage of campus buildings. Based on this growth information and diversity estimates, the utilities and
infrastructure master plan must identify (a) which buildings will be connected to which utilities, (b)
estimate the load impact imposed by the building on the affected utility, and (c) assess composite
load impact on the central plant systems.

Some future buildings might be small and remotely located on campus, and thereby would not be
cost effective for connection to the existing central utility system on campus. Such choices will need
to be coordinated and discussed with the campus prior to finalizing the utilities and infrastructure
master plan. Additionally, choices made in the planning process need to be well documented for the
benefit of future campus management personnel as well as A&E teams that may be involved in future
building design efforts.

The Tables 1 and 2 below give a suggested format for compiling both a check list and summary of
impact projections related to utility areas that may be affected by each building.

1
Diversity for a given central utility is a ratio, computed as the highest aggregate demand (system peak)
collectively imposed on the utility by the buildings served, divided by the summation of individual building
peak demands, each of which may occur at a time that does not necessarily coincide with the time of system
peak. Under this definition, if all buildings exhibit their respective peak loads at the same instant, the diversity
factor is unity (1) for that utility. Metering on many CSU campus has shown central plant cooling diversity at
50-60% with central plant cooling loads from 800 GSF/ton in mild climates to 500 GSF/ton in the desert
climate.

8
 CSU Office of the Chancellor
Utilities Infrastructure Master Plan Guide

Table 1 - Summary of Master Plan Impact on Utilities

Matrix Identifying Potential Areas of Impact of Master Plan on Campus Utilities Infrastructure

9
Table 2 - Summary of Load Impact Assessment

Name of the Utility: _____________________________________

Estimated
Diversified Peak
Demand
Estimated Demand on Averaged Over Estimated
Building Central Campus Cumulative Peak Peak
# of Years Peak Utilities/Plant Applicable Peak Demand Capacity
into the Building Demand Diversity Systems [2] Window [3] (Diversified) [4] Deficit [5]
Future [6] Building Name Area (GSF) (Units X) Factor [1] (Units X) (Units X) (Units X) (Units X) Description or Comments
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

[1] See Diversity definition in Section 2.4, Page 7

[2] Individual building peak demand times diversity factor equals the demand on the central utilties
[3] The peak window varies by campus and is generally dependent upon the serving utility rate schedules
[4] Represents the cumulative impact of future buildings on the central utilities
[5] Cumulative demand less the current available capacity in a given year represents deficit, if any
[6] # of future years considered issame as what is used in the campus master plan

10
 CSU Office of the Chancellor
Utilities Infrastructure Master Plan Guide

Level of Effort
To determine the capacity of the existing utilities distribution systems, and to test the impact of future loads on
those systems, some form of analysis must be conducted. The utilities and infrastructure engineer, in
consultation with the campus, must use its best engineering judgment on the level of effort associated with
making estimates of load impacts. The range of analyses may include anywhere from engineering judgment
and preliminary estimates to detailed computer modeling of systems being evaluated. If a campus has an EIS,
those capabilities should be used to evaluate the amount of simultaneous heating and cooling and more
accurate diversity factors included.

For example, hydronic systems, such as chilled water (CHW) and heating hot water (HHW) distribution
systems lend themselves to a number of computer hydraulic modeling programs that model and identify pipe
segments that reach capacity and require expansion as loads increase.

For central plant systems, it is important to realize that delta T (the temperature difference between circulated
supply water and return water) is a critical parameter in determining the loads upon, and the capacity of, CHW
and HHW distribution systems. This is so critical, that a feasible CHW distribution system capacity increase
project may entail building cooling coil replacements to increase CHW delta T.

For electric power distribution systems, it is important to evaluate conductor capacity at various loads and duct
bank configurations to determine the effects of duct bank heating. As circuit loads increase, conductor
ampacity can actually decrease.

There are also special computer modeling programs specifically tailored to domestic water and fire water
distribution systems.

Computer hydraulic models are also used in sewer system analysis. Electrical distribution system computer
programs model electrical loads, conductor capacity and voltage drop to determine electrical distribution
system capacities. To strike a reasonable balance between costs of developing the plan and accuracy of
estimates required, it is recommended that the campus and the utilities and infrastructure engineer discuss
and mutually agree on the level of effort that is prudent for each given situation prior to proceeding with the
detailed planning process.

Consideration of State-Funded and Non-State-Funded Facilities

State-funded facilities on campuses are obvious candidates for connection to campus-wide utilities and central
plants; provided they can be cost-effectively connected (i.e. they are sufficiently sized and are not remotely
located).

Non-State-funded facilities involve an additional consideration; that is, how to meter and recharge them for
utilities if the are centrally connected. Because of this, many non-State-funded facilities have their own
electric, gas, water, and sewer services, which are separately metered and directly billed from the serving
utility. HVAC is often individually provided as well.

However, some non-State-funded facilities are connected into campus-wide utilities and central plants, often
because these centralized systems tend to be more efficient and cost effective. Sub-metering and recharging
needs to be addressed in these instances. Refer to the Recharge rate computation guideline for guidance on
this.

State capital funds cannot be used for making connections to or extending an existing line or pipe to serve
non-state buildings. However, the CSU Policy recognizes that it is practical and reasonable to size main

34
 CSU Office of the Chancellor
Utilities Infrastructure Master Plan Guide

infrastructure systems (e.g., chilled water distribution mains, campus water mains, hot water distribution
mains, campus main electrical substation, etc.) so that they have adequate capacity to accommodate loads
associated with all campus buildings. Infrastructure capacity (capital, operating costs and reserves for
equipment replacement at end of life) consumed by self-support or P3 activities must be recovered in rates or
the contract.

There is no general “right answer” as to whether non-State-funded facilities should be centrally or separately
connected. Rather, the different implications involving non-State funded facilities must be addressed in the
utilities infrastructure master plan. The utilities and infrastructure engineer must consult with the campus on
these issues prior to developing the overall plan.

Consideration of Public-Private Partnership Facilities

Public-Private Partnership (P3) projects are likely to benefit from state-funded infrastructure installed prior to
the agreement. This may be either in the form of site work, and/or demolition, and/or utility connections. In
either case, special care must be taken to ensure the costs of this infrastructure is paid for by the P3 provider.
The Recharge Guideline goes into detail about what is required and some methodologies to calculating the
recharge rates.

Evaluation of Alternatives, and Life Cycle Costs Analyses

The third step in the evaluation process involves a careful formulation and evaluation of the alternatives. The utilities
and infrastructure engineer must carefully consider possible and competing alternatives available to the campus for
providing the needed utility capacity for future buildings. This evaluation should include all utilities and distribution
infrastructure needed for future buildings. The alternative evaluation becomes particularly important when a building is
remotely situated or when several buildings while grouped together could potentially offer prospects for satellite plants
or infrastructure systems. Where applicable, there could also be alternatives developed for phasing the overall
capacity addition in discrete increments. The engineer must approach such alternatives with an open mind and discuss
and evolve practical and reasonable alternatives applicable for the given situation in consultation with the campus.
Where appropriate, it is not unreasonable to consider as many as three alternatives for a technical and economic
evaluation. The CSU desires to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels for heating so heat recovery and electric sources
should be evaluated. In some cases, there may not be a need to examine many alternatives because the solution is
quite obvious. It is therefore recommended that each case be evaluated based on its own unique characteristics and
in consultation with the campus, prior to conducting a detailed assessment. Alternative evaluation is certainly relevant
for central plant development where campus heating and cooling can be accomplished in a variety of ways. It is
particularly applicable in the early stages of campus central plant development, or in cases where most of the central
plant is aged. It is at these times when the greatest opportunity exists for a feasible alternative to central plant
development.

A life cycle cost analysis should be included in alternative analysis, and should entail first cost, replacement costs,
energy costs, O&M costs, social cost of carbon emissions and regulatory costs (such as permitting). To determine
future costs on a present worth basis, discount factors customarily used for public projects should be used as part of
the Life Cycle Cost analysis. The alternative with the lowest Life Cycle Cost should be given serious consideration as
the preferred alternative for development at the campus.

Formulation of Specific Infrastructure Projects

Once the growth impacts are understood and clearly quantified as a function of time, the fourth and final step involves

35
 CSU Office of the Chancellor
Utilities Infrastructure Master Plan Guide

formulation of specific utilities and infrastructure projects with a specific scope and development time line attached to
each, while considering the following constraints. Figure 2 shows a sample illustration of a phased implementation of
utilities upgrade. Table 4 shows a suggested format for the presentation of development timeline, while showing
relationships with master plan building projects as well as utilities affected by each specific infrastructure project.

a. The realistic time frame for developing a capital outlay utilities and infrastructure project, starting from the time
it is budgeted to the time it actually gets built could be a minimum of 3-5 years, depending on the size of the
project. This lead time must be taken into consideration to ensure that the affected utility/infrastructure is
ready and available in time for the planned building addition.

b. To minimize cost and disruptions associated with construction, it may be relevant to consolidate and merge
various types of utility expansions into logically grouped utility and infrastructure projects so that repetitive work
associated with excavations can be avoided or trenching work and tunneling work can be consolidated where
practical to accommodate several utilities under a common construction effort.

c. After grouped infrastructure projects are completed, future self-support and P3 projects must reimburse the
Infrastructure funds for capacity dedicated to serving those improvements.

Figure 2 - Sample Illustration of Phased Implementation of Utility Upgrades2

70%

60%
Phase-3 capacity
addition completed

50%
% Increase in Load/Capacity Over Existing

Phase-2 capacity
addition completed

40%

Phase-1 capacity
addition completed

30%

20%
LEGEND

Planned capacity additions to the

infrastructure to accommodate load
10%
grow th. Capacity is alw ays added in time to
meet anticipated load grow th.
Load grow th based on master plan

0%
2,005 2,010 2,015 2,020 2,025 2,030 2,035
2
The number of phases shown here are for illustration only. Depending on the scope and complexity of the project, lead
Year
time associated with implementing each phase will vary by campus and by utility. Such items will need to be established
as part of the utility and infrastructure development plan.

36
 CSU Office of the Chancellor
Utilities Infrastructure Master Plan Guide

Updating the Utilities and Infrastructure Master Plan

Anytime the campus master plan is updated, the utilities and infrastructure master plan should also be updated. Since
a campus master plan update may be quite targeted or limited in its scope, the utilities infrastructure master plan can
be similarly limited and targeted in its scope. Part of any utilities and infrastructure system update must include an
assessment of remaining system capacities in each affected utility.

For example, perhaps the campus master plan update involves two future planned buildings in a localized area of the
campus that will have stand-alone heating and cooling. In this case, updates to the plan regarding the central plant
facilities would not be necessary. Other utilities intended to serve the two new buildings would be analyzed and
updated only in that localized area of the campus and only to the magnitude of the loads imposed upon them. These
quantifications of utility infrastructure are essential for CSU’s CEQA documentation and review process since GHG
emissions from new construction/renovation are relevant in the CEQA analysis.

In this way, the scope required to update the utilities and infrastructure master plan can be appropriately limited, but
still targeted to what is necessary. And more importantly, the campus master plan and the utilities and infrastructure
master plan should remain linked as living campus planning documents. The projects that flow out of them are
intelligently coordinated, budgeted, scheduled and are congruent with campus, Systemwide and California policy.

Maintaining Current Status of the Utilities and Infrastructure Plan

The campus is recommended to maintain a status matrix of its utilities and infrastructure systems at all times. This
matrix will help maintain an accurate log of when a specific utility system was last upgraded, plans evaluated or
updated, the A&E team responsible for updating the plan, and any comments relevant to the specific utility. It is further
recommended that such a plan be reviewed in connection with a proposed building project with whole building EUI
targets to ensure that adequate provisions have been made to serve the building without overloading the utilities
systems.

The suggested format for such a status matrix is presented below in Table 3 for use by the campus.

37
 CSU Office of the Chancellor
Utilities Infrastructure Master Plan Guide

Table 3 - Current Status of Utilities Infrastructure Master Plan

Campus
Master Plan Last Updated (mm-yy)
Master Plant Architect

Date This Status Prepared/Updated

Current Building GSF
Proposed Building GSF Based on Master Plan

Utilities and
Date Last Plan Last Proposed Next
Date Installed Infrastructure
Type of Utility/Infrastructure Upgraded Studied/Updated Update (mm-yy) Comments on Adequacy of Capacity or Condition of System (Year)[4]
[1] Planner(s)
[1] (mm-yy) [2] [3]
Involved [5]
Central Cooling System
Central Heating System
Domestic Cold Water
Domestic Hot Water (DHW) Distribution
Fire Water
Irrigation
Sewer
Storm Drain
Natural Gas
Electrical Power Supply and Distribution Systems
Standby/emergency Generation Systems
Cogeneration and distributed generation
Photovoltaics and other renewable energy resources
Energy Management System (EMS)
Data/Telecommunications
Fire Alarm System
Utilities Tunnel Extensions

[1] Indicate the approximate date when the system was installed or upgraded
[2] Indicate the approximate date when the specific utility/infrastructure was evaluated
[3] Indicate, plans if any, when the specific infrastructure is proposed to be reevaluated as part of the Infrastructure Master Plan
[4] Indicate briefly whether capacity is adequate, or if there are specific concerns related to existing age/condition. Refer to attachments as needed.
[5] List consultant(s) associated with evaluating the specific utility or entities involved in the last design update

34
 CSU Office of the Chancellor
Utilities Infrastructure Master Plan Guide

Table 4 - Summary of Infrastructure Projects Development Timeline in Relation to Campus Master Plan Building Projects

35
 CSU Office of the Chancellor
Utilities Infrastructure Master Plan Guide

SECTION 3:
Deliverables
General Requirements
The utilities infrastructure master plan should be a comprehensive road map showing the project and change
management activities to adapt the campus infrastructure to future needs including forward looking design day criteria
as shown on Cal-adapt.org. The scope and implementation schedule of the recommended utilities upgrade projects
should show exactly when the recommended utility systems are required to come on line to support FTE growth and
program expansion. The utilities master plan should be used to properly plan, size and locate utility systems to avoid
construction conflicts.

The scope of the recommended upgrades should be expressed in a detailed narrative describing each component for
expanding and upgrading the utilities infrastructure and central plant. This narrative should be accompanied by
conceptual design drawings, single line drawings, and campus maps overlaid by existing and future utilities systems.

The cost estimates of the recommended utilities upgrade projects should be itemized at least by utility system and
major equipment, piping, electrical, etc. The itemization should be commensurate with the conceptual design level
presented for the recommended projects.

Generally, the following deliverables should be provided with each utility infrastructure master plan:

a. Hard copies of the draft Utilities Plan for comment and review by campus personnel

b. Hard copies and an electronic copy of the final Utility Infrastructure Master Plan, with revisions incorporated
from comments received

Recommended Details
Deliverables should comprise a document that presents:

a. Scope of the planned utility systems upgrade projects,

b. Project costs,

c. Projects implementation schedule,

d. Reasoning behind the overall plan, and

e. Confirmation that it conforms to the master plan and CEQA schedules.

Specifically, the following details are suggested for inclusion.

Chapter text with:

a. Narrative descriptions of existing utilities and facilities

b. Reference to the specific master plan on which this plan is based

c. Summary status of existing utilities (See Table 3 of this document for a sample format)

d. Campus constraints and choices made relevant to the planning process

34
 CSU Office of the Chancellor
Utilities Infrastructure Master Plan Guide

e. Impact of future growth on utilities and facilities (See Tables 1 and 2 of this document for a sample format)

f. Alternatives considered and those recommended

g. Recommended scope of major capital utilities infrastructure projects

h. Project development recommendations, including specific projects and development timeline to meet the
master plan related capacity requirements. (See Table 4 for a suggested format for presentation of
development timelines and interrelationships with the campus master plan)

i. Graphical representations that effectively demonstrate long term utility capacity in relation to the campus
growth and demand (See Figure 2 of this document for a sample format of the same)

j. Cost estimates for recommended major capital utilities infrastructure projects

Drawings showing:

a. Existing campus plan and existing utilities layered thereupon in separate drawings

b. Future campus plan and existing and future utilities layered thereupon in separate drawings

c. Conceptual diagrams of central plant development

d. Implementation schedules identifying budgeting, design and construction phase schedule for recommended
major capital utilities infrastructure projects

e. Matrix presentation of project budgeting time frames to confirm that the infrastructure projects do not overlap
with master plan new building projects

f. Matrix presentation of infrastructure projects with the master plan building projects to confirm that the
proposed development cycle meshes in a timely manner with the planned building development schedule

Supporting appendix materials:

a. Metering information

b. Survey of existing systems

c. Computer modeling outputs

d. Catalog cut sheets

e. Computer input and output data

f. Calculations

g. Life cycle cost spreadsheets

35