Recently, the Assembly’s Higher Education Committee and /Budget Sub Committee on Education Finance held a joint hearing on the University of California’s (UC) Long Range Development Plan (LRDP). This hearing, which was Chaired by Assembly Member John Laird (D-27, Santa Cruz), Anthony Portantino, (D-44, La Canada) and Julia Brownley (D-41, Santa Monica) was well attended by the members of both committees. Many of the committee members indicated through their comments or questions, an affinity with local government and shared anecdotal experiences about a UC campus.

While this hearing was predominately focused on the UC, the CSU and its own process was mentioned. In fact after the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) staff made their initial comments on the report, Assembly Member Anthony Portantino asked if the UC was different than the California Community Colleges (CCC) or the CSU. LAO staff indicated that the systems were similar in the way they interact with local governments.

The hearing provided each member the opportunity to make an opening statement. Mr. Anthony Symbol and Steve Boilard of the LAO then presented their report to the Committee and answered their questions. The University of California was then allowed to respond and there was brief opportunity for public comment. Here is a quick review of some of the subjects touched on at this hearing:

• Enrollment growth (how is it calculated)
• Graduate schools (are they focused on California’s future or are they just "glamour" programs)
• Mitigation and education bonds (are these costs a part of initial project proposal, or are they added on afterwards)
• Fair Share (the UC’s policy, and what it means)
• Oversight, (who reviews land use policies of the UC)
• Summer school (is it being utilized)

Mr. Laird stated in his opening comments that his interest in this issue arose because of a conflict between UC Santa Cruz, his Alma Matter and the City of Santa Cruz, the city he served as mayor of and represents in the Assembly.

Assembly Member Portantino stated that he thought this issue was not just a UC issue, but exists wherever a public institution is located. Assembly member Wolk suggested that the policies in place largely rely on the individual Chancellors and with whoever is President at the time. She suggested that a formal, standard agreement should be put in place. Assembly Member Loni Hancock wanted to learn more about the UC’s Fair Share policy, which she was not aware of, and she doubted anyone else was too. She also suggested that a dialogue should be had on the development of graduate programs and whether they are tied to California’s economic growth and its future needs.

The LAO review of the UC LRDP process discussed how a plan is created, how it is approved by the Regents, and its need for an Environmental Impact Review (EIR). They also noted that local governments and campuses typically disagree on who is responsible for improvements with local governments not having much recourse.

Staff from the LAO also stated that the UC’s campuses are expecting a drop in enrollment and focusing their resources on providing more graduate programs. The LAO pointed out that the UC is working off of a study from 1999 and then each campus individually predicts its own future growth. The LAO also suggested better utilization of facilities on weekends, evenings, and summer months should be considered.

The LAO discussed the UC’s “Fair Share” policy, created in 2002, and that no campus has yet reached an agreement with a local government under this policy. The LAO also suggested that the UC should report on its “Fair Share” policy in light of the recent City of Marina V. California State University Board of Trustees decision.

The LAO also suggested that the UC’s LRDP for the most part is not reviewed by any other state agency and these plans are not standardized and differ by campus. The LAO suggested that a more formal process should be implemented to increase transparency.

Various members then raised issues they had including Assembly Member Laird’s issue with how the mitigation of a new project is paid for by a campus. When a campus proposes a new project, do they add the cost of mitigation into the price tag of the facility that they are creating? The LAO stated that these costs are not taken into account and are dealt with later. Mr. Laird noted that in Connecticut, the State calculates mitigation costs as a percentage of the proposed project.

Assembly Member Julia Brownley talked about their being no clear process for enrollment and on Long Range Development. The LAO noted that private colleges like Stanford or University of Pacific have to go before a local government entity. On the issue of enrollment, the LAO suggested that this is a vision of where the State is going and volunteered that perhaps the Legislature should participate in this vision.

Assembly Member Mike Duvall (R-72, Fullerton) raised his concern that the costs of mitigation will ultimately come back to the State and Assembly Member Jean Fuller (R-32, Bakersfield) raised concerns that any stringent policy on the systems could create an overly burdensome process that an out-of-state competitors would not have to face.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office report (.pdf) is avaialable from the Legislative Analyst’s Office’s Website.