The University of California shows a general “”lack of accountability, standardization and clarity”” in adequately addressing the impact of campus growth on surrounding host communities, according to a report recently released by the state Legislative Analyst’s Office.
Each campus in the UC system develops its own Long Range Development Plan based on its academic goals and projected student enrollment levels for the next 10 to 15 years. The plan usually outlines the campus’ plans for growth, and also identifies any infrastructure plans and possible transportation systems that might be required to deal with enrollment growth.
Overall, the UC system projects a 48-percent increase in enrollment by 2010 in comparison to 1998, with UCSD itself expecting to expand by 68 percent. Along with any LRDP, the university has a policy of creating an Environmental Impact Report, which is made public to create “”fair share”” agreements and mitigate any negative ramifications of development plans. Costs are meant to be shared between the university and the host community, but the report states that “”currently no UC campus has made a payment to another public agency based on a fair share agreement regarding a mitigation measure identified in an EIR.””
University guidelines also state that in developing an LRDP, a campus must discuss its plans with neighboring community groups, but the report stated that the depth to which local groups are consulted is unknown.
Consequently, each UC campus uses a different process to develop its LRDP and does not necessarily involve the community to the same degree. Some campuses, such as UC Santa Cruz, have LRDP committees that include both the legislative and community representatives in developing their LRDPs. Other campuses such as UC Davis only hold workshops.
The report also took note of the practices of other colleges in California, including California State University and community colleges. The California State University appears to have a system of developing LRDPs similar to the University of California, but the report did not further discuss community issues with the California State University.
“”It is unclear why the LAO has looked at UC specifically,”” UC Office of the President spokeswoman Jennifer Ward said.
The report did not mention any deliberate actions on the part of the university to exclude the community. As far as public involvement goes, “”there is variance in that, but there should be a minimum,”” said Anthony Simbol, principal fiscal and policy analyst for the LAO. Standardization among the campuses is just one of the recommendations that the report makes in addition to greater legislative and community involvement in the process.
However, creating a standard to discuss plans with host communities is not necessarily the best solution, according to Ward.
“”It would be really hard to approach with a cookie-cutter approach; each community wants to see different things,”” she said.
The composition of the communities surrounding each UC campus varies from smaller close-knit areas at campuses like UC Davis and UC Santa Cruz, to metropolitan areas such as Berkeley and San Diego. The impact of development is different for each campus – in Santa Cruz and Davis there are mostly environmental issues, Ward said.
The LAO report was compiled by visiting only three out of the 10 campuses that make up the University of California – UC Santa Cruz, UC Riverside and UC Davis. Simbol stated that the reason these three campuses were chosen was in part due to problems that the LAO had heard from the host communities near those campuses, and partially because “”we don’t have the resources to go to each school.””
Ward argued that the university has done its share and has given millions to mitigate costs for communities over the years. In the instances of traffic problems, the universities have made efforts to either build more parking spaces or pay for intersection improvements, she said.
“”We have a long history of sharing costs, we have adopted a variety of local agencies,”” she said. “”Many campuses have great relationships with the community.””
The report was released on Jan. 10, and was applauded by Assemblyman John Laird (D-Santa Cruz), who requested that the LAO conduct a study to evaluate the university’s LDRP plans.
Laird asked that the inquiry be made after his bill, which would have required the LAO to study UC expansion policies, was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005.
The university has not yet issued a formal response, and Ward said UC officials are currently analyzing the report and are eager to talk about existing measures for involving the host cities in the campus planning and fair-sha re processes, Ward said.
In response to the report, an informational hearing will be held by the Assembly Higher Education Committee in conjunction with the Education Budget Subcommittee on Jan. 30 in Sacramento. Ward said that this hearing will mainly be “”focusing on statewide policy issues and UC campuses and host cities.”” Both university and legislative representatives are expected to be in attendance.
