Page One

“No UC campus has paid its fair share for identified off-campus mitigation measures,” concludes a just-released report by the state Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO). 

Though official policy of the University of California requires campuses to negotiation financial agreements to pay for the impacts of expansion on surrounding community, the policy has failed to yield a single agreement. 

That failure is just one of several reasons the highly regarded non-partisan office concluded in a just-released report that state lawmakers needs to exert more control over the University of California’s long-range planning practices. 

While the report didn’t look specifically at UC Berkeley’s controversial Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) for 2020, author and Cal grad Anthony Simbol said that the planning process varied from campus to campus. 

“We found a lack of standardization, and public participation in the planning process wasn’t the same at each campus,” he said. 

While some campuses invited members of the public and local government representatives to participate on committees that worked on the LRDPs, he said others did not. 

One problem identified in the report will have strong resonance in Berkeley: the failure to implement the University of California’s policy, adopted in 2002, which calls on campuses “to voluntary negotiate in ‘good faith’ with local governments regarding a monetary contribution to mitigate off-campus impacts” of campus growth. 

It took a lawsuit by the City of Berkeley to force UC Berkeley to the bargaining table, resulting in an agreement which has itself become the target of another lawsuit filed by Berkeley residents [including the Daily Planet’s arts and calendar editor Anne Wagley]. 

In his report, Simbol wrote that the Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) required of each LRDP have generally included since the 2002 policy “a general statement that the campus will work with the appropriate jurisdiction and contribute its fair share of the improvements needed to mitigate the impacts.” 

But “the EIR generally does not define UC’s fair share contribution and does not include a time frame in which UC would make any such payments.” 

The report also cited the July, 2006, decision of the California Supreme Court in a lawsuit the City of Marina filed against the trustees of California State University concerning impacts of the new CSU campus at the site of the abandoned Fort Ord army base. The justices ruled that EIRs that fail to mitigate identified impacts are legally insufficient. 

Simbol, who received his master’s degree in public policy from UC Berkeley, said he didn’t include his alma mater as a focus of the report. The three UC campuses selected for review were Davis, Riverside and Santa Cruz, along with UC’s Office of the President. 

Growth questions  

Another problem with the LRDP process concerns the future size of student bodies on UC campuses. 

“After 2014, the population group between the ages of 18 and 24 will decrease, and will be reflected a decline in the number of projected high school graduates,” Simbol said. 

But graduate enrollment will continue to rise until the last of the population spike crests—meaning that most of the remaining growth will occur in graduate and professional schools, Simbol said. 

“And there are ways to accommodate these changes without growth” of physical facilities, he said.  

One solution that would require less intensive building programs might rethinking class scheduling, including an increased emphasis on holding classes courses during the summer terms and encouraging year-round enrollment. 

The report offers three possible measure to increase enrollment in summer months, including financial incentives, a requirement to attend high-demand classes during the summer term and making high-demand classes more accessible during the term. 

Other legislative action could include revisions to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the legislation that spells out the rules and policies for evaluating the impacts of development on the environment. 

The law’s best-known feature is the EIR, a document required of every LRDP. 

Simbol’s report recommends legislation to clarify portions of the law through providing clear definitions and better guidelines for defining the mitigations to development impacts and the alternate projects required in EIRs. 

He also recommends that the university make a full report to legislators on steps needed to reach accords with local agencies on mitigation of impacts. 

“There are a lot of issues the legislature should be aware of,” Simbol said, “because they will have to find the funding to support the priorities. The legislature needs to know what campus plans are to see if the legislature is going to be interested in funding them. 

“The role of the legislature is important, and it’s important to provide oversight,” he said. 

“We’re not critical of the universities. We’re just saying the university needs to provide more oversight, and it needs to have greater involvement if it is to fulfill its role.” 

Copies of the report are available online at www.lao.ca.gov/2007/uc_lrdp/lrdp_011007.htm