BILL ANALYSIS Ķ
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Carol Liu, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 736
AUTHOR: Fox
AMENDED: April 16, 2013
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: June 18, 2014
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Daniel Alvarez
SUBJECT : California State University: Antelope Valley
campus.
SUMMARY
This bill requires the California State University (CSU) to
conduct a study, as specified, regarding the feasibility of
CSU satellite program, and ultimately, an independent CSU
campus in the Antelope Valley.
BACKGROUND
Current law declares the intent of the Legislature that
sites for new institutions or branches of the CSU shall not
be authorized or acquired unless recommended by the
California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) and
that CPEC should advise the Legislature and the Governor
regarding the need for, and location of, new institutions
and campuses of public higher education.
(Education Code § 66900 and § 66904)
Current law also establishes the CSU administered by the
Board of Trustees, and provides that the Trustees shall
have the full power over the construction and development
of any CSU campus and any buildings or other facilities or
improvements. (EC § 89030, et. seq.)
ANALYSIS
This bill requires the California State University to
conduct a study, as specified, regarding the feasibility of
CSU satellite program, and ultimately, an independent CSU
campus in the Antelope Valley. More specifically, this
bill:
AB 736
Page 2
1) Requires the study to include all of the following:
a) Ten-year enrollment projections and physical
capacity analysis.
b) Regional workforce needs.
c) Prospective economic impact and job creation
in the region.
d) Infrastructure availability.
e) The potential alleviation of overcrowding
and traffic at the
Bakersfield and Northridge campuses.
f) Consideration of plausible alternatives.
g) Academic planning and program justification.
h) Description of proposed student services and
student outreach
programs.
i) Support and capital outlay budget
projections.
j) Geographic and physical accessibility.
aa) Environmental and social impacts.
bb) Effects on other educational institutions.
2) Requires funding for the study be derived solely from
nonstate sources.
3) Requires the Chancellor of the CSU to complete and
submit the study to the trustees within 18 months
after the date the Trustees certify that sufficient
funds are available to conduct the study.
4) Requires that if the CSU Trustees determine there is a
need for a new campus or satellite campus in the
Antelope Valley, the Trustees shall conduct a formal
study identical in content to the study of a proposed
new postsecondary educational program that would have
AB 736
Page 3
been conducted by the California Postsecondary
Education Commission (CPEC).
5) Defines "Antelope Valley" to include, but not be
limited, to the cities of California City, Lancaster,
and Palmdale; the United States census designated
places of Boron, Green Valley, Lake Hughes, Lake Los
Angeles, Leona Valley, Littlerock, Mojave, North
Edwards, Piņon Hills, Phelan, Quartz Hill, Rosamond,
and Wrightwood, and the unincorporated area of
Pearlblossom.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to the author's office,
since 2000, the population of the Antelope Valley has
grown by 85 percent. The U.S. census predicts that
Latinos in the district will grow from 33 percent of
the region to 56 percent over the next ten years.
Students in the Antelope Valley graduate high school,
attempt college and complete their associate degrees
at a higher rate than the rest of their peers in the
State. But, because students in the Antelope Valley
do not have the same access to a public four-year
university, they fall behind the rest of California
when completing a four-year college degree and
obtaining a graduate degree. In addition, the two
nearest public four-year institutions to the Antelope
Valley are CSU Northridge and CSU Bakersfield. Both
campuses are more than 1.5 hours away by car.
2) The Legislature is ill-equipped to measure need for
new campuses or academic programs . There is currently
no coordinating entity for higher education in
California. Existing law establishes the California
Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) to be
responsible for coordinating public, independent, and
private postsecondary education in California and to
provide independent policy analyses and
recommendations to the Legislature and the Governor on
postsecondary education issues. Prior to 2011, CPEC
was charged, among other things, with reviewing
proposals for new academic and vocational programs,
satellite campuses, and campuses at California's
public colleges and universities and with making
recommendations to the Legislature and Governor.
AB 736
Page 4
CPEC typically reviewed new programs / campuses
through, at a minimum, the prism of societal need,
student demand, existing programs, total costs of the
program, and appropriateness to the institution and
system mission. Since the de-funding of CPEC in 2011,
no additional state program reviews have occurred.
The Legislature is now placed in the position of
examining and reviewing the academic, programmatic,
and fiscal implications of "new" programs or campuses,
a function that the Legislature is ill-equipped for.
In 2003, the Commission recommended that the CSU
Bakersfield Antelope Valley Education Center be
approved as a permanent CSU off-campus education
center and become eligible immediately to compete for
state capital outlay and support budget funding.
Since this time, staff could not identify any other
state sanctioned study related to the current CSU
Bakersfield Antelope Valley Center.
Having a neutral statewide body provide critical
analysis on the future needs of postsecondary
education in California is beyond the scope of this
measure. However, it does call into question - who or
what entity should be performing such analysis in the
absence of a CPEC? In this measure, a requirement is
being placed on the CSU to pursue such a study. In
statute, the Legislature has given the CSU Trustees
the full power over the construction and development
of any CSU campus and any buildings or other
facilities or improvements. The CSU Trustees are in a
better position to determine the overall campus needs
of their system from a statewide perspective - and
consistent with current statute, staff recommends an
amendment to "authorize" rather than "require" the CSU
Trustees to perform the study on the Antelope Valley.
3) The California State University at Bakersfield -
Antelope Valley Regional Center (CSUB-AV) . CSUB-AV
opened in 2000 on the campus of Antelope Valley
College and is now fully accredited by the Western
Association of Schools and Colleges. CSUB-AV
currently offers only eight undergraduate degrees and
five graduate degrees.
AB 736
Page 5
4) Background . According to the most recent U. S. Census
Bureau data, Antelope Valley is one of the fastest
growing regions in California with 85% growth in
population in twenty years. A regional community
initiative led by the Antelope Valley Board of Trade
to obtain approval for a state polytechnic four-year
university in the Antelope Valley was launched in
2008.
According to a March 2013, report by the Antelope
Valley Board of Trade (a non-state authorized entity),
a new four-year university needs to be developed, from
the existing CSUB, CSUN, CSU at Long Beach, and Cal
Poly Pomona activities currently being conducted in
the High Desert (also referred as the Antelope Valley)
region of Southern California to address the need for
engineers, medical, and other technical professionals.
According to the report, a precedent has been set by
technology testing in the High Desert, the abundance
of technological industries, the physical attributes
of the region, and the projected student population
growth of the area more than justify the evolution of
a much needed four-year public campus in the Antelope
Valley.
5) According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee ,
there is a one-time non-state cost of around $600,000
for the feasibility study, which would include
physical and academic planning and environmental and
traffic studies. Development of a new CSU campus
would probably require initial capital outlays of tens
of millions of dollars and at least several million
dollars annually in start-up costs.
6) Previous legislation . AB 24 (Block, 2009), which was
vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger, proposed a study
regarding the feasibility of establishing a CSU
satellite program and campus at Chula Vista. AB 500
(Conway, 2009), which died in the Higher Education
Committee, was virtually identical to this measure
except called for a CSU campus in the High Desert.
SCR 92 (Peace), Resolution Chapter 104, Statutes of
1998, resolved that the Legislature endorse a proposed
City site for possible future use as a UC campus.
AB 736
Page 6
SUPPORT
None on file.
OPPOSITION
None on file.