BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Gloria Romero, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 24
AUTHOR: Block
AMENDED: July 1, 2009
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: July 15, 2009
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Beth Graybill
SUBJECT : California State University
SUMMARY:
This bill: 1) requires the Chancellor of the California
State University to complete and submit to the Trustees a
study about the feasibility of establishing a new university
campus at Chula Vista, and 2) requires the university to
accommodate requests for alternative testing times when a
scheduled examination violates a student's religious creed.
BACKGROUND
Existing law :
1) Establishes the California State University (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.
2) Declares the intent of the Legislature that sites for
new institutions or branches of the University of
California (UC) and the CSU shall not be authorized or
acquired unless recommended by the California
Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC). Existing law
further requires CPEC to advise the Legislature and the
Governor regarding the need for, and location of, new
institutions and campuses of public higher education.
3) Specifies that construction of authorized California
State University campuses shall commence only upon
resolution of the CSU trustees and approval by the CPEC
(Education Code Section 89002).
AB 24
Page 2
4) Requires the CSU, in administering any test or
examination, to permit a student who is eligible to
undergo the test or examination to take the test at a
time when that activity would not violate the student's
religious creed. Existing law suspends the requirement
if administering an alternative date for the test would
impose an undue hardship on the institution.
AB 24
Page 3
ANALYSIS
This bill :
1) Requires the Chancellor of the CSU to conduct a study
regarding the feasibility of establishing a satellite
program and ultimately, an independent CSU campus at
Chula Vista, and specifies the study should include
specified elements such as enrollment projections,
regional workforce needs, prospective economic impact
and job creation in the region, potential alleviation of
overcrowding and traffic at San Diego State University,
environmental impact, and support and capital outlay
projections.
2) Requires the Chancellor to submit the feasibility study
to the Trustees within 18 months of the effective date
of this bill (June 2011).
3) Removes the hardship exemption concerning alternative
testing times, thereby requiring CSU campuses to
accommodate all students who want to take a test at a
time when it would not violate the student's religious
creed.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) What's the problem ? Currently, the San Diego area is
served by two CSU campuses: CSU San Marcos, and San
Diego State University (SDSU). In addition, SDSU also
operates an off-campus education center at Calexico, and
offers courses at the Higher Education Center in
National City, which is a joint education project
between SDSU and Southwestern Community College. In
addition, the San Diego area is served by the University
of California at San Diego, eight California community
districts, and at least five independent four-year
universities. Given the range of postsecondary options
available in the San Diego region, the need for a new
four-year public university in unclear.
According to the author's office, SDSU and CSU San Marcos do
not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the current
and future enrollment demand in the region, and that
students in San Diego's South Bay Region should be able
to attend a CSU campus without having to travel to San
AB 24
Page 4
Diego State University or CSU San Marcos.
The author's office contends that SDSU, which has been
designated by the Chancellor's office as an impacted
campus, turned away 68.8% of the 50,000 first-time
freshmen who applied for the fall 2008 semester and
argues that the impaction and anticipated population
growth in the southern San Diego region suggest the need
for a new CSU campus in the Chula Vista area. (It is
unclear how many of those first-time freshman applicants
did not meet the eligibility criteria.) The CSU reports
that all qualified students from the San Diego area were
offered admission to SDSU in 2008.
As a result of the state's current budget crisis the CSU
expects to reduce overall systemwide enrollment by
approximately 40,000 students in 2009-10, further
reducing enrollment at SDSU this upcoming year. In
order to align enrollment with budgeted resources, CSU
plans to continue enrollment management strategies such
as redirecting students to non-impacted campuses, giving
priority to local-area applicants, adjusting application
deadlines, restricting lower-division transfers, and
reducing the number of students admitted by exception.
CSU's fiscal constraints suggest that much of the
"capacity" problem appears to be strongly correlated
with financial resources rather than lack of space.
2) History . In the 1990s, the City of Chula Vista set
aside 375 acres for a four-year university and has
worked since that time to establish educational services
that would serve students in the region. (According to
a prospectus produced by the City of Chula Vista, the
initial proposal was for a University of California
campus.) The proposed site is located seven miles south
of downtown San Diego and seven miles north of Tijuana,
Mexico.
In 2000, AB 2323 (Ducheny, Chapter 462) declared the intent
of the Legislature to establish a full-service
educational complex to be established through a joint
powers association formed by the Sweetwater Union High
School District, the Southwestern Community College
District, and San Diego State University. In that year,
the Legislature provided $1.0 million for costs
associated with establishing the Otay Mesa Educational
AB 24
Page 5
Center. In 2002, CPEC approved this center, which
currently operates as an off-campus center of
Southwestern Community College.
3) Is this the right time ? This bill raises serious
questions about short term costs to conduct the study
(estimated at $600,000) and long term cost pressure,
should it be determined that a new campus is warranted.
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee
analysis, this bill has a one-time cost of around
$600,000 for the feasibility study, which would include
physical, and academic planning and environmental and
traffic studies.
The current version of this bill deletes a provision that
would have required this feasibility study to be funded
from private sources, thereby requiring CSU to absorb
the cost of the study, potentially further impacting
resources available to serve students. In the long run,
this bill could result in unknown but significant
General Fund cost pressure for start up and ongoing
operations. Given that all General Obligation Bond
funds (Proposition 1D) for higher education facilities
have been apportioned, it is not clear when initial
capital outlay could be funded. Moreover, it is not
clear, given the current state of the economy when a new
higher education bond proposal would be on the ballot.
SB 271 (Ducheny), which proposed the Higher Education
Bond Act for 2010, was passed by this Committee on a 7-0
vote and has been held under submission in Senate
Appropriations.
Notwithstanding the merits of planning for better times or
creating opportunities for economic development, the
projections for continued budget stress for both the
state and CSU over the next few years suggest that the
feasibility study may be premature as much of the data
that would be contained in the report could be out of
date by the time the state or CSU is in a position to
secure funding for the proposed new campus.
4) What is the existing process ? Existing law requires
CPEC to advise the Legislature and the Governor
regarding the need for, and location of, new
institutions and campuses of public higher education as
a means of carrying out their responsibility to ensure
AB 24
Page 6
the effective utilization of public postsecondary
education resources. Under the existing process, public
postsecondary systems considering the establishment of a
new educational center file a letter of intent with
CPEC, in which a system notifies CPEC of an identified
need and intention to expand educational services in a
given area. This notice is followed by the submission
of a formal analysis of the need for the proposed campus
or educational center. The Needs Study provides the
findings from a comprehensive needs analysis of the
proposed facility that includes enrollment projections,
an analysis of programmatic alternatives, capital outlay
and operational cost projections, environmental impact
analysis, to name a few.
This bill requires the Chancellor to submit a feasibility
study to the Trustees, but does not require the Trustees
to take any action on the study. Further, staff notes
that the feasibility study outlined in the bill contains
some but not all of the elements CPEC requires in a
formal Needs Study. To ensure that the process for
establishing an educational center at Chula Vista is
consistent with existing state procedures, staff
recommends amendments to specify that if and when the
Trustees determine the need for a new campus or off
campus center at Chula Vista, the Trustees shall submit
a formal Needs Study to CPEC for review, pursuant to
Education Code Section 66904.
5) Testing accommodation . According to the author's
office, current law makes it too easy for professors to
claim "undue hardship" and deny student requests for
alternative testing times. The scope of this problem is
unclear as staff has not been provided information on
the number of requests for alternative testing times CSU
receives/denies. By removing the provision, this bill
will have the effect of requiring CSU campuses to
accommodate any and all religious creed requests for
alternative testing times, regardless of the
reasonableness of the request and could conceivably
require faculty to permit multiple alternative testing
times for different students. Rather than deleting the
hardship provision altogether, staff recommends
amendments to define undue hardship as accommodations
that would cause significant administrative costs or
substantial disruption to the educational mission of the
AB 24
Page 7
institution.
SUPPORT
Allied Gardens Community Council
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO
BIOCOM
California Communities United Institute
California State Employees Association
Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce
City of Chula Vista
College Area Community council
College View Estates Association
Council of Philippine American Organizations
County of San Diego
Crossroads II
Filipino American Community Empowerment
Letters from individuals
Mexican American Business and Professional Association
National City chamber of Commerce
National Federation of Filipino American Associations ,
Region X
Rolando Community Council
San Diego Councilmember Marti Emerald
South Bay Expressway
Southwestern Community College District
OPPOSITION
None received.