I understand that your comment is derived from interpreting a recent report by the Legislative Analyst’s Office(LAO); and here is the relevant quote:

“The Master Plan also called for students to assume a greater share of their education costs by periodically increasing fees so they would cover the operating costs of noninstructional services (such as laboratories, student activities, and athletics). Financial aid would be made available for students who could not afford these costs, and for all California residents
direct instructional costs (such as faculty salaries) would be paid by the state. Ancillary services (such as parking and dormitories) would be self-supporting.”

I interpret that quite differently from what you imply. The “noninstructional” things they refer to are what have been covered for some time now by Registration Fees (Student Services, athletics) and some campus based fees (for student labs). That LAO language continues the old game (which I am trying to unmask) of hiding faculty research costs under “instructional costs”.

So, I believe you are a bit confused about what “the state” wants to do regarding funding for UC. In fact, we are all unclear about that question. It would be most helpful if UC provided meaningful data about what they spend on undergraduate instruction and what they spend on faculty research and related graduate programs. Those are both important contributions to the welfare of California, and the two missions do certainly overlap somewhat; but we can ask for a reasonably honest accounting of their separate costs rather than lumping them all together and calling it “the cost of education.”