The Office of Planning and Research (OPR) serves the governor and the administration as staff for long-range planning, research, policy development and legislative analysis.  The office formulates plans regarding land use, climate change, urban expansion, infrastructure development and resource protection while acting as a liaison to local governments, small businesses and the military.

About OPR (OPR website)

Legislation in 1959 created the Office of Planning within the Department of Finance. That office was dissolved in 1970 during the Reagan administration and replaced by the State Policy Development Office, later renamed the Office of Planning and Research, and placed inside the governor’s office. The new office was created alongside the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was given the responsibility of overseeing environmental policy and reporting about it to the Legislature.

That report, known as the Environmental Goals and Policy Report, was first published in 1973, updated in 1978 and revised in 2003.  Its goal is to “articulate the state’s policies on growth, development and environmental quality; to recommend specific state, local and private actions needed to carry out these policies; and to serve as the basis for the preparation of the state’s functional plans (such as housing, transportation, air and water quality) and for locating major projects such as highways, water projects and university facilities.”

The report, which focused on growth, development and the environment, is generally regarded as an important acknowledgement that broad state policy and strategy needed to be articulated and then integrated into functional plans for state projects that incorporate local and private participation. The 1978 revision sought to hone in on specific actions government could take to revitalize urban areas and provide new development while protecting the environment. Although the report is statutorily required every four years, it has not been published since 2003.

The independent Little Hoover Commission noted that the office has evolved over time— been subject to the priorities of the sitting governor—and that its heyday was during the first administration of Governor Jerry Brown in the ‘70s. The office was at the center of groundbreaking research, land use and growth policies that influenced the state’s direction for decades to come.   

Brown was followed by 16 years of Republican governors who weren’t as enthusiastic about government supervision of state land use. Governor George Deukmejian greatly diminished the OPR and his successor, Pete Wilson, who co-sponsored the bill as an Assemblyman that created the office, was considered only marginally better.

Governor Gray Davis, who had been Governor Brown’s chief of staff in the ‘70s, commissioned just the third Environmental Goals and Policy report in 1983.

The Strategic Growth Council was created in 2008 to coordinate the activities of state agencies to provide local governments with data and information, facilitate collaboration and influence policy. Its centerpiece is a bond-funded competitive local assistance grant program to develop sustainable communities. The council is chaired by the OPR director and its members include the heads of the state Natural Resources Agency, Environmental Protection Agency and Health and Human Services Agency.

California Volunteers, an office that administers a number of programs—including the federal AmeriCorps program—was added to the OPR in 2010 and its secretary received a spot in the governor’s cabinet.

The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Will Rise Again (California Planning and Development Report)

Building California: Infrastructure Choices and Strategy (Little Hoover Commission) (pdf)

An Urban Strategy for California (Office of Planning and Research – 1978) (pdf)

2003 Governor's Environmental Goals and Policy Report (pdf)

State’s Land-Use Planning Agency Waking Up (by Jim Wasserman, Associated Press)

Wilson Has Passing Marks on 100-Day Report Card (by George Skelton, Los Angeles Times)

Legislative History of the Environmental Goals and Policy Report (by Professor Nico Calavita, San Diego State University)

Environmental Impact Assessment: Theory and Practice (by Peter Wathern)

The OPR is involved in multiple administrative functions including: formulating long-range land use goals and policies, conflict resolution among state agencies, coordinating federal grants to meet the state’s environmental goals, working with the U.S. military on various issues including land use, and coordinating statewide environmental monitoring and working with environmental justice activities.

Its main functions can be grouped into two categories: state planning and coordination of California Environmental Quality Act activities.

State Planning

By statute, the office is the state comprehensive planning agency. It formulates long-range goals and policies for land use, population growth and distribution, urban expansion, land development and resource preservation. It creates regional planning districts, publishes the Environmental Goal and Policy Report, ensures that all state policies and programs conform to state land use planning goals and assists state agencies in the preparation of plans to protect the environment.

The office also provides support to local governments by developing guidelines for the preparation of city and county general plans, reviewing general plans and overseeing general plan extension requests. It handles thousands of requests for planning assistance, provides technical support and acts as a liaison between local governments and state agencies.

Approximately 10% of California land is under the control of the military, which contributes billions of dollars to the state economy. In 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued an executive order creating the Governor’s Advisor for Military Affairs in the OPR to coordinate state policies that affect the military, including land use planning, state agency regulatory activities and state legislation.

OPR is available for assistance to cities and individuals seeking to cultivate renewable energy sources in the state.  California is committed to generating 33% of its electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020. Governor Brown has also upped the ante with his Clean Energy Jobs Plan that has a goal of producing 12,000 megawatts of “distributed” or local renewable energy generation from smaller systems. 

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

Inspired by passage of the National Environmental Protection Act in 1969, California enacted CEQA, which requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and avoid, or mitigate, them when feasible. CEQA “guidelines” are regulations that explain and interpret the law for public agencies. They are written and regularly revised by the Office of Planning and Research but the Natural Resources Agency reviews and recommends amendments every two years, and formally adopts any changes.

The OPR has several important functions in administering CEQA beyond drafting amendments. The office provides technical assistance to state and local government agencies on selected CEQA topics and it runs the State Clearinghouse. Established in 1973, the clearinghouse is a division of the OPR that serves as the state’s “single point of contact” for evaluation of federal funding proposals. The clearinghouse coordinates state and local review of federal financial assistance applications, federally required state plans, direct federal development activities and federal environmental documents.

The OPR also provides a number of links to outside agencies that specialize in providing grants for such projects as renewable energy, waste prevention and other means of protecting the environment.  Some of these include:  Funding Wizard; Grants.gov; and California Natural Resources Agency.

Climate changes in the coming years will result in more forest fires, increased air pollution and deadly heat waves, and a significant reduction in the state’s snowpack and water supplies. Rising sea levels and erosion will have significant impact on California’s long coastline, threatening to cause billions of dollars in damage to agriculture, tourism, recreation and other industries. The OPR is actively involved in monitoring the effects of climate change and offers tools and guidance to local government. The OPR is also deeply involved with climate change through CEQA, which since 2007 has directly addressed the contribution of greenhouse gas emissions to this growing problem.

California Volunteers

President Clinton signed legislation in 1993 establishing AmeriCorps, a service program for Americans 17 and older. The legislation required the states to create a commission to administer the program and thus was born California’s Commission on Improving Life Through Service. Governor Schwarzenegger renamed it California Volunteers in 2006 and expanded its activities to include coordination of volunteer responses to disasters. The position of secretary was established within the OPR in 2010 and was given a place in the governor’s cabinet. Besides AmeriCorps, California Volunteers’ program administration includes: the Cesar Chavez Day of Service and Learning, the Governor’s Mentoring Partnership, California Green Job Corps, Business Partners Program, California Volunteer Matching Network, Disaster Donations, WePrepare, Disaster Corps and Citizen Corps. For all intents and purposes, California Volunteers is a standalone agency.

OPR Functions (OPR website)

Statutory Responsibilities (OPR website)

Although the OPR on paper has a $36.3 million budget, most of that money is federal funds earmarked for the mostly independent California Volunteers office and its separate programs. Around $2.3 million from the state General Fund pays for salaries, benefits and operating expenses of the OPR staff.

Top 10 Contractors: A list provided by the State Contract & Procurement Registration System (eSCPRS) of the OPR’s largest service contractors in 2012 is made up of federal AmeriCorps state grants that California Volunteers administers within the OPR. These contracts are not state operations for which the term “service” contracts are typically attributed:

2011-12 Budget (Ebudget)

3-Year Budget (pdf)

When Developers Collide

Challenges to projects using the California Environmental Quality Act, which the Office of Planning and Research administers, have become notorious over the years. Anyone can invoke the act in filing objections, and the 40-year-old law has been used numerous times by environmentalists to force developers to comply with environmental law.

The act has been under attack by business groups for a long time as job-killing legislation that forces developers to engage in lengthy, costly environmental impact reports, and legislation in 2011 was passed to carve out exceptions to the act’s requirements and streamline the process.

But evocation of the act isn’t always a case of environmentalists taking on business, slow-growth versus development, tree-huggers versus the chamber of commerce. Sometimes it’s wielded as a weapon when developers compete with other developers.

In 2005, the owners of the Glendale Galleria mall filed a CEQA-based lawsuit against a proposed new mall nearby. They lost the fight, but delayed the project for months. “This entire lawsuit was just another failed attempt by General Growth Properties, owner of the Glendale Galleria across the street from our town center, to stop competition,” said Rick Caruso, CEO of the company that prevailed in the suit.

When Conquest  Student Housing, which owns 17 buildings that rent apartments to University of Southern California students near downtown Los Angeles, found out that Urban Properties was planning a new complex to house 1,600 students, it turned to CEQA. Conquest Student Housing not only sued to block the new complex, it filed suits against unrelated Urban Properties projects.  It even sued to stop a project in a Seattle suburb where that state has a less-stringent CEQA-like law.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Conquest Student Housing finally backed down and dropped its suits after Urban Partners filed a federal racqueteering lawsuit.  Urban Partners reportedly alleged in papers it filed with the suit that a Conquest official warned another competitor that “we should think of him and Conquest like ‘Al Qaeda,’ adding that it does not cost a lot to build a ‘bomb’ and cause extensive damage to a development project, and that it only takes a single person to cause serious harm to real estate projects using CEQA.”

Conquest Student Housing agreed to a U.S. District Court stipulated permanent injunction in 2008 not to challenge or interfere with any current or future student housing project within two miles of USC’s campus.

Firms Turning to Environmental Law to Combat Rivals (by Nicholas Riccardi, Los Angeles Times)

3rd Strike for General Growth Properties in Trying to Stop Competitive Entertainment/Retail Destination (Business Wire)

Lawsuit A Distant Memory, University Gateway Breaking Ground (by Dakota Smith, LA Curbed)

Conquest Banned From Even Thinking About USC Housing (by Dakota Smith, LA Curbed)

“Gutting” CEQA

In the middle of the 2011 state budget battle, Republican lawmakers put together draft legislation that would dramatically reduce the scope of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and constrain the Office of Planning and Research in its writing of guidelines. For instance, the comparison of projects with “significant effects on the environment” would be limited to “foreseeable future projects” rather than include past and current projects.

Lawsuits against projects threading environmental damage would be constrained, waivers would be available to giant telecommunications companies and many urban developments would be exempt from environmental review.

The legislation, which had no chance of getting past a Democratic-controlled Legislature and a Democratic governor, was being offered as a deficit reduction, job growth measure and a bargaining chip during budget talks.

“We wanted to streamline so there could not be as many levels of lawsuits,” said Republican Senator Bill Emmerson. Bill author Senator Anthony Cannella said, “The goal is to eliminate abuse of our state's environmental regulations by trial attorneys and other special-interest groups, while also protecting California's natural resources and creating jobs.”

A spokesman for Democratic Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez saw it differently. “Essentially, none of these proposals get our budget under control,” said Shannon Murphy. “And they roll back some significant ground-breaking policies.”

“They're using the state's fiscal crisis as leverage to try to reward the big developers . . . [and] freeze communities out of the planning process,” said Sierra Club Director Bill Magavern, who called it the “wholesale gutting” of CEQA.

The legislation did not come up for a vote.

GOP Proposal to Rewrite CEQA

GOP Lawmakers Threaten to Withhold Votes Unless Environmental Rules are Rewritten (by Shane Goldmacher and Evan Halper, Los Angeles Times)

“A Total Waste”

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was not a fan of his own Office of Planning and Research and was quoted in 2009 as saying, “The Office of Planning and Research ought to be about planning and research to come up with great policy answers, which this office doesn't do.” He called it a “total waste.”

Various departments were said to be hovering for a chance to absorb the office’s duties. The California Air Resources Board reportedly had its sights set on the office’s role in drafting guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Speculation was that the office’s general plan functions would end up in the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency. The Energy Commission probably had an interest in $20 million in federal energy efficiency block grants the office controlled. One proposal from the staff director of the state Senate Local Government Committee would give the Natural Resources Agency the State Clearinghouse, which coordinates the state-level review of environmental documents.

In January 2010 the governor proposed the office be eliminated and it was the subject of three reform bills that year. None of them passed and the office survived.

Asst. AG Ken Alex Reportedly Tapped to Lead Office of Planning and Research (by Josh Stephens, California Planning & Development Report)

Governor Calls OPR “A Total Waste” (by Paul Shigley, California Planning & Development Report)

Agencies, Growth Council Jockey to Assume OPR's Responsibilities (by Paul Shigley, California Planning & Development Report)

An Office in Flux

Although Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 2010 bid to have the OPR eliminated failed in the Legislature, a number of proposals have surfaced to pare down, or expand, the office’s duties.

Schwarzenegger’s plan would have moved local planning activities and the State Clearinghouse—with its California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) responsibilities—to the Natural Resources Agency and legislative and policy analyst positions directly to the governor’s office and three other major agencies.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office, which has long advocated elimination of the office, outlined multiple different ways the office’s functions could be transferred or eliminated. It also noted that there are also legislative initiatives to modify or expand the OPR in the areas of environmental and land use planning.

The legislative analyst noted that if the office were eliminated, the director could remain as a high-level advisor to the governor. When Governor Jerry Brown selected Ken Alex to head the office in mid-2011 he gave Alex those dual responsibilities.

Summary of LAO Findings and Recommendations on the 2010-11 Budget (Legislative Analyst’s Office)

CEQA Reform

At the heart of OPR activities lies its role in administering the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The landmark legislation, enacted in 1970, is in many ways more powerful than its federal counterpart, the National Environmental Protection Act.

CEQA is an ever-changing series of guidelines and regulations that govern a vast array of endeavors by requiring a public review of environmental impacts of proposed government actions before any commitments to a project are made. The OPR is charged with crafting the CEQA elements subject to review by other agencies, the Legislature and the governor. 

Proposals to rein in the scope of CEQA have been bandied about for years.

CEQA Reform: Issues and Options (by Elisa Barbour and Michael Teitz, Public Policy Institute of California) (pdf)

On the Right

When complaints are made about California’s anti-business, anti-growth smothering bureaucracy they are often talking about the state’s myriad environmental rules and regulations.

There is no denying that the rules add risk, require extra expense and make it easier to delay or block a project. Jobs can be lost, businesses sent scurrying to other states, needed infrastructure rebuilding delayed, tax revenues lost and time wasted sorting through the labyrinth of regulations.

Much of this burden falls on local governments, because they are the ones who process most regulatory permits. They are the ones who have to deal with vague regulatory language about what constitutes “significance” of environmental impacts, and weigh the costs and benefits of damage mitigation. Because different localities and entities are going to interpret guidelines differently, projects that cross local and regional jurisdictions pose particularly vexing challenges. All of these complexities can be exploited by parties with either an ideological agenda or a competing financial stake.

Attorney Mary Murphy at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher says litigation can add a year to the four or five years it may take to do a full environmental impact report on a project. Environmental reviews, she said, “cost amazing amounts of money, well north of a million dollars for large projects. And it is a lot of time, a lot of money, a lot of analysis and you end up getting appealed and sued anyways, and it has nothing to do with whether or not the analysis is sufficient.”

Slowly, California may be starting to change its ways. Three bills passed in 2011 carve out special exemptions from CEQA. Senate Bill 292 fast-tracks environmental review of a new football stadium in downtown Los Angeles, Assembly Bill 900 speeds up the review process by moving legal challenges to mega-projects past the trial court directly to the state Court of Appeal within a strict timetable and Senate Bill 226 makes it easier to do projects in developed, urbanized areas.

Senate Bill 226

Senate Bill 292

Assembly Bill 900

California Needs to Break-up With CEQA (Legalities and Externalities:An Environmental Law and Economics Blog)

From Hollywood, Rumblings and Requests for CEQA Reform (by Dakota Smith, LA Curbed)

CEQA: That '70s Law (by Bill Allen and Maureen O’Connor, Los Angeles Times Op-Ed)

CEQA “Reform” in California: 3-For-3 (by Richard Frank, Legal Planet)

On the Left

California is known for its aggressive environmental laws. It has led the nation for years in pursuit of cleaner air and water, protection of endangered species, nurturing of ecologically fragile habitats, preservation of natural resources, protection of its food supply, cultivation of recreational enclaves and sensible development in its urban areas.

These are major contributors to why California regularly ranks as the most desirable state in the nation to live in. CEQA facilitates that. It isn’t a perfect regulatory vehicle. That’s why it is constantly reviewed and updated. But one of its main purposes is to make clear the environmental costs and economic benefits of projects before they are built. And that can’t be accomplished by fast-tracking projects around the process for questionable short-term savings.

Opponents of regulatory oversight complain about the complex rules that take a team of lawyers to decipher. What isn’t often mentioned is that teams of lawyers, i.e. lobbyists, worked overtime on behalf of moneyed interests attempting to gain some advantage during the regulation’s creation. Simplicity at that point isn’t in their best interests.

Three laws passed in 2011—SB 226, SB 292 and AB 900—have the potential to impede CEQA’s effectiveness but are only a hint of what opponents of environmental regulation are really seeking: a market free of constrictions and oversight. Legislation pushed by Republican lawmakers in 2011 would gut CEQA, not reform it. It wouldn’t streamline the process, it would eliminate it. Challenges to projects would be severely limited, waivers would be freely dispensed, urban developments would be exempt from review, key definitions of terms would be watered down and steps in the review process would be eliminated.

A key argument for reform is that litigation, and the threat of litigation, discourages worthwhile development and unnecessarily adds to project costs. But studies show that only one lawsuit is filed for every 350 projects. “You've got to understand that it's a very small number of projects that actually get to court,” according to Sierra Club California Director Kathryn Phillips. “Environmental review doesn't stop jobs. What's stopping jobs is that developers are having difficulty getting financing. Attacking California's environmental laws is not the way to create jobs. That will just make California's environmental quality worse.”

CEQA has a built-in deference to local control and discretion. That is a double-edged sword. While such discretion recognizes the individual circumstances that shape local needs and gives them flexibility, it introduces vague language on substantive subjects. Project applicants face inconsistent requirements in different jurisdictions and projects that stretch across jurisdictions can be subject to conflicting interpretations of law.

CEQA has its problems. Its project-by-project approach can impair its dealing effectively with regional issues. Its encouragement of public debate can be a vehicle for obstruction. (But shutting out the public only empowers lobbyists and moneyed interests.) CEQA reforms in the late ’90s helped expedite housing production that led to a slow-growth backlash a decade later.   

These are just a few of the legitimate concerns about crafting fair and effective environmental laws. And some are being addressed through new approaches that utilize “smart growth,” a model that considers trade-offs among environmental impacts, such as gains in regional open space and air quality derived from nearby increased density developments.

But the complexity of a problem and its solutions isn’t a reason to ignore the problem entirely. As H.L. Mencken pointed out: “There is always a well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.”

CEQA and Infill: A Good Year in California (by Ethan Elkind, Legal Planet)

Major, Proposed CEQA Amendments Sent to California Governor Jerry Brown (by Richard Frank, Legal Planet)

A Dangerous Bill (by Eric Biber, Legal Planet)

Lawmakers OK Bill to Soften Environmental Reviews (by Marisa Lagos and Peter Fimrite, San Francisco Chronicle)

GOP Lawmakers Threaten to Withhold Votes Unless Environmental Rules are Rewritten (by Shane Goldmacher and Evan Halper, Los Angeles Times)

Reality: Exactly the Opposite of What California's Dirty Energy Lobby Says—Report (by Zachary Shahan, Change.org)

Why CEQA Is Essential for California Neighborhoods (by Bill Magavern, Sierra Club California director) (pdf)

Stop Giving Them a Pass (by John Mirisch, L.A. Business Journal Op-Ed) 

Cathleen Cox,  January 2010–January 2011 (Acting)

Cynthia Bryant,  December 2006–January 2010

Sean T. Walsh,  February 2005–January 2007

Jan Boel,  December 2003–January 2005 (Acting)

Tal Finney,  January 2002–November 2003 (Acting)

Steven A. Nissen,  February 2000–January 2002

Loretta Lynch, March 1999–January 2000

Darryl Young,  January 1999–March 1999

Paul F. Miner,  August 1997–January 1999

Lee A. Grissom,  October 1993–July 1997

Richard P. Sybert,  January 1991–November 1993

John J. McCarthy,  July 1990–January 1991

Robert P. Martinez, May 1988–July 1990

Huston T. Carlyle, Jr.,  August 1983–April 1988

Priscilla A. Greene,  January 1980–January 1983

Bill Press, January 1976–July 1979. Press is a well-known political commentator and author. He has worked at CNN and MSNBC and was chairman of the California Democratic Party from 1993-96.

Preble Stolz,  February 1975–December 1975

Robert J. DeMonte,  July 1973–November 1974

John S. Tooker, 1971–June 1973