The filing of a notice of determination triggers a 30-day statute of limitations for all California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) challenges to any decision announced in the notice, regardless of the nature of the alleged CEQA violation, the state Supreme Court has ruled. In a decision filed on February 11, 2010, in Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors , the unanimous Supreme Court reversed the Sixth District Court of Appeal, which had ruled that a 180-day statute of limitations applied in the case. Factual Background On December 12, 2000, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors certified an environmental impact report (EIR) and approved a community plan and general use permit for Stanford University to add buildings to its campus. The EIR found that the project would significantly impact public access to recreational facilities. As mitigation, condition I.2 of the permit required Stanford to identify and dedicate easements for, develop, and maintain the portions of two trail alignments that cross Stanford lands as shown in the 1995 Santa Clara countywide trails master plan (routes S1 and C1). Route S1 was not challenged in this action. In 2005, the board instructed county staff to pursue an agreement with Stanford on the C1 trail alignment. In December 2005, the trails agreement was presented to the Board of Supervisors for consideration as mitigation for the permit. The trails agreement realigned the trail routes so that portions of route C1 would be located within San Mateo County and the Town of Portola Valley, so long as the named jurisdictions cooperated. The resolution adopted by Santa Clara County declared that the agreement satisfied condition I.2. Admittedly, alternatives for the C1 route were not studied for their potential environmental impacts due to the uncertainty of where the routes would be located, but the board approved the agreement pertaining to the C1 alignment as satisfying permit condition I.2, stating: "The county's approval of the agreement for trail easements does not constitute county approval of construction, operation or maintenance of specific trail improvements along those routes. The agreement for trail easements contemplates that, prior to any trail improvements, detailed construction plans will be reviewed and considered by the jurisdictions of San Mateo County, Town of Portola Valley and Town of Los Altos Hills, and that those jurisdictions will have discretion to consider whether and how to improve trail improvements." The board obligated Stanford to provide requisite funds and easements to the jurisdictions to ensure the trail was completed. Alternatively, if the named jurisdictions did not enter into agreements to permit the construction of the trail, Stanford was to pay Santa Clara County up to $11.2 million. (San Mateo County has since declined to permit the trail.) Santa Clara County would use the funds – in an unspecified way – to mitigate the adverse effects on recreational opportunities for existing or new campus residents and users who resulted from the larger project under the permit. With that, the board determined no further CEQA review of route C1 was required prior to the execution of the agreement. Two notices of determinations (NODs) were filed for the approval of the agreement. The first NOD did not include a reference to the C1 trail alignment. The second NOD was filed on December 20, 2005, and changed the project description to include the board's actions with respect to the C1 and C2 trail alignments. The later NOD referenced the EIR for the S1 trail alignment, the 2000 permit EIR and the countywide trails master plan EIR/supplemental EIR as supporting CEQA documents. The organization Committee for Green Foothills filed a lawsuit after the 30-day period following the second NOD, but within 180 days of the board's adoption of the agreement. The petitioner asserted the county had violated CEQA by approving a C1 trail alignment without conducting a CEQA review. Court of Appeal Decision The Court of Appeal, Sixth District, held that the longer 180-day statute of limitations contained in CEQA Guidelines § 21167(a) applied. In sum, the appeals court was largely focused on procedural issues – mainly, that the Committee for Green Foothills was entitled to amend its petition to allege facts sufficient to bring its case within the 180-day statute of limitations (see CP&DR Legal Digest , July 2008 ). Supreme Court's Decision The California Supreme Court held that the 30-day statute of limitations under § 21167(e) – rather than the 180-day statute of limitations under subdivision (a) – applied. The court based its decision not only on the language of § 21167, but on the law's legislative history. In looking at the statutory language, the court reasoned that applying subsection (a) of § 21167 as proposed by the petitioner would have made no sense because "the limitations period in subdivision (a) starts when a project is approved or begun, and it continues for 180 days." Further, subdivision (a) specifically contemplates that no NOD is filed by an agency. Here, the county filed an NOD.   An analysis of the CEQA Guidelines conducted by the court revealed that "the applicable statute of limitations depends in the first instance on whether a public notice was filed," and that the 180-day statute of limitations applies only where no public notice has been given (e.g., no notice of exemption or determination has been filed). The CEQA Guidelines further indicate that the filing of a notice of exemption starts a 30-day statute of limitations (see 14 California Code of Regulations, §§ 15075(g) and 15049(g)). The legislative history of § 21167 indicates that subsections (d) and (e) were added to the statute in 1974. A report prepared by the Department of Water Resources regarding AB 2338 for the 1973-1974 legislative session, in which the amendments were proposed, said, " ssentially any determinations made by public agencies under the Environmental Quality Act will be subject to a 30- or 35-day challenge limitation, provided a notice of determination has been filed. If no notice is filed or utilized, a 180-day period of limitation applies." Finally, the Supreme Court looked to the policy considerations posed by CEQA – the prompt resolution of challenges to decisions of public agencies regarding land use, and the fact that bright line rules provide certainty to public agencies and developers. The Supreme Court's decision could be a preview of its ruling in Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton , (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 332, cert. granted, (2008) 72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 622, which was argued before the Supreme Court in January. The Third District Court of Appeal ruled that the CEQA statute of limitations never commenced because there was no valid approval of the project in question. The Case: Committee for Green Foothills v. Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors , No. S163680, 2010 DJDAR 2313. Filed February 11, 2010. The Lawyers: For Committee for Green Foothills: William P. Parkin, Wittwer & Parkin, (831) 429-4055. For the county: Lizanne Reynolds, deputy county counsel, (408) 299-5940. For Stanford University: Barbara J. Schussman, Bingham McCutchen, (415) 393-2380.

As the popularity of motor sports, especially stock car racing, blossomed during the late 1990s and 2000s, a number of would-be race track developers and local government officials in California pursued high-speed economic dreams. However, actually building a race track in California has proven to be far more difficult than proposing a track and even winning development entitlements. At least four jurisdictions approved race tracks from 1998 to 2008, and other local governments have considered with the idea. But not one of the projects has actually been completed. A multiple race track facility approved by Merced County supervisors in 2006 generated more litigation and hard feelings than anything else; the project officially died last year when the property, near the closed Castle Air Force Base in Atwater, fell into foreclosure. A speedway complex approved in late 2008 by the Tulare City Council appears in serious jeopardy, with the developer lacking capital and the City Council still sharply divided on the project. Construction of a half-mile oval track on the edge of Bakersfield adjacent to Interstate 5 commenced in 2007 but halted midway. Developer Alan Destafani's company declared bankruptcy last year and the property sits for sale. Ground never broke on an oval track approved by Yuba County voters in 1998, in part because developers involved ended up in their own feud. Race track proposals in Madera, Tehama and Fresno counties and in the Coachella Valley have not progressed beyond the dreams-and-schemes stage. The newest race tracks built on private property in California are located in Fontana and Irwindale. Those speedways both opened during the late 1990s. Auto Club Speedway on the site of the former Kaiser plant in Fontana hosts big league NASCAR stock cars two weekends per year, while Irwindale is a minor league facility that operates most Saturday nights. Both facilities also have busy drag strips and racing schools, and they serve as test tracks. Speedways provide economic appeal on several levels. The Fontana track is featured before huge television audiences two weekends per year, providing national exposure to Fontana, San Bernardino County and the L.A. area in general. Major league facilities such as the one in Fontana cost hundreds of millions of dollars to develop, providing many well-paying construction jobs. Ongoing operations offer permanent, albeit mostly part-time, employment to hundreds of people. The hospitality industry around the speedway benefits. And speedway operators hope that members of "the industry" – car and parts manufacturers, race teams, souvenir and appeal providers, etc. – will locate near their facility. An economic impact analysis of the proposed Tulare Motor Sports Complex, prepared by The Ramsay Group, found that the facility would generate between $367 million and $735 million in annual economic activity, including receipts from a retail component of the project. An analysis of Riverside Motorsports Park proposed by John Condren and Craig Nicholson in unincorporated Merced County said the eight race track facility itself would do $180 million worth of business per year and employ 600 to 1,200 people. Nationally, a speedway boom of sorts occurred during the 1990s and first half of last decade, as major league facilities opened in numerous locations. But while race tracks in places such as Las Vegas and Fort Worth have thrived, others have struggled and at least one, in Colorado Springs, closed after only a few years in business. Meanwhile, far more minor league speedways have closed than have opened during recent years in the United States. Race tracks are inherently bad neighbors. They are noisy, often operate at night and generate a great deal of traffic. Thus, a new race track proposed near any populated area almost automatically stirs opposition. The Merced County Farm Bureau and environmentalists sued Merced County over the environmental impact report for the proposed Riverside Motorsports Park. Opponents of the Tulare track have filed at least three lawsuits. On the other hand, there was zero opposition to Kern River Raceway when the Kern County Planning Commission approved the minor league facility in 2006. The track would replace Bakersfield's beloved Mesa Marin Raceway, which closed on the other side of town in 2005 when the owner sold the land for housing development. The stalled Kern County track is in a remote location next to an interstate freeway. Construction halted two years ago when developers reportedly ran out of money. Ted James, interim director of the Kern County Resource Management Agency, said he knows of no plan to resuscitate the project.  The multi-track complex proposed for Merced County may have generated more acrimony than any other project in county history. The Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to approve a general plan amendment and other provisions for the track in 2006, with the majority touting the 1,200-acre project's economic benefits. Opponents countered that the development would conflict with agriculture, jam roads and generate too much noise and air pollution, and the Merced Sun Star repeatedly raised questions about whether developers Condren and Nicholson had the capital and experience to develop and operate the huge facility. A Merced County Superior Court judge in 2008 invalidated the project's EIR, and, last July, Condren declared Riverside Motorsports Park dead. In its wake lie lawsuits and unpaid bills to government agencies, lawyers and consultants. Scott Galbraith, president and CEO of the Merced County Economic Development Corporation, said the race track project was divisive and simply faced too many obstacles. He said economic development boosters these days are emphasizing more popular projects, such as reuse of Castle Air Force Base as a heavy maintenance facility for the proposed California high-speed rail system. The current situation in Tulare is somewhat similar to the one Merced County experienced. Approved by the Tulare City Council on a 3-2 vote, the proposed development includes a one-mile oval track with seating for 55,000 spectators, a quarter-mile drag strip, go-kart tracks, a conference center, about 400 hotel rooms and 600,000 square feet of retail space. Backers tout the expected direct and indirect jobs from the 700-acre project proposed next to the International Agri-Center, while opponents site conflicts with farming, the cost of a freeway interchange for the project that the city agreed to build, and noise, air pollution and traffic impacts. Questions have also arisen over Fresno-based developer Bud Long's ability to complete the project. Negotiations that Long and other track investors have had with the International Agri-Center over purchase of land for a portion of the project have started and stopped several times, and the developers have been slow to pay city processing and review fees. City of Tulare officials did not return CP&DR calls. Other proposed race tracks have never even come close to the approval phase. A negotiating agreement between the Riverside County Economic Development Agency and an organization known as DJTRM, LLC, over the proposed sale of county land near Thermal for development of a road course race track apparently expired earlier this year without formal action. The proposed Yosemite Motor Speedway in Madera County received a great deal of national attention nearly a decade ago, but a flurry of legal activity buried the project long before the Board of Supervisors ever weighed the idea. Resources: Tulare Motorsports Complex: www.tularemotorsport.com . Tulare Motorsports Complex EIR: www.brandman.com/TMSC-EIR/index.html .

San Bernardino County has experienced more than its share of corruption during the past two decades, including the conviction of two county administrative officers, a county supervisor's admission that he accepted bribes, and both successful and pending prosecution of elected officials in county and city government. But none of the past episodes compares with the scandal outlined in mid-February by Attorney General Jerry Brown and District Attorney Michael Ramos. According to prosecutors, the developers of Colonies Crossroads in Upland provided $400,000, trips, gifts, prostitutes and other considerations to county officials. In exchange, the Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to pay the developers $102 million to drop a lawsuit they had filed over flood control basin improvements. Prosecutors indicted former San Bernardino County Supervisor Bill Postmus and Jim Erwin, a former assistant to Postmus and former chief of staff to Supervisor Neil Derry. Postmus and Erwin were arrested on February 9. Prosecutors also allege that five unindicted co-conspirators were involved in the scheme. Although the co-conspirators were not named, they are easily identified as Supervisor Paul Biane, Supervisor Gary Ovitt's Chief of Staff Mark Kirk, Colonies Partners co-managing partners Jeff Burum and Dan Richards, and their public relations consultant Patrick O'Reilly. All involved have denied wrongdoing and contend the prosecution is politically motivated. Biane and Ovitt issued statements saying the $102 million settlement was in the county's best interest. Nearly 10 years ago, the City of Upland approved the Colonies Crossroads project on 440 acres adjacent to the 210 freeway (see CP&DR Local Watch , December 2003 ). Partially built since then, the completed project would contain about 1,150 housing units and a 1.1 million-square-foot shopping center. Development stumbled at first because of a dispute over a 65-acre flood control basin in the middle of the site. The developers sued San Bernardino County, arguing the county's flood control easements no longer existed and demanding $23.5 million for reconstructing flood facilities. A San Bernardino County Superior Court judge ruled for Colonies Partners, but an appellate court overturned the decision in 2003. The litigation returned to Superior Court and a different judge again ruled for the developers in 2006, finding that the county had given up ownership and maintenance of the flood control basin. A few months later, the Board of Supervisors decided not to appeal and voted 3-2 to pay Colonies Partners $102 million to drop the lawsuit (see CP&DR In Brief , January 2007 ). Postmus, Biane and Ovitt supported the settlement even though the county counsel's office and outside attorneys with Jones Day urged rejection. Jones Day soon resigned from representing the county, as had the firm Munger, Tolles & Olson one year earlier, when supervisors considered a $77 million settlement. Now, prosecutors allege that, to get the $102 million settlement, Colonies Partners paid $100,000 apiece into four separate political action committee accounts used by Postmus, Erwin, Biane and Kirk for political and personal matters. Prosecutors also allege the developers paid for meals, entertainment and a prostitute for Postmus during a 2006 "trade mission" to China, and in early 2007 treated Erwin to a lavish three-day trip to New York City and Washington, D.C., that included the gift of a Rolex watch. At the time, Erwin was assistant county assessor for Postmus, who had resigned from the Board of Supervisors after winning the assessor's position. Prosecutors allege that Erwin, a longtime labor leader for the Sheriff's Employees Benefit Association and local political operative, served as an intermediary between Colonies Partners and county supervisors. Prosecutors also allege the developers and Erwin had threatened to blackmail Postmus with public revelations of his homosexuality and drug addiction. Postmus resigned as assessor in early 2009 after disappearing from public view for months and eventually confessing his drug addiction. He was charged later that year with nine felony counts alleging, essentially, that he ran a full-time political operation in the assessor's office. Erwin was charged last year with 10 felony counts for allegedly failing to disclose gifts he received from Colonies Partners. The most recent complaint charges Postmus with five new felonies and Erwin with nine. "These individuals engaged in conspiracy, corruption and bribery that cost San Bernardino County taxpayers more than $100 million," Brown said. "This is one of the most appalling corruption cases ever seen in California." State and local prosecutors say the investigation is ongoing and they could file additional charges.

The shelf life of mitigation measures may readily outlast the lives of the projects to which the mitigations are attached, according to the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District. While the fact pattern in the case at hand was specific to timber harvesting and the conversion of property, the court's holding has application in the broader world of all California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) reviews. The facts cover a 20-year time frame. In 1988, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) approved a Timber Harvest Plan (THP) on Mendocino County property owned by Greg Kuljian's predecessor. The adjacent owner objected, and, in response, CDF imposed a condition prohibiting tree removal within 200 feet of the neighbor's home as a protective measure to avoid wind-related damage. Ten years later, CDF approved another THP in the same location and added the no-harvesting condition once again. Years later, Ed Powers, the owner, sold the property to Kuljian. As part of the purchase agreement, Kuljian agreed to seek a conversion exemption allowing Powers to harvest the timber. As part of the conversion, Kuljian indicated a desire to convert the timberland to orchard. CDF approved the conversion, the effect of which was to extinguish the previously imposed 200-foot no-harvesting mitigation measure. Paul Katzeff, the neighbor who had objected in the first place, sued, alleging three causes of action: First, the exemption violated the Forest Practices Act and CEQA by elimination of the mitigation measure; two, the conversion was inappropriate as Kuljian did not have a bona fide intent to develop an orchard; and, three, a claim of private nuisance. The CDF brought a motion for judgment on the pleadings and the Mendocino County Superior Court dismissed the action in its entirety. Katzeff appealed. Judicial review of a judgment on the pleadings invokes a more limited judicial inquiry than a trial. The court assumes that all material facts are true as pled and examines whether or not a cause of action exists, given those facts. As to the first cause of action, CDF argued that because both timber harvest plans had expired, any mitigation measures linked to those plans also expired. Because Kuljian's request for conversion was a ministerial approval, CDF argued it did not have a duty to carry forward the previously imposed mitigation measure. On these facts, the appellate court characterized the conversion request as part of a larger project, and, based upon the decision in Orinda Association v. Board of Supervisors , (1986) 182 Cal.App. 3d 1145, concluded that CDF could not segment the project and free itself from consideration of previously imposed mitigation measures. The court recognized that mitigation measures are not frozen in time forever. But once a mitigation measure is imposed, the agency must state its basis, supported by substantial evidence, on which it later cancels or nullifies the measure. Because there was evidence that this analysis occurred, the appellate court concluded that dismissal of the first cause of action was in error and reversed. As to the second cause of action, the record contained evidence that Kuljian did not have bona fide intent to develop an orchard. This created a factual dispute in the record on bona fide intent; therefore, it was incumbent upon the agency to make a determination to that effect. As the record was silent on this issue, the court found dismissal of the cause of action again was inappropriate. The third cause of action was based in nuisance. While timber operations conducted pursuant to the Forest Practice Act enjoy statutory immunity from nuisance claims, there were sufficient allegations of non-compliance with the act that the trial court's dismissal, based upon a motion for judgment on the pleadings, was premature. Once again, the appellate court reversed the trial court. Whether or not Katzeff can prevail on any of his three theories remains to seen. The CEQA aspect of this decision has broader implications beyond timber harvest plans. Some permits are granted for a fixed term. This case directs cities and counties to at least examine the appropriateness of those mitigation measures when acting on a subsequent permit for an unrelated use in the same location. More intriguing, and perhaps more problematic, are circumstances in which a site may be subject to a new, significantly different reuse proposal. Typically, those applications are subject to full CEQA review. Is it even relevant to go on archaeological dig for a 25- or 30-year-old CEQA document for a different use? If the current project is a new endeavor, then the lead agency should be able to proceed free of the argument that the new application is part of another project and the earlier CEQA history should be irrelevant. CEQA mitigation history will continue to be relevant on tiered environmental documents (e.g. general plan to rezoning to tract map) and this case, which involves THPs, serves as a reminder to lead agencies of the need to carry those requirements forward to current permit applications. The Case: Katzeff v. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection , No. A122642, 2010 DJDAR 1516. Filed January 28, 2010. The Lawyers: For  Katzeff: Paul V. Carroll, (650) 839-8644. For CDF: Anita E. Ruud, deputy attorney general, (415) 703-5533. For Kuljian: Ryan F. Perkins, (707) 964-4900. For Powers: Jared Carter, Carter, Vannucci & Momsen, (707) 462-6694.

Relations between the City of Alameda and developer SunCal appear to have soured in the wake of voters' overwhelming defeat of SunCal's plan to redevelop Alameda Naval Air Station. Three days after 85% of voters rejected SunCal's plan during a February 2 special election, city officials sent SunCal a notice of default, the first step in ending SunCal's exclusive negotiating agreement to redevelop the base. SunCal's plan for 4,800 housing units and millions of square feet of office, industrial and retail space required the electorate's willingness to lift existing voter-approved limitations on multi-family housing development and density (see CP&DR In Brief , February 1, 2010 ). About three weeks before the election, SunCal submitted an "optional entitlement application." However, that application is basically the same as the plan rejected by voters and does not comply with the city's charter or municipal code, city officials concluded. If SunCal does not "cure the defects" and submit a plan that complies with local laws within 30 days, the city could cancel the exclusive negotiating agreement. SunCal responded with a public letter in which it questioned the city's commitment to base reuse and to the exclusive negotiating agreement.

The nonprofit organization GreenInfo Network has released a newly revised database that attempts to identify every publicly protected parcel of open land in California, ranging from national forest to urban pocket park. The database inventories 49 million acres of protected land composed of 51,500 separate holdings owned by 860 governmental agencies or nonprofit organizations. Downloadable for free, the information should be of use to planners, academics, government agencies, nonprofit organization, businesses and others, said Larry Orman, GreenInfo Network executive director. According to the database, the United States Forest Service is the largest owner of protected public land in California, with about 20.7 million acres, followed by the Bureau of Land Management with 15.1 million acres. San Bernardino and Inyo counties have the most public open land, with 8.6 million and 6 million acres, respectively. The California Protected Areas Database is available at www.calands.org .

Opponents of the Gold Rush Ranch 1,600-unit housing development and golf resort in Sutter Creek submitted referendum petitions with 468 signatures in early February (see CP&DR Local Watch , January 15, 2010 ). If as few as one-third of those signatures is valid, the referendum of the Gold Rush Ranch specific plan and general plan amendment would qualify for the ballot, possibly as soon as June.

UCLA Extension will offer a one day seminar, The Subdivision Map Act: Intro and 2010 Update on Friday March 12.  The class will be held at the Figueroa Courtyard in downtown Los Angeles.   This seminar provides an in-depth review of the basic provisions of the Map Act and other planning laws that affect the subdivision process. Intended for planning officials, attorneys, engineers, land surveyors, public works officials, landowners, developers, and consultants. The program reviews the responsibilities and powers of both local governments and project applicants, and examines procedures, specific applications of the Act, and implementation issues. Specific topics include the map approval process, imposing conditions on map approvals, vesting tentative maps, required findings for approval and denial, certificates of compliance, and relevant new legislation and court cases.  Thomas Jacobson , Of Counsel, The Sohagi Law Group and Larry Wiener , Attorney, Richards Watson & Gershon will instruct the seminar.  The seminar runs from 9:00 am to 4:30 pm and provides ample opportunity for participants to raise questions or interact with speakers. The early bird fee is $350 and includes materials.    Please reference registration number V4766 when enrolling online or over the phone.   For a complete listing of our courses, more information, or to enroll, please call (310) 825-9971 or visit www.uclaextension.edu/publicpolicy

Veteran planning and architecture journalist Josh Stephens has been named editor of California Planning & Development Report , the state's leading independent publication covering land-use planning issues. Stephens will replace Paul Shigley, who is stepping down after 11 years as editor to focus on other writing projects. A former editor of The Planning Report and Metro Investment Report -- monthly newsletters covering, respectively, land use and infrastructure in the Los Angeles region -- Stephens brings to CP&DR a wealth of journalism experience and knowledge of California's land use community.  He will oversee writing and production of the bi-weekly CP&DR newsletter and website www.cp-dr.com. "I'm thrilled that Josh Stephens has agreed to serve as CP&DR 's editor at this critical moment," CP&DR 's editor and publisher emeritus Bill Fulton said in making the announcement. "He's exactly the right person to help complete our transition to an up-to-date online publication." Shigley will continue as a Senior Editor at CP&DR , writing blogs and working with Fulton on the fourth edition of Guide to California Planning , the standard textbook on land use planning in California. "Paul's done a great job as editor for more than a decade, and he will remain a great asset to CP&DR and to planning in California," Fulton said. A Los Angeles native and longtime journalist, Stephens has covered planning, land use, and architecure as an editor and freelance journalist for the better part of a decade.  As a freelance writer Stephens has been a regular contributor to CP&DR , and he contributes frequently to, among others, Planetizen.com, Next American City, Sierra, InTransition , and Planning Magazine.  He also writes for Planetizen's Interchange blog and serves on the editorial board of The Planning Report.     Stephens holds a bachelor's degree in English from Princeton University and is a candidate for a master's in public policy at the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government.  He formerly taught high school journalism and English at the Archer School in Los Angeles and served on the board of the Westside Urban Forum from 2005 to 2008.   California Planning & Development Report was founded in 1986 as a monthly information source for planners, land-use lawyers, developers, and others with an interest in planning around the state.  Still a subscription periodical with a twice-monthly online edition, the publication also provides free commentary and content at www.cp-dr.com as well, and its 25-year archives constitute a a virtual history of contemporary planning in California.

This is a message to all California cities: Take your hats off to Chula Vista. This city of 210,000 people between San Diego and the Mexican border has adopted a plan for an all-new downtown in the Otay Ranch district that makes most other downtown plans seem tentative and incomplete. Perhaps another California community has the political will to approve something equally forward-looking; for the time being, the Otay Ranch Eastern Urban Center is among the plans that are raising the proverbial bar in city planning. Although the plan, prepared by RTKL's Los Angeles office, is well executed, that plan itself is not the most significant aspect of the prosaically named Eastern Urban Center. The plan, in fact, contains little that is revolutionary or surprising. The real significance here is that the city and the developer, the Oliver McMillin Company of San Diego, actually seem intent on building the thing. In this regard, Chula Vista has an advantage over most other cities in the Golden State (or the state formerly known as golden, before the credit rating agencies noticed we have run out of money). Otay Ranch is a 5,000-acre project that's been in development for more than 10 years. The Eastern Urban Center, as one might gather, is the intended downtown for this mushrooming community. Much remains under-developed. All of San Diego County is growing quickly, and Chula Vista by itself expects a population of 280,000 people by 2030. In other words, there is enough demand for housing, neighborhood-serving retail and commercial buildings, at least on paper, to make the project feasible. In earlier columns, I've referred to such projects as "instant downtowns." And like many other downtowns, both new and old, the Eastern Urban Center – I refuse to call it EUC or "Uke," – wants to be a residential neighborhood. The plan envisions nearly 3,000 dwelling units, many of them in mixed-use formats. (The high density, mixed-use districts predominate in the upper and upper left-hand side of the map, while the right-hand and lower areas are mostly residential.) In many ways, the site plan displays some of the features that have grown familiar since the advent of new urbanism and her unacknowledged half-sister, the soft and squishy new urbanism lite that some developers like to hawk to unwary city officials. Like many other plans influenced by recent planning trends, the plan is arranged around a newly minted Main Street replete with parks, mixed-use buildings and retail. Many plans promise pedestrian friendliness; this one delivers. The evidence is the "hierarchy of open spaces" that starts with some sensitively scaled, not-too-large parks and plazas along Main Street and that threads its way throughout the entire project in the form of landscaped sidewalks and trails. One unusual aspect of the plan is the use of height averaging for multi-story buildings. Instead of imposing a hard-and-fast height limit to any given building, the plan proposes an average overall height, which allows developers some flexibility to build slightly over or under the nominal height limit and density. This is one way to maintain a sense of scale on a given street while remaining attractive to investors. One possible quibble with the plan is its inward looking-ness. That is, the plan seems to look inward to its own internal Main Street, rather than beefing up commercial development along existing commercial streets, notably Birch Road along the northern edge of the plan and Eastlake Parkway on the east. Nathan Cherry, a vice president of RTKL's Los Angeles office, defends this position by pointing out that the existing streets are essentially suburban strips – a "lifestyle center" surrounded by acres of asphalt is under construction on the north side of Birch Road – and the formality of the Eastern Urban Center would not comport well with the missing teeth and yawning parking lots of informal strip urbanism. It's difficult to achieve a cohensive urban design if planners do not control both sides of the street. Experienced retail developers tend to shun locations that have retail on one side of the street only, because those streets feel unfinished and uncomfortably open-ended. Also potentially discomfiting in the long run is the dramatic difference in both density and scale between the the new downtown and the low-rise, low-density suburbia that surrounds it. In time, of course, we can reasonably expect surrounding neighborhoods to gain density, as well. In asking other cities to doff their hats to Chula Vista, we recognize that the real heroes of this plan are Chula Vista's planning staff and elected officials who spent years developing plans for the "Uke" and many surrounding districts. It's one thing to conceive a nice plan; it's another thing for cities to build good plans without destructive compromises. Planning, after all, is about action, not tossing another elegant fantasy onto a pile of discarded plans. Insofar as the current market is dismal, we can only hope that both the city and the developer survive until both commercial space and housing are back in demand. That long wait should give the city enough time to plan carefully—and to come up with a better name than Eastern Urban Center.

The distance between California's growing budget problems and California's ambitious environmental protection agenda continues to increase. The consequences of the state's chronic budget deficit – currently $20 billion per year or more with no end in sight – continue to chew up everything and everybody in its path: local governments, transit agencies, the prison system, welfare recipients, school districts. Everything, that is, except an aggressive new generation of laws and regulations aimed at taking California's environmental protection efforts to a new level. Even as government services and payments are being cut left and right, the state and its agencies are moving forward with implementing AB 32, the greenhouse gas emissions reduction law, and all of its offspring (including SB 375, the regional planning bill). These measures will affect not only land use patterns, as these pages often describe, but they will also force a big ramping up of efforts to cut electricity usage. Meanwhile, regional water quality control boards around the state are moving forward with a new generation of much tougher permits focused on "nonpoint source pollution" – meaning, in simpler terms, stormwater runoff. For all the hullabaloo about AB 32 and SB 375, the new stormwater permits – recently adopted in both Orange County and the Los Angeles-Ventura region – may have a more immediate on-the-ground impact on how planning and development functions in the state. And the weird thing is, hardly anybody is talking about the budget and the environment together. Yes, some land use nerds have pointed out that it's going to be tougher to hit the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets if the state cuts funding for public transit. And some conservative activists are pushing for a suspension of AB 32 while the economy is lousy. But that's it. The state's budget crisis continues to decimate our government structure. Meanwhile, on another planet, the state's environmental regulators push forward aggressively. There are understandable political reasons for this disconnect. Whereas the state's financial problems seem intractable, movement on environmental regulation does not. The Democrats who control the legislature are perfectly willing to move forward with new environmental regulation even in bad times. And the moderate Republican in the governor's chair understands that environmentalism is good politics in California, even in bad times. Yet it's amazing how real and persistent this disconnect is. I was struck by it during the recent UCLA Extension Land Use Law and Planning Conference, the premiere land use event in Southern California each year. The legislative review – pulled off with great energy and competence by Peter Detwiler of the Senate Local Government Committee and Bill Abbott of Abbott & Kindermann – was littered with discussions of the state budget crisis and how it is affecting land use. The subsequent panel on stormwater regulations – which featured an acrimonious back-and-forth between developers and environmentalists – appeared to be taking place on a completely different planet. Maybe the thing to do is to separate out the environmental protection efforts that can actually help the economy from those that might hurt it, at least in the short run, and see what lessons may be learned for applying the carrots and sticks at the state's disposal. Although environmental protection is often airily advertised as a matter of making different personal choices or forcing corporations to be more responsible, the down-and-dirty fact is that it's mostly a matter of capital investment. Removing pollutants from smokestacks means you have to install scrubbers. Capturing wind or solar energy means you to have to build and install turbines or solar panels. Reducing overall energy consumption means a whole variety of capital investments, ranging from weatherization to replacing old HVAC systems. Reducing water use means installing drip irrigation – not too hard for the average homeowner, but an enormous cost for the average farmer. Reducing polluted stormwater runoff means building greener stormwater facilities, such as bioswales instead of culverts. Inevitably, a lot of these capital investments will be made over the course of time. Smokestacks will be replaced, as will irrigation systems, stormwater systems and HVAC systems. The trick to both environmental protection and economic prosperity is to use both the sticks and the carrots government has available to drive those capital investments in a certain direction on a certain timeline. An aggressive regulation may force technological innovation by requiring that new capital investments, in fact, be greener than old ones. Oftentimes, however, that's not enough, because the payback period on green capital investments may be so long. So low-cost financing programs – from the government or water purveyors or electrical utilities – might also be necessary to bridge the gap. California is actually pretty good at lining up the incentives and penalties to get this kind of capital investment in certain areas, especially energy efficiency. Take, for example, the energy efficiency financing programs being created under AB 811. Under the provisions of AB 811, local governments can create Mello-Roos-style districts that will help provide low-cost, long-term financing for homeowners who wish to green their homes through solar panels or HVAC upgrades. The AB 811 method has succeeded in places as diverse as Berkeley and Palm Desert and is moving to new locations fast. It wouldn't work without the government carrot of low-cost financing (assuming anybody will buy the AB 811 bonds, but that's another story), but it also wouldn't be moving as fast if it were not for California's climate change bill, which essentially forces reductions in energy consumption.  Now, contrast this experience with the implementation of the new stormwater permits in Orange, Los Angeles, and Ventura counties. The regional water quality control boards are tightening the screws, and the local governments and developers are scrambling to figure out how to pay for the increased regulation. A familiar scenario is emerging: Regulators push the problem onto developers, who try to push the problem onto the local governments, who try to push the problem onto the taxpayers, who are wondering why the developers aren't footing the bill. The problem here is that water quality, unlike energy efficiency, is a completely stick-based system without a single carrot in sight. On the energy efficiency front, there is also a tough regulator – the California Air Resources Board. But there are also other government agencies, principally the California Public Utilities Commission and the California Energy Commission, that are accustomed to dealing with the problem of the long payback period for capital investments that improve the environment. Maybe it's time the state began to line up carrots and sticks on water quality, as well as on other land use-related environmental issues. The savings in lawyer costs alone ought to be enough to pay off the bonds.

California voters could overhaul the state and local tax system, as well as the state budgeting process, in November. Ballot initiatives that would constrict state and local government funding, and, conversely, dramatically increase state and local government revenues are in circulation for signatures. In addition, a ballot measure backed by conservative lawmakers that would suspend AB 32 (the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) until the unemployment rate drops to 5.5% for a year is in circulation. Also proposed in late January was an initiative that would permit only the attorney general's office – and not citizens – to challenge environmental impact reports. As of February 2, two dozen initiatives related to state and local revenues or the state budget had been cleared for circulation by the secretary of state's office. Included in that total are redundancies, as ballot measure proponents often submit multiple versions of an initiative before settling on one. Although none of the measures has yet qualified for the ballot, it appears likely voters will decide some weighty tax and spending measures with definite ramifications for planning and development. "We certainly have the potential for a whole lot of issues to be decided by voters this year," said Cheryl Katz, co-author of The Coming Age of Direct Democracy and vice president of the polling firm Baldassare Associates. "In California it's still the most successful model because of the difficulty of getting the gridlocked Legislature to act." The number of initiatives in circulation for signatures varies almost daily as advocates submit new proposals, the attorney general's office prepares ballot titles and summaries, the secretary of state's office completes its ministerial review, and deadlines for gathering signatures pass. As of February 3, 74 proposed initiatives were in circulation and another 15 were in the attorney general's office for awaiting title and summary. Those numbers are considerable, but they are not records, according to a secretary of state's office spokeswoman. What is certain is that at least five measures will appear on the June primary ballot. Proposition 13 would exclude seismic retrofits from new valuation for tax purposes; Proposition 14 would create open primaries; Proposition 15 would provide for publicly funded campaigns; Proposition 16 would require two-thirds voter approval to expand or create public electricity service; Proposition 17 concerns automobile insurance. Although the deadline for citizen initiatives for the June ballot was January 28, lawmakers could still place measures on the ballot. Gov. Schwarzenegger has talked about getting state budgeting measures on the June ballot, including a plan that would ensure the state spends more on universities than prisons. Despite the initiatives that are in circulation, John Matsusaka, president of the University of Southern California's Initiative & Referendum Institute, contended the state is actually "in a somewhat slow period" for tax measures. "It is not well understood what causes the number of ballot propositions to fluctuate over time, but part of it has to do with the degree of popular dissatisfaction with elected officials. Voters turn to initiatives and referendums when they don't think the Legislature is doing its job," Matsusaka said. If Matsusaka is correct, the system should be flooded with initiatives, as a Public Policy Institute of California survey released in late January found the state Legislature's approval rate at only 18% and the governor's at 30%. That same poll found that 84% of respondents favor major or minor changes to the state and local tax systems, with 72% saying voters – not elected leaders – should decide what those changes are. But the poll also found that vast majorities do not know how the state government is funded or what it spends most of its money on. Among the proposed initiatives in circulation: • Several measures proposed by Republican lobbyist and activist Thomas Hiltachk that would alter how the state calculates funding for schools, community colleges and transportation. Among other things, the measures would increase the amount of money spent on debt retirement, according to the official analysis. • A measure from the California Chamber of Commerce that would extend voter approval requirements to more local levies and charges, and require two-thirds approval in the Legislature for anything that increases taxes. • A measure by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association that would prohibit the Legislature from raising any taxes without voter approval. Republican operatives Steve Lucas and Josiah Keane have proposed a similar measure. • A measure from Democratic operatives Remcho, Johansen & Purcell that would permit local government entities to seek majority voter approval for a 1-cent sales tax increase to implement a "countywide strategic plan" that "increases efficiency and improves the outcomes of local services." The measure would also prohibit the state from borrowing or appropriating any local government, redevelopment and local transportation revenues. • A separate Remcho measure that would permit the Legislature to approve a state budget with a majority vote, eliminating the two-thirds approval requirement. The measure also calls for two-year budgets and prohibits lawmakers from creating new expenditures of more than $25 million unless the offsetting revenues or spending cuts are identified. • A Remcho measure that would increase commercial, nonagricultural property taxes to 1.55% of valuation, with the additional estimated $4 billion going to K-12 schools, community colleges and state universities. • A Remcho measure that would implement the long-discussed "split roll" by requiring that commercial property be reassessed at fair market value at least once every three years, with 90% of the estimated $3.4 billion in new revenue directed to the state's general fund. •  A Remcho proposal to lower the vote requirement on local infrastructure bonds from two-thirds to 55%. • Measures from the Bay Area Council business organization that would permit voters to call for a state constitutional convention and to actually convene a convention. • A measure from local government and transit organizations that would bar the state from taking any local funds used for local government services, redevelopment projects, or transportation projects and services. • A measure backed by environmental groups to increase state vehicle license fees by $18, with the $500 million of revenue going to state parks. • A proposal that would reduce the Legislature's session to no more than 95 days per year and cut lawmakers' salaries by at least half. Cleared for signatures on February 3, the climate change ballot measure seeks to reverse state policy spearheaded by Schwarzenegger. The "California Jobs Initiative," is backed by the Assembly Republican Caucus and U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Elk Grove) and would suspend AB 32 until the unemployment rate, now at about 12.5%, drops to 5.5% for four consecutive quarters. Approval of the initiative would likely also force suspension of SB 375, the 2008 measure that calls for regional transportation and land use planning to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. "It's easy to be green when you've got food on the table," Assemblyman Bill Berryhill (R-Ceres) told the Modesto Bee. "Most of these things were passed in good times. We're in a different time now." The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) measure awaiting review in the attorney general's office comes from Orange County developer Timothy Strader Sr., chairman of Starpointe Ventures. The measure would amend CEQA to prohibit citizen enforcement of the law. "Giving the attorney general of California the exclusive right to challenge certified EIRs will put an end to hundreds of frivolous lawsuits, which stall job creation and drive up housing prices for California families," the measure's preamble declares. The measure would also prohibit even the attorney general from challenging an EIR based on climate change or greenhouse gas emissions. Already on the November ballot is an $11.1 billion water bond that was part of a water legislation package approved last fall (see CP&DR , November 15, 2009 ). Baldassare Associates' Katz said she has not yet done polling on any specific measures, so it is difficult to tell which measures will gain political traction. In general, measures that appeal to populist sentiment fare well, she said. June 24 is the deadline to qualify a citizen initiative for the November election. Contacts: John Matsusaka, USC Initiative and Referendum Institute, (213) 740-6495. Cheryl Katz, Baldassare Associate, (510) 701-5758. Public Policy Institute of California survey: www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=924 . Secretary of State's ballot measures update: www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm .