The Brief

A year and two months after its original deadline, Los Angeles Unified School District leaders have released their official plan to upgrade more than 600 schools to create more green space and add shade on campus.

The 188-paged Green Schoolyards For All Plan details what it will take to achieve this goal by 2035, and finds it could cost $3 billion, or more, to get there.

“Certainly, the delay has been disappointing, because I think there is a lot of momentum around this topic,” said school board member Kelly Gonez, who originally authored a resolution in 2022 to try and get the green school yard plan going. “There's no time to waste because there is a lot of work to do, and so much is needed.”

Defining a schoolyard  

The plan includes new definitions for what qualifies as a schoolyard and what qualifies as a green/natural area, which helps designate what parts of a school campus should be upgraded and what tools can be used. For example, a green space is defined as “exterior areas within a schoolyard which are of recreational and/or ecological value,” which can serve the following purposes:

• Provide locations for recreation and play
• Provide opportunities for the interactive educational observation of natural systems
• Protect areas of both typical and unique plant and animal communities
• Provide areas of natural interest and beauty within the school campuses for students and staff

Materials that can be used in creating these spaces include: plants/trees, grass/lawn/natural turf/other turf materials, dirt/mulch, decomposed granite, permeable pavers. But, according to the document, synthetic turf and cool coating are not considered “green elements.”

In previous school district surveys and conversations with parents about the best approach for greening schools, there was some concern over an over reliance on technology like cool pavement. A majority of people surveyed expressed a desire for “natural” materials like trees and plants.

Parent advocates like Angelenos for Green Schools co-founder Aleigh Lewis argue that natural spaces should be prioritized.

She understands the need for pavement for sports and other play, but believes trees, grass and other natural surfaces should be prioritized over repaving surfaces with a reflective coating.

“You have all this money and you could do so much more for every school and cool them down,” Lewis said.

The Green Schoolyards Index

One of the new parts of the plan is an updated list (starting on page 72 in the PDF file) of 205 elementary school campuses. They're ranked in order of the most heavily polluted areas within vulnerable communities, which get high heat temperatures on campus and are in need of green spaces.

District leaders have identified 634 schools that need natural spaces into three categories — Category 1 includes the 205 elementary schools that have the schoolyards with less than 10% green/natural space. Category 2 is for elementary schools that have 11% or more green/natural space and all of the secondary schools. Category 3 will also include secondary schools. The priority list for Category 2 and 3 are not included in the index.

The challenge

District leaders say that in order to complete all of the projects by 2035, they would have to have about “60 medium-to-large scale projects” started every year over the next eight years. Every year, they would have to have an allocation of $350 million to $400 million.

But, in the plan, district officials state that completing the listed amount of large projects in that time period may not be possible because of the lack of funding, workers and resources. Experts, parents and community members have argued the district could do more with less money.

Right now, the district is using various ways to fund campus greening projects, like lease financing agreements, repurposing bond funding, state funding and partnership grants.

Gonez said the district has already invested $100 million in greening since the resolution passed because they’ve been creative of making their campuses at least 30% green. But there’s still a long way to go.

“There's a big challenge ahead of us, which is how to meet that overall $3 billion number in the next 11 years,” Gonez said. “I want us to dive more deeply into that gap about what we can do right now and how to reach that overall goal so that we can work with our external partners and advocate with the state and federal governments to be able to get the funding that we need for green space.”

Why it matters

A majority of LAUSD school campuses are covered in asphalt, which absorbs heat. Temperatures on asphalt schoolyards in the summer in places like the San Fernando Valley can register up to 142 degrees on the surface. Schools everywhere in L.A. are feeling the impacts of rising heat.

Experts say hot weather could stretch further into the first months of the school year, raising temperatures. V. Kelly Turner, associate professor of urban planning and geography at UCLA and associate director of the Luskin Center for Innovation, said that’s how it’s going to be in the future.

Turner and her colleagues have studied extreme heat and the role design plays in how people experience it. They found that “schools are some of the hottest places in communities” as a result of how they’ve been built.

The background

In June 2022, district leaders allocated $58 million to outdoor education initiatives, including greening of campuses. A few months later, Gonez, who was president of the board at the time, called on Superintendent Alberto Carvalho and his team to develop a plan to ensure campuses were at least 30% green by 2035.

District officials say they have partnered with local nonprofits like Tree People and Trust For Public Land to help plant trees and create more shade on school grounds through the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection grant. There are eight LAUSD nonprofit partnerships that have received Cal Fire grants in the 2022-23 grant period. There are other grants, and other funding proposals that are in process.

Meanwhile, the Greening Schools and Climate Resilience Committee meeting that was originally scheduled for May 15 has been pushed to June 5.

A new analysis of alerts sent during the Eaton Fire found “no failure” by emergency officials to issue timely evacuation orders to areas west of Lake Avenue in Altadena.

The timing of alerts to neighborhoods west of Lake, where all but one of 19 deaths in that fire occurred, has been under scrutiny since the January 2025 fire.

The independent report by Citygate Associates was commissioned by the L.A. County Fire Department at the start of this year and was released Monday.

Its conclusions are similar to those of after-action reports from other firms — that officials did the best they could amid unprecedented fire conditions and strained resources.

“While the report provides an honest account of our operations, we recognize that no investigation can truly capture the horror and tragedy residents endured,” said L.A. County Fire Chief Anthony Marrone in a prepared statement. “My focus is to ensure that the lessons learned from the Eaton and Palisades fires are turned into lasting changes that will better protect our residents and neighborhoods into the future.”

Altadena resident Zaire Calvin — whose sister died in the fire and whose own home burned down — said the report feels like another “slap in the face.” He said he wanted to see details on any mistakes that may have been made. But reading the report, he felt blame was once again largely placed on unprecedented fire conditions.

“A  community that's already down, a community that's fighting for their lives, a community that's fighting all of the people trying to take property from them — at some point you just want accountability,” Calvin said.

L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who represents Altadena, said in a prepared statement that the “investigation should not be interpreted as dismissing the experiences of residents. Public trust requires both accountability and a willingness to learn from every aspect of a disaster response.”

Citygate Associates, which produced an after-action report on the 2018 Woolsey Fire, used interviews, operational records, dispatch records and internal communications to analyze decisionmaking between 9 p.m. on Jan. 7, 2025, and 6 a.m. the following day.

Some of the main findings include the following:

• With aircraft grounded by  high winds, “Incident Command was forced to fight a fire while blind to its movements.” 
• Evacuation decisions were not based on “race, age or socioeconomics.” 
• “Evacuation planners who created the evacuation zone areas well before the fire tried to use, where possible, major north/south and east/west streets. … Thus, Lake Avenue was a natural, very long street that could be utilized as an anchor for creating evacuation zones.” 
• Other fire timeline reviews cite reports of fire moving westward between 11 p.m. and just before midnight, but Citygate staffers write that strained resources were focused on the eastern front of the fire at that time, which was the direction the fire was initially spreading, and that “fire progression maps … do not show the the Eaton Fire directly impacting western neighborhoods at that time.” 
• The fire initially spread westward more slowly, and did not escalate significantly until early in the morning on Jan. 8.
• Reports of fires before 1 a.m. west of Lake Avenue were likely a result of downed power lines.
• By 2 a.m., radio reports indicated embers were being cast deeper into Altadena. 
• Discussions to expand evacuation orders west started at 2:18 a.m., with evacuation orders being sent to residents west of Lake by 3:25 a.m. 
• The main fire front crossed west of Lake Avenue by about 5:15 a.m. 

Find the full report here. 

Huntington Beach must pay $50,000 for each month it continues to fail to comply with the state’s mandate to zone for more housing, according to a recent court ruling. For several years now, the city has been waging a court battle against the state's order to make way for 40,000 new homes.

The judge ruled that the city should be penalized $10,000 per month going back to January 2025, and then fined $50,000 per month, starting next month, until the city gets a compliant housing element approved.

The backstory

State law requires California cities and counties to plan for enough housing to meet the expected demand over an eight-year time period, including for low-income housing. Huntington Beach, citing its independence as a charter city, has fought its most recent housing allocation all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to review the case last year.

Does the state require cities to actually build that many homes?

No. Cities are not required to actually build housing, but rather to make sure their zoning and land use codes accommodate the amount of housing assigned to them through what’s known as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).

What does the city say?

In a statement, Casey McKeon, the city’s mayor, said the city “strongly opposes these penalties and will continue fighting for the rights of our residents and for the principle of local control against ongoing efforts by the Attorney General to centralize land use authority in Sacramento.”

Is Huntington Beach an outlier?

Yes. Huntington Beach is an outlier in its aggressive fight against the state housing mandates. More than 90% of California’s 539 jurisdictions are in compliance with the state requirement to plan for the amount of housing assigned to them through the latest RHNA cycle.

What’s next?

The city recently posted draft revisions to its housing plan — for the first time since 2021. That’s significant because the city’s efforts to come into state compliance have been paused for years.

One complication with compliance: Huntington Beach residents voted to require any major changes to the city’s zoning, including its state-mandated housing plan, to be put up for a public vote. That could mean more delays in coming into state compliance, and consequently, more fines, at a time when the city is facing a budget crunch.

During a press conference following a shooting at the San Diego Islamic Center, San Diego Police Department Chief Scott Wahl confirmed three adult victims at the center and the two suspects are dead.

Police said the suspects were found dead in the vehicle nearby. They were 17 and 19 years old. The motivation behind the shooting is unknown at this time.

Wahl said in 28 years, this is the most dynamic and impressive response he's seen in policing with help coming from agencies all over the county.

Imam of the Islamic Center of San Diego Taha Hassane said the center stands in solidarity "with all of the families in our community here and all the mosques and places of worship" in San Diego.

"This is something that we never expected, and I would also like to thank all the people who contacted us from all over the country and overseas to offer their condolences."

San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria was also present at the news conference.

"We will do anything it takes to make sure you feel safe in this city," Gloria said.

In a statement, the Council on American-Islamic Relations-San Diego Executive Director Tazheen Nizam said:

“We strongly condemn this horrifying act of violence at the Islamic Center of San Diego. Our thoughts are with everyone impacted by this attack. No one should ever fear for their safety while attending prayers or studying at an elementary school. We are working to learn more about this incident and we encourage everyone to keep this community in your prayers."

The active shooter situation was reported at 11:43 a.m. at ICSD in the 7000 block of Eckstrom Avenue in Clairemont, according to SDPD.

The department is asking people to avoid the area.

A reunification location for those impacted by the incident has been established at 4125 Hathaway Street.

According to our news partner ABC 10News, authorities shut down northbound and southbound Interstate 805 at Balboa Avenue due to the law enforcement activity.

The San Diego Unified School District confirmed several campuses were placed on lock down. SDUSD spokesperson James Canning said lockdowns are gradually being lifted but schools closest to the Islamic Center will be the last to have their lockdowns lifted.

The Islamic Center is the largest mosque in San Diego County. The center holds five daily prayers.

In California’s upcoming June primary election, you’ll have the opportunity to cast your ballot for any of the candidates for governor, regardless of which party you’re registered with. The top two vote-getters advance to the general election.

Known as a “jungle primary,” this system is different from how most states handle their primary elections.

This year, Democrats raised the alarm that two Republican gubernatorial candidates may move to the general election, locking out Democrats despite outnumbering Republican registered voters almost two to one. That’s because the crowded field of Democratic candidates threatens to split the party’s vote. Until recently, multiple polls have shown the two Republicans, former Fox News host Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, polling at the top of the race.

Driven in part by these concerns, critics of the top-two primary have now filed a ballot initiative that would repeal this system and return California to party-based primaries, potentially as early as 2030.

But how does this top-two arrangement work? Why does California do things this way? And what are the chances of voters choosing between two GOP candidates for governor in November?

How does California’s top-two primary system work?

In a traditional closed primary, such as in presidential races, voters can only choose among candidates from their own party: That is, say, registered Democrats could only vote for Democratic candidates.

But in a top-two primary, all candidates from all parties appear on a single ballot open to any registered voter. The two candidates with the most votes in that primary then move on to the general election, even if they’re from the same party.

Kim Alexander, president and founder of the California Voter Foundation, said this is an even bigger concern for third parties in the state.

“One of the unfortunate byproducts” of California’s jungle primary system, Alexander said, is how “it’s really shut out a lot of minor parties from the general election and they run the risk of being kicked off the ballot altogether.”

“Because if you don’t have candidates appearing on ballots at a certain pace, then you can’t remain an official party,” she said.

Does this really mean Californians might not get a Republican vs. Democrat race for governor in November?

That’s correct: Under the top-two primary system, the November contest could be an intraparty fight.

That scenario has worried many California Democrats. With seven top Democrats crowding the field, there’s a risk of fracturing their party’s vote. Meanwhile, if enough Republican voters back both Hilton and Bianco to push them both into the top two, California could be locked into an all-Republican general election for governor.

Steve Hilton, Republican gubernatorial candidate for California, left, and Tom Steyer, Democratic gubernatorial candidate for California, fist-bump prior to a gubernatorial debate at KRON Studios in San Francisco, California, on April 22, 2026. California will hold its primary election on June 2, where the top two finishers advance to the general election in November regardless of party affiliation. (Jason Henry/Nexstar via Bloomberg)In March, state Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks urged politicians in his party to take a hard look at the viability of their campaigns and drop out before the filing deadline.

“California’s leadership on the world stage is significantly harder if a Democrat is not elected as our next Governor,” Hicks wrote in an open letter.

None of the contenders heeded his plea.

However, the likelihood of Republicans shutting Democrats out of the November election has decreased since President Donald Trump endorsed Hilton in April. A clear front-runner could unify Republican voters behind Hilton and open the door for a Democrat to claim the second spot in the runoff.

Plus, the most recent Emerson poll now shows former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra in the lead with 19% of likely voters for the first time in the race. Hilton and Democrat Tom Steyer are tied for second with 17%.

Becerra’s surge came after former East Bay Rep. Eric Swalwell — who was regarded as a front-runner for the gubernatorial primary — exited the race last month amid sexual assault and misconduct allegations.

Why does California have this top-two system?

Historically, California required a two-thirds vote in the Legislature to pass the state budget instead of a simple majority vote.

In 2009, Democrats needed to court Republican votes to pass the state budget. Then-state Sen. Abel Maldonado, a Republican, agreed to vote yes — but only if the Legislature put a measure on the ballot to create the top-two primary system.

Voters approved that measure, Proposition 14, in 2010, amending the state constitution.

Then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger backed the measure as a way to transform state politics, forcing candidates to appeal to voters across party lines and ultimately boost more moderate politicians.

“He liked to talk about living in a post-partisan political climate,” Alexander said. “He liked the idea of candidates having to appeal to more voters than just voters of their own party, and to face competition.”

The system was also designed to give more influence to California’s no party preference voters, who make up 23% of registered voters in the state, just behind Republicans at 25%.

Which political offices in California are decided using this system?

The top-two primary applies to “voter-nominated” offices: governor and other statewide positions like lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, state treasurer, state controller, insurance commissioner and state board of equalization members.

It also covers state Senate and Assembly seats and U.S. congressional offices.

The jungle primary system does not apply to presidential elections, local and nonpartisan offices such as city council, school boards, judges, district attorneys or the superintendent of public instruction.

Which other states use this system?

Washington state was the first to adopt a top-two primary for congressional and state-level elections in 2004, but not for governor.

Unlike California, Washington allows write-in candidates in the general election — a safety valve for scenarios where one party is locked out.

A handful of other states use variations of the system. Nebraska’s legislature is nonpartisan, so it uses a top-two primary for state legislative races.

Louisiana uses a majority-vote system for statewide executive offices, state legislative seats and local offices. If a candidate receives a majority of the vote in the primary, they win outright. If not, there is a second round of voting with the top two vote-getters in November.

Alaska adopted a top-four primary in 2020 for state executive, state legislative and congressional races. An effort to repeal the state’s top-four primaries was narrowly defeated by voters in 2024 but will be on the ballot again this year.

If I’m a ‘no party preference’ voter, can I even vote in the California primary?

Yes: Any registered voter, including those with no party preference, can vote for any candidate in voter-nominated races like the governor’s contest.

The top-two primary system draws no distinction based on a voter’s party registration.

Are there any efforts to get rid of California’s jungle primary?

Driven in part by concerns that Democrats could be locked out of this year’s governor’s race, a new ballot initiative seeks to repeal California’s top-two primary system.

Democratic strategist Steven Maviglio filed the initiative, called “Undo the Top Two,” with the attorney general on May 8.
He called the jungle primary a “failed experiment.”

“The prospect of having to vote for a candidate who’s not from your party in November has really woken up a lot of voters in the state about the dangers of the top-two primary,” Maviglio said. “The chance that a Democrat would have to choose between Chad Bianco or Steve Hilton is sending a chill up the spine of a lot of Democrats.”

However, even if successful, Maviglio’s initiative won’t impact the 2026 election — since he hopes to place the measure on the 2028 ballot, with any changes taking effect no earlier than the 2030 elections.