The renewed urgency about racial injustice following the killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer has reminded us, both as people and as urban planners, of how deeply racism is embedded in American life. I have certainly been reminded of the experiences Black American face every day that I, as a white male, typically do not have to worry about: Driving While Black. Fear that even the most interaction with a police officer could result in tragedy. The undeniable fact that an African-American job candidate will simply not attract as much interest from employers as an identically qualified white candidate. The list of daily threats and indignities is endless. These are experiences that are all too easy for a white person to overlook. But the events of the last two weeks have reminded all of us that these experiences must be top of mind for every American, no matter their race or ethnicity. Simply put, they are experiences no American should ever have to contend with, and all of us, from this point forward, must dedicate ourselves to ensuring that they simply never occur. But one thing we urban planners have been reminded of recently is something that we cannot overlook: How structural racism plays itself across the landscape of our cities and how that affects the opportunities that African-Americans, in particular, have in our society. As urban planners, we set out every day to improve the built environment for the people who live in our cities and communities. And every day, we must contend with how structural racism has shaped – and still shapes – what that built environment looks like and how different groups relate to it. The evidence is all around us, in historically segregated neighborhoods, lack of housing opportunity for African-Americans, freeways that have torn communities asunder, neglected or nonexistent infrastructure in black neighborhoods, displacement resulting from gentrification, a growing homeless problem that has emerged in part from a lack of housing opportunity (and which affects the African-American community disproportionately), and much more. This list, too, is endless. Anybody in the planning community unaware of the historic, structural, and legal reasons that these inequities exist would do well to read The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein, which is perhaps the most important book about urban planning written in recent years. In an understated, matter-of-fact way, Rothstein recounts all the ways in which America’s legal system and perpetuated inequities between whites and African-Americans. Indeed, Rothstein found no shortage of examples in California. The beginning of the book depicts how black Ford assembly-line workers living in (an unincorporated part of) Richmond were forced to commute an hour each way to Milpitas when the Richmond Ford plant was relocated there because the South Bay housing market was closed to them. The book is a powerful indictment of how our communities have been shaped over the past century. Covering planning in California means, by definition, that we at CP&DR write about this legacy of segregation—often without being mindful of it. California has 480 cities, most of them small, and these municipal governments – along with their consultants and lawyers – represent CP&DR ’s primary audience. But the truth is that the way the boundaries are drawn around these 480 cities also shapes the geography of racial injustice. We at CP&DR spend an enormous amount of time writing about relatively small, mostly white suburbs – because that’s where most of the land-use fights occur, where precedents get set, and where lawsuits come from. But we typically don’t place these fights in the context of racial opportunity – or lack thereof – and we spend little time writing about how the built environment is being shaped in historically Black cities and communities (or, for that matter, in predominantly Latino communities either). Yes, increasingly, many planning policies in California are designed with equity in mind. Sustainable Communities Strategies account for environmental justice; Regional Housing Needs Allocations provide for low-income residents. But the recent protests highlight the fact that we should have been doing more all along. The vast majority of California’s planners – indeed, the vast majority of CP&DR ’s subscribers – are planners who work for local governments or for consulting firms that contract with local governments. And no matter how strong a sense of social justice urban planners have when they emerge from school – and often it’s very strong ­­– over time they get worn down by the relentlessly political environment in which planners typically operate. Some retreat to bureaucratic nit-picking, hiding behind slavish adherence to a development code that is almost always in some way a barrier to inclusivity. Most simply serve the political desires of their elected officials. In small suburban communities this often means using the planning and development process to exclude pretty much everybody who is racially or economically different from the mostly older white homeowners who show up at public meetings. Try as they might to maintain their sense of social justice, in the end most planners have jobs they want to keep. And the ability of our institutions such as the American Planning Association to effectuate change is limited by the reality of who most planners work for. Over the past generation, I have witnessed a growing unease on the part of many younger planners with the career choices they have been presented with. They are less interested in calculating floor-area ratio than they are in attacking the question of why so many people in our society don’t have enough FAR – or, in some cases, none at all. Increasingly, I see these planners taking a different path – working for advocacy groups or community nonprofits or politicians – or increasingly, running for office themselves. While it’s discouraging that working for public agencies often dampens planners’ idealism, I’m encouraged that their passion takes them into the realm of unalloyed advocacy. Our profession desperately needs this counterweight. The opportunities in these sectors are still limited, but we can only hope that more planners in the future devote themselves to using their professional skill to advocating for – and bringing about – real change in reversing the long-standing trends of racial discrimination evident in our built environment. And we at CP&DR must commit ourselves to ensuring that our coverage of land-use issues in California reflects the fullness of this longstanding racism and highlights the work that planners are doing to reverse the trend. We must – and we will – do better.

San Diego County’s program of permitting new development projects to mitigate their GHG impacts by buying carbon offsets elsewhere is too vague and violates the California Environmental Quality Act, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled. But the court warned that its ruling is extremely narrow and does not rule out the possibility of using carbon offsets if the mitigation program is better constructed.  The ruling came in a complicated 137-page opinion with two appendices, one of which is a glossary. The case involves the interplay between the county general plan and the county climate action plan, between projects anticipated by the general plan and projects that exceed the general plan’s expected development, and between onsite GHG mitigations and offsite mitigations including in some cases carbon offsets that can purchased anywhere in the world.  The ruling was the third so far from the Fourth District in the case. (Previous CP&DR coverage can be found here and here .) and in the opinion a clearly exasperated Justice Joan Irion tried to provide a roadmap for the county’s compliance with CEQA and state climate law. The county’s climate action plan calls for a decrease of approximately 15% in greenhouse gas emissions between a 2014 baseline and buildout in 2030. This target includes additional development in unincorporated county territory as anticipated in the county general plan. To reduce GHGs, the CAP lays out 26 different strategies. Many of them are pretty standard (reducing vehicle miles traveled, building bike facilities) but one of them – T-4.1 – calls on the county to invest in projects that reduce GHGs, such as weatherization and urban tree planting, and track the GHG reductions from those projects. But the CAP also sought to address projects whose size would exceed the anticipated development in the general plan, including several pending major projects seeking general plan amendments, such as Lilac Hills Ranch and Newland Sierra. For these projects, the county required GHG emissions above the CAP limit to be reduced to zero and permitted a separate mitigation strategy to accomplish this goal. M-GHG-1, as the strategy was known, permitted developers to purchase carbon offsets anywhere in the world, subject to the discretionary approval of the county staff.  In the litigation before the appellate court, a coalition of environmental groups argued that county’s climate action plan was inconsistent with the county general plan and that M-GHG-1 was a violation of CEQA.  On the first question, the appellate court concluded that the CAP was not inconsistent with the general plan, but that the county abused its discretion in approving the CAP. But this finding was related to the question of M-GHG-1. “,There is nothing inherently unlawful under CEQA by delegating M-GHG-1 determinations to the Director,” wrote Justice Irion. “The problem is that M-GHG-1 contains no objective criteria for exercising that discretion to ensure that the GHG emissions reduction goals are actually met.” Without such objective criteria, there is no guarantee that the emissions reductions sought using M-GHG-1 will be “real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, enforceable, and additional.” She also found that M-GHG-1 impermissibly defers CEQA mitigation into the future, basically for the same reason.  In its appeal, the county relied heavily on Appendix B of its Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, which, the county claimed, “contains nearly 3,000 pages of offset protocols that the registries listed in M-GHG-1 use to ensure that offsets meet rigorous standards showing they are . . . additional, and verifiable.” “The problem, Irion wrote, “is that Appendix B itself states that it does not apply to M-GHG-1. Rather, Appendix B applies to CAP reduction measure T.-4.1.” She added: “ lthough nothing appears to preclude a GPA project from using an Appendix B protocol as part of its M-GHG-1 mitigation—nothing in M-GHG-1 requires it. By insisting that M-GHG-1 requires additionally because it requires GPAs to use Appendix B protocols, the County actually highlights one of M-GHG-1's most significant flaws—offset credits under M-GHG-1 need not be additional.” Because the whole M-GHG-1 regime was defective, substantive evidence did not exist that the GHG goals would be met, the county abused its discretion in approving the cap.  Irion seemed to go out of her way to say that the ruling should not be widely cited – and also made it clear she and her colleagues do not want to see this particular dispute again.  “To be abundantly clear, our holdings are necessarily limited to the facts of this case, and in particular, M-GHG-1. Our decision is not intended to be, and should not be construed as blanket prohibition on using carbon offsets—even those originating outside of California—to mitigate GHG emissions under CEQA.,” she wrote. “Except to the extent that (1) the CAP is impacted by its reliance on M-GHG-1; and (2) the CAP's inventory of greenhouse gases is inconsistent with the SEIR), the CAP is CEQA-compliant.” Noting that the case has been in the appellate court three times, she added, "In an attempt to avoid a fourth, we further note that the CAP contains a GHG reduction measure (T-4.1) designed to offset in-County GHG emissions. As explained post, T-4.1 significantly differs from M-GHG-1 in several respects and, perhaps more importantly in indicating the types of offset protocols that might pass muster, is unchallenged in this litigation.”

Housing Advocates Sue Huntington Beach Again California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund (CaRLA) has filed a lawsuit against the city of Huntington Beach in a challenge to the city's rejection of multiple development proposals that complied with the city's zoning requirements, potentially in violation of the Housing Accountability Act and other state statutes that compel cities to apply objective standards to project decisions. CaRLA is applying the same playbook it used in a successful suit against Los Altos, in which a judge ruled that Los Altos was not acting in good faith when it denied a project and multiple appeal rounds on shifting, nonobjective grounds. In the Huntington Beach case, the city revised its Specific Plan to re-designate what had been high-density housing to half the number of units allowed to be developed, spurring extended litigation over whether the city violated Housing Element requirements. Subsequently, the city rejected proposals that met land use standards in both the General Plan and the Specific Plan, and went on to reject appeals on subjective grounds like safety concerns and neighborhood character. (See related CP&DR coverage .) San Francisco Strengthens Ban on Pandemic-Related Evictions  San Francisco landlords will be permanently barred from evicting tenants if they can't pay rent due to coronavirus-related issues, like job loss or getting sick from the virus, under legislation passed by the Board of Supervisors. Mayor London Breed already issued an emergency order that bans evictions, eliminates late fees and interest, and gives tenants more time to pay their back rent during the public health emergency. The new legislation will extend those measures permanently amid fears that thousands of eviction filings to give tenants three days to pay rent or face eviction would be forthcoming as soon as restrictions are lifted. Lawmakers have gone on the record saying they will work to set up a Rent Resolution Fund to help landlords offset the burden of unpaid rent. Funding could come from a proposed November ballot measure that would double the city's transfer tax on real estate above a $10 million threshold. Despite record job loss due to the pandemic, about 97 percent of residential tenants in San Francisco paid their May rent, according to the largest survey of its kind. Alameda Voters May Lift Ban on Multi-Unit Housing  City of Alameda voters will have the opportunity to lift a ban on multi-unit housing construction that was added to the City Charter with a ballot measure in 1973. In recent years developers of large housing projects have used state regulations to sidestep the ban, but triplexes and fourplexes are still prohibited. Before the state passed legislation to encourage new housing, Alameda did not have multi-family housing construction for decades. The move to change the city's charter is in response to California's housing crisis and the need for more places to live, Mayor Marily Ashcraft said. Alameda City Council is spearheading the effort to prepare language for a November ballot measure. Any change in the charter would just be the first step: the council would still need to select neighborhoods and approve zoning law changes for housing to get built. The council had nearly unanimous consensus to push the bill forward.  CP&DR Coverage: Pandemic and Public Space  In recent weeks, cities throughout California have fast-tracked programs and permitting schemes to allow restaurants to set up dining areas in parking lots and on sidewalks. Cities are also allowing fitness and yoga studios to take over public space for classes. Most ambitiously, some cities are closing off streets to traffic entirely in order to allow residents to walk, job, and ride bikes — either for fitness or for commuting — without having to compete with cars. These “al fresco” programs are not without controversy, as critics fear that they may overlook disadvanaged communities.  Quick Hits & Updates  Demand for real estate in San Francisco's affluent suburbs has skyrocketed in recent months - surprising brokers who say the coronavirus outbreak is leading to a surge of interest from San Francisco city-dwellers looking to spread out. Expensive neighborhoods have emptied as residents escape during virus shutdowns, while less affluent areas like the Tenderloin district are crowded with hundreds of tents. Plans to redevelop CityView Plaza in downtown San Jose are a step closer to fruition after the San Jose Planning Commission voted to approve a 3.8 million-square-foot office development proposal that will now go to City Hall for final approval. Council members--who are also considering a petition to declare the site a historic landmark- are expected to vote on the project sometime this summer. California Air Resources Board announced two new grants available to cities, one for planning and one for implementation of transportation projects that meet green and accessibility targets. Through the Sustainable Transportation Equity Project (STEP), CARB has up to $22 million available for disadvantaged and low-income communities in California. The City of San Jose  opened its first "bridge" housing community for the homeless-- 40 tiny homes with a bed, a desk, some storage, electricity, and air conditioning. Each house, which costs around $6,500 to build, will provide shelter for 60 days while residents prepare to transition into permanent homes. The Los Angeles City Council unanimously approved two motions that will redirect over $500 million in 'arts fees' from now-cancelled or planned cultural events and instead make the money available as grants to arts organizations and spaces that have been economically devastated during the pandemic. Southern California's largest landlord organization has filed a lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles aimed at overturning anti-eviction rules put in place in the wake of the coronavirus. The suit is the latest in a string of suits against local governments in the region that have passed rent stabilization programs and eviction moratoriums due to the pandemic. In at least one case, the City of Upland rescinded its eviction protections under threat of litigation. Reversing course again in a 30-year-old battle over protection of the weasel-like Pacific fisher, the federal Fish and Wildlife Service has moved to deny protections for the animal in large swaths of its territory in California and Oregon. A federal judge overturned the service's most recent refusal to list the species in 2018, but in declaring the northern and southern populations two distinct species, the government has effectively limited protection to as few as 100 animals. The UCLA Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies recently launched an initiative to combine innovative research with practical strategies to tackle housing affordability in the Los Angeles region. The Randall Lewis Housing Initiative will have a research arm that will focus on housing supply and tenant protections, an event-convening component, and will produce policy briefs. Circulate San Diego released a report hailing the success of San Francisco's Home Bonus Program, a program that provides incentives for developers who choose to build affordable units as a part of their projects. The analysis of 20 months of program data compiled by Circulate San Diego shows that beginning in 2016, the program has seen triple-digit increases in applicants and affordable home production over the previous program. The Eno Center for Transportation released a comprehensive report that seeks to accelerate the development of congestion pricing programs in the U.S. that advance sustainability and equity goals. Intended for elected officials, civic leaders, advocates, and agency professionals, the report addresses the political and communication hurdles that arise when developing a congestion pricing program. Long Beach's General Plan won recognitio n for "Efficient and Sustainable Land Use" in this year's 2020 Sustainability Awards by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The "exemplary and innovative" plan received praise for its focus on expanded transit access, greenhouse gas reduction, and practical housing solutions that address overcrowding while creating attractive and vibrant spaces. Facebook joined forces with SamTrans in 2018 to begin an environmental impact study for the Dumbarton Rail Corridor, initiating a long-sought after revitalization. Now Facebook is "reassessing this long-term commitment," according to a statement, citing the need to address "the immediate needs of people in the community struggling with the economic impacts of the pandemic." City officials have said they will urge Facebook to continue with the project. Developers of a proposed 18,000-seat soccer stadium in downtown Concord have walked away from a $100,000 exclusive negotiating agreement with the city. The company said a combination of the economic downturn due to the COVID-19 pandemic, along with community opposition led to the decision. Besides the stadium, a hotel, convention center, and offices had been considered for the property as part of a multi-use sports complex. (See related CP&DR coverage .)

Lately, as I have been watching cities and other local governments all over the country struggle with declining revenue, I have been reminded of my own experience as Deputy Mayor and Mayor of Ventura during the last recession, when we faced so many of the same issues. It was, I have to admit, a pretty bruising experience as we tried to figure out how to raise revenue, cut costs, balance the budget, and keep everybody happy – which was, of course, impossible. So I thought I’d try to help people going who are going through this now understand my experience by calling upon some of the blogs I wrote at the time – blogs originally written to my constituents to explain why I made the decisions I made. Over the next three weeks, I’ll be reprinting three of those blogs. The first highlights the fact that there is no “magic bullet” in this kind of situation. The second talks about how residents resist higher fees during a recession. And the third talks about the bruising emotional tool a recession takes on a city and its residents. All these blogs were published in my 2017 book, Talk City: A Chronicle of Political Life in an All-American City . You can learn more about Talk City (and order the book) by clicking here . This blog about the “tough slog” of raising revenue in a recession was originally published during budget season in 2011. In tough times, it’s always tempting to think that you can solve all your financial problems by finding some magical way to increase revenue. After all, spending money is always more fun than cutting the budget yet again. But the truth of the matter is that in this economy, finding more revenue – especially in a way that doesn’t place an additional burden on our already overburdened taxpayers – is a tough slog. Last week the City Council held a workshop where we discussed some of the possible ways we might generate more revenue. We talked about everything from “crash taxes” (charging out-of-town people involved in auto accidents) to selling or leasing city property as a way of raising cash to putting another proposed sales tax increase on the ballot. Not surprisingly, none of these ideas got much traction. But we did talk about range of other ideas – and, in the end, we voted to pursue a few things that seem worth a try, including: Hiring an outside firm to help us make sure all businesses in the city pay business license tax. Conducting on audit of our hotel bed tax collections to ensure all hotels and motels (and vacation rentals) are collecting this tax. Renegotiating city leases to increase revenue where possible. Ramping up efforts to obtain private donations, especially for capital projects in parks and other public locations where naming opportunities exist. Continuing to focus on making our Auto Center a stronger retail destination. Increasing our grant-writing capability. The truth is that these efforts put together won’t generate an enormous amount of money – at least not in the short run. Our best hope for an immediate pop is keeping a closer eye on compliance for business license tax and hotel bed tax. I know first-hand that many businesses don’t get business licenses – about 20 years ago, I was one of those business owners! And I’m confident that with more compliance, we can increase business license tax revenue by 10-20%. However, that would amount to somewhere between $150,000 and $300,000. That’s a good chunk that will help us, but it’s not going to solve all our problems. Similarly, it’s pretty clear that some smaller motels and vacation rentals don’t pay hotel bed tax. But most of the big hotels already pay, so we’re talking about a pretty small amount here too. The other efforts are probably longer term – but we can’t lose sight of them just because we’re hurting now. Out Auto Center did well during the boom – at our peak, we had 13 dealerships and the same auto sales as Oxnard – but we’re hurting badly now, mostly because there’s no surrounding retail in Ventura as there is in Oxnard. Even so, most retailers are pulling back on expansion plans now, so it’s unlikely we’ll get anything soon. And you don’t get big philanthropic gifts for parks and public projects overnight. But we have two good examples in the Pier and the Community Park, both of which have raised more than $1 million in private donations. Just think how reassuring it is to know that if a storm damages the Pier, we have more than $1 million in private funds to draw upon and don’t have to take money away from some other City project! These kinds of donations are going to be really important in the next few years, because we are not going to have General Fund money for capital projects in the parks, as we have in the past. Although this wasn’t in the motion passed by the Council, I’m also a big advocate of promoting Business-to-Business (B2B) transactions as a way of generating more sales tax for the city. Every business in town buys lots of goods subject to sales tax. If they buy those goods in town, then we get more sales tax. And what about tax increases? After losing two sales tax measures recently – one in 2006 and one in 2009 – I have to say I think we’re done with that for now. There are a number of small measures that may have a chance of passage if they were combined into one ballot measure, including an entertainment ticket tax and an increase in the hotel bed tax. But even all put together they won’t raise that much money, and I don’t think our voters have any appetite for even these tax increases now. Over the past three years, as we have struggled to reduce costs and increase revenues, we’ve heard literally hundreds of ideas. We’ve looked at them all, and implemented some of them. But, in general, I’ve found that every idea falls into one of four categories: We’re already doing it. It’s impossible to do for some reason (impractical, illegal). It’s a great idea and we should do it right now, but it will only raise or save a little bit of money. It’s a great idea and it will raise or save a lot of money, but it will take a long time to do it and we won’t see much immediate benefit. The business license and hotel bed tax compliance efforts fall into category #3. Everything else falls into category #4. My bottom line is this: We’ve done a good job of cutting when we’ve needed to cut during the downturn. Our services have taken a huge hit but we are solvent and shouldn’t have to cut much more. So now is the time to start laying the groundwork for more revenue when the economy begins to perk up. We’ll keep looking at small, painless ways to raise revenue – and we’ll keep working on long-term efforts to stabilize and improve our revenue base by increasing business generally. The truth of the matter is that it took Ventura, like most cities, almost a decade to recover from the recession and for city revenue to reach pre-Great Recession levels. Maintaining public safety services were helped by the fact that voters finally approved a sales-tax increase for that purpose in 2016 – ten years after they first voted it down. You can learn more about Talk City (and order the book) by clicking here .

A developer in Murrieta was not protected by a vesting tentative map from being charged the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee, which was adopted after the map was approved, the Fourth District Court of Appeal.

Coastal Commission OK's Elimination of Some Parking Requirements in San Diego A San Diego policy to effectively wipe out parking requirements for new housing projects built near mass transit cleared a key hurdle when the California Coastal Commission approved allowing the change in the city's beach areas. Commission members rejected recommendations from their staff, who said the new policy shouldn't apply to a large swatch of Pacific Beach because it could worsen the area's already chronic parking shortages. The new policy eliminates rules requiring developers to create at least one parking spot per unit for most projects and more parking for larger apartments. It also requires developers, who are free to build parking spots if market studies show there is strong demand for it, to "unbundle" the cost of a parking spot from monthly rent. The only neighborhoods eligible for the new policy are those near transit hubs, which are defined as being located within half a mile of a trolley line, a bus rapid transit station or two high-frequency bus routes. Report Identifies Nexus of Sustainability, Housing, and Equity for Infill Development  The Planning and Conservation League released a reportEquitable Infill Incentives, with the aim of developing a menu of criteria for directing California’s housing and infrastructure investment in a way that will achieve housing, environmental, health, and equity goals simultaneously. Based on consultations with cross-interest experts and government agencies, the report recommends VMT reduction as a superior proxy metric for GHG reduction and downstream conservation, public health, and social equity gains from improved land use. To qualify for “infill” incentives, a project should meet (or be projected to meet) a minimum VMT threshold or be within half a mile of a transit stop; not be on areas deemed essential to protecting public health; conform to local regulations; and not include demolition of rent controlled units, historic structures, or older housing that may still be viable. For cases in which demolition is warranted, cities should replace and increase the number of affordable housing units within the project site or within a half-mile radius. Finally, the report recommends substantial assistance for tenants displaced by demotion, including assistance with finding comparable housing within a half mile of the project, funds for relocation and rental assistance for 36 months, and right of first return to occupy a comparable unit in the new development at the same rent. Study Identifies Potential for Housing on Land Owned by Religious Institutions  As cities grapple with where and how to build more affordable housing, identifying land that could support new development has become a top priority. The UC Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Studies analyzed one option that provides a potential solution: expanding the ability of religious institutions to build housing on their land. Faith-based organizations often own underutilized land and/or structure which could be used to expand the supply of affordable housing. A Terner Center analysis finds that approximately 38,800 acres of land statewide--roughly the size of the city of Stockton--are used for religious purposes and potentially developable. A significant share of that acreage (45 percent) is located in the state's "high" or “highest" resource opportunity areas, signaling an opportunity for building housing in neighborhoods with lower poverty rates and greater economic, educational, and environmental amenities. Using their land assets for affordable housing would provide significant untapped benefits for the organization from supporting the organization's charitable missions to providing revenue that can stabilize the organization's finances. Yet faith-based organizations face severe challenges in leveraging their property for housing, including limited financing options, regulatory barriers, and limited real estate knowledge. CP&DR Coverage: Housing Legislation Led by Senate Pro Tem Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, the leadership of the state Senate is quickly pushing throug h a new set of five planning and environmental review bills designed to speed up housing approvals. Many of the bills are focused on expanding exemptions under the California Environmental Quality Act – a tactic that is being used with increasing frequently around the state. The bills are scheduled to be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee on Tuesday, June 9. Meanwhile, a less coordinated set of four bills on the Assembly side are also moving through that house’s committees. At the same time, an expansive CEQA bill carried by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, failed to make it through the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality but may be reconsidered soon. Quick Hits & Updates  With a wave of evictions predicted as Covid-related renter protection orders come to an end across the country, renters living in single-family homes and smaller multifamily buildings are more likely to be negatively affected but have fewer federal protections, according to a recent study  from Harvard University. Only 12 percent of the units in small rentals (2-4 units) are covered by the CARES Act eviction moratorium, and by one estimate nearly 20 percent of renters in small multifamily apartments may have difficulty paying full rent if at-risk wages are lost. A federal judge has rebuffed an attempt by the Trump administration to dismiss a 17-state lawsuit - led by California, Maryland, and Massachusetts - that challenges the administration's attempts to weaken protections for endangered and threatened species. The U.S. District Court judge said states made a sufficient case that they would be injured by the rule, and will allow the case to go forward. Despite promises to the contrary, consultants for the California High-Speed Rail Authority say when service starts in 2028, the train will operate at a loss and the state will absorb the cost. This contradicts the language in Proposition 1A, passed in 2008 to fund the project, that appeared to explicitly ban subsidies. Plans to redevelop CityView Plaza in downtown San Jose are a step closer to fruition after the San Jose Planning Commission voted to approve a 3.8 million-square-foot office development proposal that will now go to City Hall for final approval. Council members--who are also considering a petition to declare the site a historic landmark- are expected to vote on the project sometime this summer. Ford Ord , in Monterey County,will receive the National Federal Facility Excellence in Site Reuse award from the Environmental Agency for transforming the former Army base into a thriving environmental, economic and community asset. The EPA said that from start to finish, the development at Fort Ord has been a model that will benefit other large redevelopment projects in the future. (See related CP&DR coverage .) A former top deputy to L.A. City Councilmember Jose Huizar has agreed to plead guilty to a racketeering charge, while the FBI says he played a central role in a "criminal organization" at City Hall. The wider scheme involved city officials, developers and their associates who conspired to exchange bribes of cash and gifts for a leg up for development projects. The Los Angeles City Council unanimously approved two motions that will redirect over $500 million in 'arts fees' from now-cancelled or planned cultural events and instead make the money available as grants to arts organizations and spaces that have been economically devastated during the pandemic. Despite documented evidence of the continued presence of harmful chemicals on the site, a Mountain View property is slated for imminent removal from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's list of Superfund sites. The "delisting" announcement comes as construction on a 226-unit apartment complex approved by Mountain View City Council in 2019 is likely to begin soon. The city of Hollister was put on notice in a letter from the California Department of Housing Community Development, which stated the city must void or suspend its growth management program or be in violation of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. Under the act, which became effective Jan. 1, localities are prohibited from enacting new regulations that might limit housing. HCD previously told Hollister its housing element was under review. The San Jose Historic Landmarks Commission is working to protect San Jose's former courthouse from demolition. Built in 1973, the building was designed by a master architect in the brutalist style, and embodies San Jose modernism. But its spare design is not universally beloved, and preservationists will have to make the case (again) to save it as city council considers a 3.4 million-square-foot office campus on the same space. The U.S. Department of Energy has agreed to remove 10 contaminated buildings at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory. The lab's location in the hills above the San Fernando and Simi Valleys for years posed a considerable risk in the event of a wildfire followed by heavy rainfall. The debris will be transported out of state to a radioactive waste facility for disposal, officials said. Wildfires in California are becoming more frequent and more severe, but a study finds that housing in burned areas is paradoxically going up in value. These neighborhoods are predominantly white and affluent, further subverting expectations: typically, low-income urban communities of color are disproportionately vulnerable to climate impacts.

Planners often focus on the minutiae of their cities. But cities are greater than the sum of their parts. CP&DR  Editor Bill Fulton speaks with Contributing Editor Josh Stephens about his new book,  The Urban Mystique: Notes on California, Los Angeles, and Beyond . It's a look at the human side of urban planning and at what's great, and not-so-great, about the built environment that Californians have dealt themselves. Josh and Bill discuss the origin of the book, its relationship with its namesake The Feminine Mystique, and its implications for American cities that will seek to revive and rebuild themselves when the coronavirus pandemic subsides. One note: This podcast was reported before the  protests in cities across the country related to racial injustice and the death of George Floyd became widspread. Available on Spotify and other podcast platforms here . Recorded May 29, 2020.

Cities are made of asphalt and concrete, gasoline and dollar bills, joy and strife. For me, one of the most influential figures worked in wind, sun, and fabric. The artist Christo died this week. Born in Bulgaria and based in New York City, he and his late wife Jeanne-Claude (deceased in 2009) — never was there a more elegant dual mononymic couple — invented and, across decades and continents, continually reinvented their own genre of landscape art. Their images are as indelible as they are surprising: pink islands, orange paths leading nowhere, buildings softened and shimmery. Their early work grew out of the land art movement of the 1960s and ‘70s, unfurling reams of fabric on desolate natural environments. They hung an enormous curtain across a canyon in Colorado, and they celebrated the landscape of California with 1976’s Running Fence, a 25-mile-long, 18-foot-high strip of fabric running over hill and dale westward from Sonoma County, across Marin County, and into the Pacific at Bodega Bay. They returned to California in 1991 to erect one half of The Umbrellas, in which hundreds of larger-than-life yellow umbrellas were planted in the Grapevine Pass north of Los Angeles. The other half of the piece consisted of blue umbrellas in Japan. As much as we may appreciate an untrammeled landscape, I think we can agree that there are moments when human imagination and natural grandeur complement each other in captivating ways. It was in cities, though, where Christo’s whimsy reached its full force: islands in Miami’s Biscayne Bay surrounded by hot pink aprons; Paris’ most important bridge, the Pont Neuf, draped in ivory-colored nylon, reflecting the lights of the world’s most romantic city; the entire Reichstag in Berlin, trussed up like a special delivery; saffron-colored curtains winding through Central Park. Next summer, Christo will posthumously wrap the Arc de Triomphe. The Umbrellas, along I-5, in 1991. I grew up in a family of Christo fans. We had posters and prints (revenue from which funded the actual pieces) and went on outings to see pieces in situ . They have their detractors, of course, in people who think his work is ugly, irreverent, or pointless. But I was always thoroughly charmed. A cliche about art is that it is supposed to help people see the world differently. Christo literally made the world look different. But those playful, innocent aesthetics belie Christo’s larger purpose. To state the obvious: global landmarks do not wrap themselves. In college, I majored in English, so I was contentedly steeped in novels, plays, and essays. But when Christo and Jeanne-Claude spoke on my campus, I of course attended. And it was there — at a lecture on visual art, of all things, by two of the least bureaucratic people you could imagine — that I discovered land use policy. Christo’s pieces are no mere “public art,” like the typical sculpture deposited arbitrarily in the plaza of an office building or the median of a boulevard (often paid for as penance by a developer). And they aren't just place-based. They are based in, and rely upon, specific places that are unique and irreplaceable. And they don’t just occupy those places. They borrow those places. They use and transform them, and then they give them back. Christo didn’t wrap just any bridge. He wrapped the Pont Neuf. He didn’t wrap just any capital building. He wrapped the Reichstag. He didn’t try to cover just any river. Only a certain stretch of Colorado’s Arkansas River fit his specifications for a five-mile fabric cover (which was ultimately abandoned). Walter Benjamin questioned the purity of art in the face of the ability to reproduce it mechanically. Christo brought it back by creating pieces that are literally unreproducible. The Gates, in New York City's Central Park, in 2005. By wedding his art to specific places, Christo committed himself to the mundane business of public policy. He didn’t wander around Europe looking for governments willing to give up their bridges. He fought, pressured, and cajoled the Parisian government for permission to wrap that specific bridge. He didn’t get turned down by Berlin and decide he’d try Sacramento instead. He went all the way to Mayor Bloomberg so he could erect over 7,000 “gates” on Frederick Law Olmsted’s turf. He worked with cities. He convinced them that whimsy can comport with the public interest. He made all the mundane assurances: safety, security, accessibility, financial solvency, liability, and all the rest. Art is supposed to be about freedom: With a brush and a canvas, a keyboard and a mixer, a pen and paper, you can create anything, right? But what if your art requires a permit? What if your art requires consent of a landlord? What if your art might block views or impact ecosystems? What if your art might fall on someone? What if it blocks egress or impedes the right of way? These are questions most artists (like most people) deliberately avoid. Art is the opposite of bureaucracy. Artists retreat to their studios to avoid tedious questions such as these. But Christo embraced the tedium. He met it head-on, and he figured out how to triumph over it (and even Triomphe over it). He did so because, in addition to clearly loving the sport of it, he knew that the result would be worthwhile. Consider the gauntlet Christo had to run when he created Running Fence. He needed permission from two counties, 59 private landowners, and the California Department of Transportation. He presented at 18 public meetings and two court hearings, and he had to commission an environmental impact report. The process took four years, for a piece that existed for 14 days. Every developer reading this is hereby in awe of Christo. Formally, Christo's work seems aggressive apolitical, and it is. But Christo himself was never apolitical. His politics aren’t in his artwork — politics enable his artwork. Unlike many other political animals, Christo used politics for the better. He does the hard work of lobbying so that people can experience joy. And, unlike, say, his contemporary Jeff Koons, who spends relatively little money to create pieces that he sells for eight figures, Christo spent small fortunes preparing works that he gave away for free. How’s that for a special interest? Christo, like his art, is sui generis . But everyone who works in and with the public realm can learn from him. Four years to get a permit for a fence — that literally vanished without a trace? Christo was messing with us. He knew that bureaucracy is a farce, and he toyed with it even as he was probably infuriated by it. Cities need to speed it up, whatever “it” may be, so we can get to the good stuff before we all keel over. Here’s where traditional planning and development parts ways with art. If you don’t like Christo’s work, that’s your loss. But it doesn’t really matter. His work is temporary (and costs nothing). You get to hate it for only a week or two, if you see it at all. Let’s get excited about the things that really matter. Let’s get excited about a low-income housing development. Let’s get excited about services for the homeless. Let’s get excited about complete streets. Let’s get excited about equity and opportunity. Let’s get excited about creativity — both the process and the result. And, yes, let’s get excited about public art. If we look closely enough, we can see that Christo and Jeanne-Claude have revealed regulation for us. That is their enduring unwrapped gift. We don’t have them to help us anymore. It’s up to the rest of us, planners, developers, and citizens alike, to decide whether to make it ugly or beautiful, elitist or equitable. The lesson for planners: Take a risk. And make it easier for good things to happen. If it’s good enough for Paris, good enough for Berlin, good enough for New York City, then a little whimsy is good enough for every city. Christo is gone. Jeanne-Claude is gone. Their pieces came and went. But great cities endure. Planners who take inspiration from them can make their cities just a little greater, and a little more enduring. Umbrellas image courtesy of Kenneth Hagemeyer via Flickr . Gates image courtesy of Chad Fennell via Flickr .

By William Fulton

In the late 2000s, the parklets craze swept through cities, symbolizing what was then a nascent movement to reclaim street space from cars. San Francisco permitted some two-dozen of them and became, arguably, the parklet capital of the world. But what was a clever amenity with a cute name may become a lifeline for some urban businesses struggling amid the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic fallout. Widespread permitting of parklets is one of the ways that cities are repurposing public and semi-public spaces to create more room for pedestrians to practice social distancing – and for businesses to operate safely in the open air. “Given the limited vehicular traffic that we have on the streets now with people sheltering in place…this presents a unique opportunity to reclaim our public spaces for public use,” said Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin. In recent weeks, cities throughout California have fast-tracked programs and permitting schemes to allow restaurants to set up dining areas in parking lots and on sidewalks. Cities are also allowing fitness and yoga studios to take over public space for classes. Most ambitiously, some cities are closing off streets to traffic entirely in order to allow residents to walk, job, and ride bikes — either for fitness or for commuting — without having to compete with cars. Some programs and proposals around the state include:

Newsom Proposes Loosening of CEQA for Homeless Housing Gov. Gavin Newsom is proposing waiving CEQA regulations for cities and counties that want to convert hotels into homeless housing using federal coronavirus relief funding. His plan was sent to the California Legislature to be added to the state budget negotiations in the form of a "trailer bill" addition to budget talks. It could have a huge effect in cities like San Francisco, where more than 1,100 hotel rooms are housing homeless people as part of the governor's "Project Roomkey" initiative, which has acquired 15,000 hotel rooms statewide. San Francisco Mayor London Breed has expressed support for the plan; hotel industry leaders say they want to examine the proposal before taking a position on it. Homeless organizations have said it could be a win-win in the future, ensuring revenue for hotel owners who might struggle in the economic downturn while at the same time creating cheap homeless housing. Project Roomkey has received a chilly welcome in some California cities that are currently suing the state to prevent vulnerable homeless from taking up residence in their city. For previous  CP&DR coverage of CEQA and homelessness, click here .  “Split-Roll” Prop. 13 Measure Qualifies for November Ballot  A measure that would revise Proposition 13 has qualified for the November ballot, having garnered well over the million signatures required for inclusion on the ballot. If passed, the measure will allow cities to assess property taxes on commercial and industrial properties at their full market value as determined by regular assessments. Since 1978 when Prop. 13 passed, cities have only been allowed to reassess property value for taxation purposes when those properties are sold. The new initiative, dubbed "Schools and Communities First," would maintain the Prop 13 limits for small business, agricultural land, and residential property. Backers of the initiative say as much as $12 billion each year could be made available for schools and local government through the revised tax policy. (See prior CP&DR commentary .) Cities May Sue Oil Companies over Climate Change  A panel of federal judges ruled that California cities and counties can sue oil companies for damages related to climate change in state court, where cases may be easier to win than at the federal level. The decision was in response to a suit brought by five cities and three counties, including San Francisco, that are seeking financial help to build seawalls and strengthen infrastructure in preparation for rising seas and extreme weather. The Ninth Circuit Court also validated a separate ruling by another federal judge who allowed California courts to take up climate cases submitted by the counties of San Mateo, Marin and Santa Cruz and the cities of Richmond, Santa Cruz and Imperial Beach (San Diego County). None of the legal efforts has yet to be deliberated on their merits - that may soon change now that the procedural matter of jurisdiction appears closer to being settled. Quick Hits & Updates  At least 40 California cities have banded together to lobby for direct federal money to cities with fewer than 500,000 residents on a per capita basis to be used to replace lost revenue due to impacts of COVID-19. The group, which calls itself the California Mayors Coalition, cited the $6.7 billion in expected lost revenues to the State's 482 cities - the overwhelming majority of which did not meet the 500,000-resident threshold needed to receive funds from the CARES Act. (See related CP&DR commentary .) A judge sided with Metro and the Federal Transit Administration against Beverly Hills High School , ruling Metro it did not act in bad faith in its decision to tunnel the Purple Line subway extension under Beverly Hills High School. The judges ruling notes that transit authorities fulfilled their obligation to thoroughly document the selection process. (See related CP&DR commentary .) Under a new bill that passed committee and will go to the State Senate floor, distressed restaurants and nonprofits that have experienced a 40-percent drop in revenue or have limited their capacity to accommodate social distancing will have increased bargaining power with landlords. The bill would prohibit landlords from evicting tenants, allow tenants to walk away from leases with minimum financial penalties, and give them a year to pay back rent. (See related CP&DR commentary .) Faced with a state budget deficit, Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed "pausing" three-quarters of a billion dollars worth of renovation work planned for state buildings in downtown Sacramento. According to the budget summary, "With an increased remote workforce, the administration... will evaluate the state's real estate portfolio to determine which agencies and departments may be able to reduce lease space." The Sacramento Transportation Authority voted to endorse a half-cent sales tax measure, which is expected to generate $8 billion for transportation improvements. The Board of Supervisors will take the measure up next in July, voting to formally put the tax, called Measure A, on the ballot. The Del Mar City Council will consider a resolution to seal a 464-page EIR that was prepared for a blufftop resort that didn't pass muster at the ballot box. The developer asked for the draft EIR to be kept on file for future use, but opponents of the resort say the draft EIR study failed to take into account crucial climate change factors like increased storm intensity and bluff erosion. Under a plan put forward by a coalition of environmental and municipal groups, the decommissioned Potter Valley Project would be completely overhauled to improve Eel River fish passage and fisheries. The plan calls for one of the two dams--Scott's Dam--to be removed altogether, draining Lake Pillsbury. To move forward, the group will need approval from the FERC. To meet growing regulatory challenges, the California Geologic Energy Management Division  launched an initiative to standardize buffer zones between oil facilities and sensitive sites like schools, residences, and hospitals. The initiative has been opposed by the oil industry but praised by environmental activists. The Santa Barbara City Council voted to move forward with an expedited accessory dwelling unit plan to speed downtown housing development, a move seemingly spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic. The council plans to vote on all 20 amendments by July 21 - a full six months earlier than expected. Los Angeles City Council will take up a proposal that would use "Art Development Fees," or fees paid by developers of large projects to fund public art events, as relief grants to small art organizations. Ordinarily those fees would go toward festivals, art exhibitions, and cultural diversity events, but could now be critical to keeping art and cultural institutions solvent until COVID-19 closures are lifted. Upon learning Gov. Gavin Newsom and Oakland Coliseum director Henry Gardner were in talks of using the Coliseum as a potential "surge site" for treating COVID-19 patients, the Oakland A's baseball team said the A's will defer rent payment until they "have a better understanding of when the Coliseum will be available for our use." Gardner says the agency has "every expectation" the payment would be made on time.

This essay is excerpted from the introduction to The Urban Mystique , newly published by Solimar Books. You can purchase the book here . The notion of a childhood origin story remains relevant to anyone who lives in cities because, in many ways, everyone who lives in a city is still a child. Whether we live in Beacon Hill or Greenwich Village, Livermore or Santa Clarita, or Richmond or Compton, we are all passive subjects to the decisions made by planners and developers years and generations ago. Too many Americans are resigned to living and working in mediocre places. Too many of them, like the homemakers invoked by the title of this book, live in quiet desperation, unaware of the impact their environments have on them and unable to do anything about it. Therein lies the urban mystique. Feminist pioneer Betty Friedan described the “feminine mystique” as a sense of tension and ambiguity about women’s roles in the 1950s, especially in suburbia. For her, gender roles, and gender discrimination, were directly tied to urban form. The wonderful things about homemaking—raising children, living comfortably, contributing to a loving marriage—contrasted with feelings of isolation, boredom, and purposelessness, among others. I tend to apply that sense of tension and mixed feelings to many other aspects of the American, and Californian, urban experience. I've never been a homemaker. But I grew up in Los Angeles, in one of its many not-quite-urban, not-quite-suburban neighborhoods. I was steeped equally in the city’s mythology and its imperfections. Cities are wonderful places, but they can be terrible places too—sometimes all at once. Cities’ mystique lies in the idea that their value is not necessarily evident or definable. The urban mystique is different for everyone. But, as Freidan implies, we must at least acknowledge that it exists. We must acknowledge that cities can be special places and that they must not simply be a collection of demographic data, economic output, and real estate transactions. Why are they special? Because people are special. And more people live in cities than anywhere else. Cities are where some people go to survive and where some people go to chase, and sometimes achieve, their highest ambitions. Cities will never be “perfect” the way the suburbs have been rumored to be. They can be better than perfect, though, as long as we don’t pretend that perfection should be the goal. And, ideally, they require everyone to contribute to their evolution. Urban life should center on inspiration and improvement, not passivity and resignation. I’ve been lucky enough to write during a fascinating decade. Cities have grown more quickly in other decades (1980s). And they have suffered more problems in still others (1970s). But, I’d argue, the 2010s have been about as interesting it gets. Much of the stuff about which I am most cranky has been improving. Many of my fellow members of Gen X feel just as I did about their upbringing and have been working like crazy to reclaim the urban experience for themselves and the next generation (and their parents’ generations, in some cases). Principles of smart growth, new urbanism, and environmentalism have permeated the mainstream so fully that we rarely even refer to them as such anymore. What makes Los Angeles frustrating and unpleasant is the very same thing that makes it fascinating: it was built imperfectly, at an imperfect time. Now, Los Angeles—along with the rest of California—is trying to reinvent itself. That’s a difficult process: to shoehorn a new city into the old. In a 2015 CP&DR article on Los Angeles’s new mobility plan, I equated the process of urban redevelopment to the infusion of adamantium into the bones of Wolverine. It’s the geekiest thing I’ve ever written (and I don’t even like comic books), but it’s apt because, well, they are both unspeakably painful processes. This evolution stretches all the way back to Frederick Jackson Turner’s Frontier Thesis, on which I wrote my undergraduate thesis. He described the continent’s endless tracts of empty land as America’s escape valve and the thing that made America uniquely American. Turner pronounced the Frontier “closed” in 1890. By then, San Francisco had a population of 300,000 and Los Angeles 50,000. But the Frontier found new life in the suburbs, as cities expanded and conquered their own hinterlands. That lasted for another century. This process is what Los Angeles Chief Design Officer Christopher Hawthorne refers to as the “Third L.A.”—the pioneer city and the post-World War II boom town being the first two. I’ve called it “the backwash of sprawl.” The unseemly metaphor is deliberate. We’ve built some heinous stuff: cheap, low-density development from the coast to the mountains to the desert. Now this form of urbanism faces a reckoning. The political element of these challenges has gotten more contentious and more colorful of late. Several of these pieces refer to the rise of the YIMBY (“yes in my backyard”) movement and its venerable predecessor and antagonist, the NIMBY movement. Both have gotten more active with the rise of the housing crisis in the early 2010s, as the recession wore off and young Californians with disposable incomes—and penchants for urban living—found themselves with far too many homes to choose from. This debate also includes the social justice community, which rightfully fears for low-income residents who are being displaced, and it includes what I call the “radical left,” which is more outspoken, more militant, and reviles for-profit development. That’s why, for every great new development, be it a renovated loft building, light rail line, affordable housing complex, or community garden, there are countless others who cherish (or at least tolerate) the 20th century model of urbanism. And there are discontents who, either out of spite or genuine concern for their livelihood, resist the changes that many of us believe cities need. In that sense, the title of Bill Fulton’s book The Reluctant Metropolis is as apt as ever. Any place housing 15 million people is nothing if not a metropolis. But many of Los Angeles’s citizens still resist metropolitan life. They didn’t buy into it 50 years ago—when center cities were genuinely unpleasant (and when white people were more overtly racist)—and they don’t want to buy into it today. Sometimes, the best thing you can say about Californians is that we couldn’t care less about one another: you do your thing, I’ll do mine. That attitude might be great if, say, you want to become a Hollywood star or just put food on the table as a day laborer, but it is not a recipe for a great city. In Los Angeles and across the state, we do some things really well and some things really badly—sometimes at the same time. We protect some environmental treasures while bulldozing others. We preserve historic architecture while putting up crap left and right. Most notably, I think, we have ourselves one of the most spectacular natural environments in the developed world, and, excepting some gems, we delight in sullying it with utterly mediocre cityscapes. On the days when Los Angeles gets me down, I find some solace in looking up at the Santa Monica Mountains. To its credit, Los Angeles gets better year by year—in some ways. I get excited about new transit lines and many of the new developments. Sure, I try to stay balanced and objective in my news reporting, but I’m still a human being and a resident. The city is different enough now to keep me interested. I realize, of course, that the things I love aren’t universally loved. Much of the backlash against so-called gentrification and hipster-fication is understandable (if not always warranted). My fear, which I imply in several of these pieces, is that these rivalries are going to lead to stagnation, at best. I hope they will not. Our greatest challenge is to make sure that urban life serves everyone so that rich and poor, marginalized and powerful are all enriched by one another. You can purchase The Urban Mystique here .