The Brief

Frustrated with the pace of the long-promised cleanup of radioactive material from the Santa Susana Field Lab, a coalition of activists will be protesting starting today to demand an urgent cleanup of a nuclear waste site near Simi Valley.

The activists are marking the 65th anniversary of a partial nuclear reactor meltdown at the Santa Susana Field Lab in July 1959, which released radioactive material and other toxic chemicals into the soil and surrounding areas. At the time, the Atomic Energy Commission issued a statement claiming that there was "no release of radioactive materials" into the surrounding area, which was later shown to be false.

Even after the meltdown, the 2850-acre site was still used for nuclear development and testing until 1988, according to the Department of Energy. The site was also used for rocket tests conducted by NASA and its contractor Rocketdyne. Ownership of the majority of the site was transferred to Boeing in 1996, though the U.S. government owns the remaining portions.

Activists and environmental groups allege that since Boeing became stewards of the site — and the hazardous chemicals within — the company has been slow to mitigate risks for surrounding residents.

"They are trying to get out of the full, complete cleanup," said Melissa Bumstead, founder and co-director of the group Parents Against Santa Susana Field Lab. "They want to cut corners. And they're minimizing the risk to the public."

For their part, Boeing said the company is following a cleanup procedure laid out by the California Environmental Protection Agency two years ago "to implement a stringent cleanup of the site."

"The cleanup framework provides Boeing with a clear process, schedule, and criteria for future decision-making, while protecting important biological and cultural resources," a Boeing spokesperson wrote in an email to LAist. "Interim soil and groundwater measures are ongoing and the final soil and groundwater cleanup are slated to start as soon as 2026."

Studies conducted over the years have not always been able to demonstrate a significant increase in rates of cancer near the former test site, though many others have.

"Taken together, the studies do not support a link between incidences of cancer and past operations at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory," Boeing wrote to LAist.

Bumstead and her fellow advocates refute this, pointing to several studies that found higher rates of certain types of cancer for people working and living close to the site. For Bumstead, the issue is personal.

"My daughter is 14 now, but she's a two-time cancer survivor, and she's one of 80 kids in our community who've had cancer that we know of," Bumstead said.

The spread of radiation from the site also became a flashpoint for surrounding areas following the Woolsey Fire in 2018, which burned through parts of the SSFL site.

At the time, California's Department of Toxic Substances Control said that they did not believe any toxic chemicals had been released into surrounding areas. However, a study published in 2021 found that while most samples taken nearby did not have elevated radiation levels, radioactive matter did spread outside of the site.

The highest levels of radiation in the study were detected in Thousand Oaks, about 9 miles from the site of Santa Susana Field Lab.

Boeing entered into mediation with the state in 2021, according to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. In 2022, the parties announced a cleanup agreement to "hold Boeing accountable" after 15 months of negotiations. The state set stringent standards for the cleanup, saying that it should be sufficiently free from waste for residents to live on the site and grow their own produce from the formerly contaminated soil.

That full cleanup is expected to take 10 to 15 years, though state officials said they're looking at ways to expedite the process.

Bumstead and other advocates say that the sooner the site is rid of nuclear waste and other hazardous materials, the better.

"One of the long term problems, one of the reasons why this has taken 65 years, is it's easy to kick the can down the road forever," Bumstead said.

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

California scored a legal victory Monday that for now, undermines the Trump administration’s efforts to drastically cut funding for homeless housing.

Changes that would have diverted huge chunks of federal funds away from permanent housing and funneled them instead into temporary shelters and sober living programs will remain suspended after the Trump administration dropped its appeal of an earlier court loss. While the broader case is still being litigated, the new development could provide some reassurance to California counties waiting for the federal funds.

“We continue to fight for Californians and the rule of law, and we continue to win,” Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a news release. “People experiencing housing insecurity or homelessness need the federal government’s continued support — not a rollback of assistance.”

In November, the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development attempted to change the way it doles out money for homeless services via its Continuum of Care program. It decreed that jurisdictions applying for a piece of about $4 billion in federal homelessness funds can’t spend more than 30% of that money on permanent housing — a move that would result in a significant cut to the type of long-term housing that can resolve someone’s homelessness.

Last year, California communities spent about 90% of their federal Continuum of Care funds on permanent housing.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration quickly joined 19 other states and the District of Columbia in suing to stop the Trump administration’s changes. In December, a federal judge in Rhode Island temporarily blocked the changes and ordered HUD to process funding applications under the original rules. The Trump administration appealed that ruling, leaving local governments and homeless service providers unsure of what they would be awarded funding for, and when.

The federal government on Monday dropped its appeal. While the rest of the lawsuit will move forward, and could take months to resolve, counties should be able to access permanent housing funds in the meantime.

Instead of prioritizing permanent housing, as has been the rule in the past, the Trump administration wants to focus more on shelters that get people off the streets quickly and temporarily, and on programs that require residents to be sober. HUD also attempted to ban the use of federal homelessness funds for diversity and inclusion efforts, support of transgender clients, and use of “harm reduction” strategies that seek to reduce overdose deaths by helping people in active addiction use drugs more safely.

A HUD spokesperson said the agency stood by its funding reforms.

“HUD remains committed to reforming the failed ‘Housing First’ approach and restoring the Continuum of Care program to its core objectives; reducing homelessness and promoting self-sufficiency for all vulnerable Americans, ensuring taxpayer dollars are directed towards those goals,” a spokesperson said in a statement.

HUD experienced another legal setback last month when a federal judge in Rhode Island shot down the agency’s attempt to upend another, smaller, source of federal homelessness funding. At issue in that case was a program called the Continuum of Care Builds grant, which funds the construction of new homeless housing. HUD last year made grantees reapply under a very different set of criteria, which seemed to disqualify organizations that support trans clients, use “harm reduction” to prevent drug overdose deaths or operate in a “sanctuary city.”

About $75 million in federal funds had been frozen as that case moved forward.

In March, the court found HUD violated the law through its “slapdash imposition of political whims.”

“This ruling is a victory for people across this nation who have overcome homelessness and stabilized in HUD’s permanent housing programs,” Ann Oliva, chief executive of the National Alliance to End Homelessness, which filed the lawsuit, wrote in a statement. “Today’s news reinforces a fundamental truth: that the work to end homelessness is not partisan, and never should be interfered with for political means.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

The Los Angeles Unified School Board is set to vote Tuesday afternoon on moving toward limiting screen time for students at school.

The resolution requires the school district to create a policy that includes maximum daily and weekly screen time limits based on grade level and “encourage the use of paper and pen assignments.”

“We had not recalibrated or reset our relationship with technology post-COVID,” said school board member Nick Melvoin, who brought forth the measure. “Six years ago, we sent every kid in L.A. home with a device, which was a lifeline. … But when they came back, I'm still seeing kids as young as preschool on devices all day.”

If adopted, the district would create a policy that the school board would approve by June and that would be implemented next school year.

Why is the board considering this?

Research has shown excessive usage of screens can hurt children’s mental and physical health.

“Addiction-like use of short-form video content — including YouTube and social media platforms — are correlated with higher levels of social anxiety among adolescents,” the resolution reads.

Sandra Martinez Roe, a parent in northeast L.A., said she had tried to limit screen time at home for her now fourth-grade son, but in second grade, he started bringing home a laptop from school for his homework.

“ I just feel very strongly about children being able to experience childhood and really delaying the tech as long as possible. And when my son came home with a Chromebook and started talking about the Minecraft games and this game and that game, I about lost it,” Martinez Roe said.

Martinez Roe is a member of the parent advocacy group Schools Beyond Screens, which has been pushing for the resolution.

“ He didn't understand why the keyboard wasn't in alphabetical order. And this was a real big concern for me because I thought, he's in second grade, he's learning how to read, how to write, and you're expecting him to do this all on a Chromebook without a typing class first?” Martinez Roe said.

How is this different from the cellphone ban? 

While the school district currently has a ban on cell phones throughout the school day that went into effect last year, this resolution is about laptops and tablets that are given to students in the district. The district moved to equip each student with their own digital devices during the pandemic that they could take home.

“There’s still access to YouTube, some games like Roblox, Minecraft. … I've seen some clever kids who know that they can't be on their phones during lunch, will be on their computers during lunch,” Melvoin said.

What does this resolution mean for early grades?

The measure would ban the student use of digital devices from preschool through first grade, except when needed for district-mandated assessments.

What does it mean for kids second grade through 12th?

The district will set maximum daily and weekly screen time limits for students by grade level. It would also block student-led use of YouTube or other video streaming platforms on district devices.

For students from second to fifth grade, the policy would “encourage schools to utilize laptop carts and/or computer labs.”

The measure would also ban the use of student devices during lunch and recess through middle school — except for teacher-approved work.

For middle and high school students, Melvoin said it’s about creating guardrails on screens versus a strict ban.

“So the high school student who is in class and sitting on their device and needs to Google it will almost certainly still be allowed to,” he said.

What does this mean for teachers?

The resolution is aimed at student-led use of digital devices. Teachers can still use YouTube and devices for instruction.

“Teachers, even in kindergarten and preschool, who want to put up a video of singing the alphabet song in different languages or some of those morning routines that I see when I'm in preschools [are] unfettered by this resolution,” Melvoin said. “It was really about the students and the ads that come up on YouTube, the algorithm that will send kids from a video about dinosaurs to something that we don’t want them to see.”

Could this mean students use screens more at home?

Melvoin told LAist that’s a fair concern but has heard about students pointing out their parents’ own excessive usage of their cell phones.

“ It's about creating good habits that we hope will trickle up both to their parents and also outside of the school day,” he said.

Martinez Roe agrees.

“I think that now when you see what's happening to us as adults, where we can barely put our phones down, it's like, it’s going to be three times as hard for our kids, and I don't wanna set my kid up for that — and definitely not do it through the school,” she said.

The story first appeared on The LA Local.

A stretch of residential streets between Koreatown and Pico Union is slated for changes to slow down traffic aimed at making it safer to walk and bike, as Los Angeles moves forward with street redesigns ahead of the Summer Olympic Games.

The project — currently referred to as Koreatown Pico Union Neighborhood Connect — would create a nearly two-mile, pedestrian-friendly route along New Hampshire Avenue, Berendo Street, and Washington Boulevard, connecting residential blocks with schools and Metro’s Wilshire/Vermont Station.

It’s designed as a lower-stress alternative to Vermont Avenue, a major corridor that carries heavy traffic through the area.

On a recent weekday afternoon near Berendo Middle School — one of the schools along the route — pedestrians were out and about, including students walking home, residents on a leisurely stroll with their dogs, and people biking through the streets. 

Sol Mendoza, who walks down the street from the school with her 5-year-old son every day, said she generally feels safe in the neighborhood but has concerns about how some drivers behave at crossings. 

“Sometimes the cars passing don’t stop or forget to stop,” she said, gesturing to the curb where her son was playing with his mini kick scooter. “They fail to see people walking and go really fast.”

The plan aims to slow vehicle traffic and improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists through measures including traffic circles, speed humps, crosswalk signals, traffic diverters, bike boxes and wayfinding signage, though final decisions will depend on community feedback, according to the Los Angeles Department of Transportation.

The City of Los Angeles is seeking to calm traffic and provide bicyclists and pedestrians an alternative to the high-traffic Vermont Avenue corridor.

(

Hanna Kang

/

The LA Local

)

Construction is expected to be completed by spring 2028, according to city documents, with final designs anticipated this fall. The project has been awarded about $5.4 million in funding from Metro through its Active Transportation grant program, according to city documents.

According to LADOT, the corridor would make it easier and safer to get to schools, including Berendo Middle School, Loyola High School, and Camino Nuevo Charter Academy. The proposal is part of the city’s Mobility Plan 2035, which identifies streets for improvements aimed at walking and biking.

A LADOT survey of 729 respondents last fall found that 68% want safer, quieter streets and 43% would consider biking along the route if safety improved. Top concerns included speeding traffic, dangerous intersections and limited visibility at crossings.

Mary Lee, who lives near the route, supports creating an alternative and safer path to Vermont Avenue for pedestrians. 

“I feel pretty safe here but when I’m walking along Vermont to go to the bank or a restaurant with my friends, I’m on edge because people on scooters whiz past me sometimes and they’re really fast. It’s also very loud,” she said.

Lee, who does not drive, said residential streets can also feel unsafe depending on how certain drivers behave.

“There are people who go really fast and don’t slow down when they turn,” she said. “You don’t know if they’ve actually seen you or not, and it doesn’t always feel safe.” 

She’s skeptical about how well the pedestrian-focused changes will work.

“It sounds promising, but who knows, it’s L.A., and a lot of people just ignore signs and break the rules,” she said.

Scooter riders in the area also see room for improvement.

Alfredo Hernandez, a delivery driver who frequents Koreatown, feels generally comfortable navigating the area on a scooter as an experienced rider but sees gaps in infrastructure. 

“I’d like to see more dedicated paths for people who are on scooters or walking,” he said. “I don’t think there’s enough of that.”