The Brief

After heavy rains, we’re learning more about how the Palisades Fire runoff could be affecting our coastline. County officials and other groups have been testing the areas for things like heavy metals that could cause health concerns.

Last month, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health temporarily closed about nine miles of ocean water, which reopened recently.

But L.A. County’s Department of Beaches and Harbors (DBH) said Tuesday the storms had washed up large amounts of timber and twisted metals, as well as charred silt and sediment, onto the coast.

So where do things stand? We look into whether it’s OK for people to visit the beach.

Should we be worried about debris?

Not all debris is necessarily harmful. County beach and harbor officials said the debris that’s washing up is made of fine ash mixed with sand. Testing is ongoing but early results look good.

Sediment tests from Will Rogers State Beach and Topanga Beach after the Jan. 26 storm showed “the material was not hazardous to beachgoers or the environment,” according to the department.

As for the dark, charred sediment, the department says it has no plans to remove it, because scraping it off could cause long-term environmental damage to ecosystems and the shoreline.

However, the larger charred debris — like big wood pieces that have been found as far south as Redondo Beach — is being removed by crews as soon as it washes up.

If you see pieces of large debris on the beach, you should report it to the nearest lifeguard, or call DBH at (424) 526-7777.

The confusion 

Last month’s ocean water closure initially sparked some concern, as beachgoers were told to avoid contact with sand from Las Flores State Beach to Santa Monica State Beach.

But the beaches themselves — where people could lie down and sunbathe — stayed open. David Ginsburg, a USC environmental studies professor, tried to find information about beach conditions but ended up confused over the contradictory information.

“  I don’t think that’s on purpose, but I think that’s because there’s a lot of uncertainty about where various closures and advisories may be put up for water quality and beach locations,” he said.

Public health officials later revised that ocean water closure to only avoiding contact with debris on the sand. Then it was downgraded to an advisory after testing from Las Flores State Beach to Dockweiler State Beach “did not indicate ocean impacts that pose a human health risk.”

Ginsburg, who’s an expert in pollution in coastal waters, said one of the reasons behind the confusion is that there aren’t easy ways to test for wildfire contaminants at the beach. Scientists need to have an idea of what they’re looking for first, and ocean water testing for public recreation is typically designed around bacteria levels.

“ What we don’t have a good set of standards for is looking for everything else that might be in the water, given this unprecedented event of wildfire and what could be making its way from the burn areas into the water,” Ginsburg said.

The nonprofit Heal the Bay is working alongside other organizations to try and test for these concerns. They've tested the waters a few times already, and their results should be posted in the next few weeks here. Here's a look at one of the testing trips:

What testing means for you

If you’re wondering if you should be going to the beach, experts say it should be fine as long as you follow some common sense practices.

Howard Hu, a  professor of preventive medicine also at USC, said beach advisories are a precautionary step while testing is completed. As an expert in toxic exposure and coastal areas, he said the main concern isn’t usually about sand directly.

“ I think the advisories are really all about the discharge from storm drains and things that end up flowing out into the ocean and then coming back onto the beach whenever the tide comes in and out,” Hu said.

Health officials have said the beaches are safe to be at, but that beachgoers should continue to avoid fire debris. As a precaution, you may want to avoid wet sand and areas near storm drains. Untouched sand should be fine.

“I think that would be just as contaminated as the ground that’s in places that hadn't burned,” Hu added.

You can find the latest beach advisories here. Heal the Bay is also regularly updating its Beach Report Card here.

Companies that create and manufacture personal delivery devices, those cute bots you see on public sidewalks, have been working on growth plans for years.

Cities, on whose public sidewalks the delivery bots travel, are only now catching up to regulating them and charging the companies fees.

That's what's happening in Glendale, where, City Councilman Dan Brotman says, “[The delivery bots] just appeared out of nowhere. The company that operates [them] never reached out and talked to us."

He and other council members, he said, want to know if the delivery devices make it harder for Glendale residents using wheelchairs to use public sidewalks.

“I also am curious who is getting the financial benefit from these,” he said.

Glendale’s City Council asked city staff last month to draft two proposals, one with regulations and fees and the other pausing the operation of delivery bots while the council studies their impact. Brotman said staff may deliver those proposals to him and his colleagues in the months to come.

The two largest cities in LA County, at two different stages

The City of Los Angeles approved rules for personal delivery devices a few years ago, including flat permit fees. The City Council has since asked staff in the Department of Transportation to revaluate those rules and make suggestions.

One idea being considered — charging companies for every bot trip instead of the flat fee.

A delivery robot sits next to the bike path by the beach

(

Courtesy Coco

)

L.A. City Councilwoman Eunisses Hernandez successfully introduced the motion last year to have the regulations revisited. 

“[The companies are] starting to put movie ads or show ads, and if they're generating revenue off that, we want to know what that looks like but also be able to have a fee for them,” Hernandez said.

That report should be presented to the City Council later this year, she said. 

She’s also keen to hear from the public about their views on delivery bots. 

Companies that make the devices argue they’re providing an essential delivery service to residents while cutting down on the number of vehicles on the road making the deliveries.

“We currently pay fees in Los Angeles, Chicago and West Hollywood as part of their permit programs and are open to similar models in other cities,” said Vignesh Ram, vice president of policy at Serve Robotics, by email.

Starship Technologies' delivery robot exits the elevator in the company's office.

(

Meg Kelly

/

NPR

)

The company is now operating in Long Beach; Ram says it notified the city before beginning to operate there.

A City of Long Beach spokesperson told LAist its business licensing, planning and public works teams are currently working on recommendations for regulations. Those should be presented to the City Council early this summer.

The story first appeared on The LA Local.

When Hermila Melero trains future therapists at Cal State LA, she emphasizes something she learned over nearly two decades working on the Eastside: It matters where you’re from. 

“When you know the difference between East LA and Boyle Heights … they appreciate that on a really fundamental level,” Melero, director of field education at CSULA’s School of Social Work, said. “You feel a sense of safety and being seen when the person reflects what you look like, has a foundational understanding of where you come from.” 

Now, a $48 million grant to California State University, Los Angeles, will open new opportunities for students to serve the communities they come from. The funding will expand the university’s social work and counseling programs, training 1,000 new students to support youth mental health in Eastside communities and other underserved areas of Los Angeles.

What will the funding do?

The five-year investment by the Ballmer Group — the largest grant in the university’s history — will significantly grow Cal State LA’s Master of Social Work program. 

Its one-year MSW program will double in size, the two‑year program will increase by 50%, and the School-Based Family Counseling program will also double. The bulk of the funding will support scholarships, new faculty and the expansion of clinical placements.

Cal State LA already partners with organizations across the Eastside, including El Centro De Ayuda, AltaMed, Survivor Justice Center and schools across LAUSD. The new funding will allow more students to work directly with these groups, serving families who often lack access to care. 

“This speaks to the amazing work our social work and counseling programs are doing within our schools and with LA’s agencies serving youth and families,” said CSULA President Berenecea Johnson Eanes in a statement to Boyle Heights Beat. “With more clinical placements and greater numbers of master’s alumni, we will make real strides in meeting a critical shortage of qualified social workers and counselors.”

In addition to CSULA, CSU Dominguez Hills received $29 million to expand mental health resources in South LA and UCLA will use part of its $33 million grant to develop a minor in youth behavioral health. The three universities have received a total of $110 million. 

When Hermila Melero trains future therapists at Cal State LA, she emphasizes something she learned over nearly two decades working on the Eastside: It matters where you’re from.

(

Courtesy CSULA

)

Why representation matters

For Melero, who was born and raised in East LA, the expansion is personal. 

Melero spent 17 years of her professional career as a social worker in her own community and the surrounding areas. She witnessed firsthand how much her patients appreciated it when she spoke to them in Spanish or told them where she grew up. 

“You don’t have to explain yourself, you don’t have to explain what it’s like, you know, to grow up here,” she said. 

Now as director of field education, she helps place students in organizations, clinics and schools across the region, many of them serving the neighborhood they call home. 

Barriers to access

The need for more mental health workers comes at a time when many Eastside families are facing more barriers to care.

Stigma around mental health combined with fear tied to immigration raids have discouraged some people from seeking services, Melero said.

At the same time, financial challenges are making it harder for students to enter the profession. 

In January, the U.S. Department of Education updated its definition of a “professional degree” and excluded social work, which will affect graduate students’ eligibility for federal student loans, creating a significant financial barrier, according to the Council on Social Work Education.

Students hope to give back

For students like Silvia Perez, 41, financial assistance would be a great help.

The Cal State LA undergraduate student is pursuing her master’s degree after she graduates in May, all while raising two teenagers and a 23-year-old. Perez has been paying for her education by selling shoes and perfume outside of her home in East LA. 

Her decision to pursue a career in social work came after seeing her sister navigate the Department of Children and Family Services system with her children and witnessing how young people in her community struggled with substance abuse and homelessness. 

After graduating, Perez hopes to work in East LA to help the people she encounters every day. She believes that level of understanding can create trust with an already vulnerable population.

“I would like to help the people in my community first…I live the daily life that everyone else in my community faces,” she said.

For more information on CSULA’s MSW programs, click here.

Editor’s Note: The LA Local also receives support from the Ballmer Group.

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 voted unanimously Tuesday 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.”

The district will create a policy that the school board will vote on 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 states.

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.