The Brief

Fires are still burning in parts of Los Angeles, and potentially dangerous winds continue to be a threat.

Wildfire smoke causes particularly dangerous air quality, especially for sensitive groups that include children and pregnant people. The multiple fires that broke out last week led L.A. County to issue a smoke advisory that ended Sunday evening, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District extended a "windblown dust and ash advisory" through Wednesday evening.

Many families are still wondering, justly, how safe the air is. Facebook and Reddit groups for parents and caretakers have been bursting with questions about what children can or can't do, and making some version of the same inquiries: How can the air supposedly be OK when it’s filled with ash? And what does that mean for kids?

What’s in the air?

First, the risks.

Wildfire smoke includes small particles that can be dangerous for your health. (It’s called particulate matter 2.5).

As LAist has reported:

"It's not just forest burning, but unfortunately, homes and businesses and factories with their own sets of plastics and toxins that… will be high levels of oxides, nitrates, and heavy metals that can be carcinogenic," said Richard Castriotta, a pulmonologist at the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine.

How do I know what particulates are in the air?

The South Coast Air Quality Management District monitors particulates in our region, and is responsible for the air quality index (or AQI). And experts say AQI is a good place to start. The SC AQMD marks 0-50 air quality as good, 51-100 as moderate, and anything higher as unhealthy for sensitive groups, which includes pregnant people and children.

But the AQI doesn't account for everything, said Michael Kleinman, co-director of the Air Pollution Health Effects Laboratory with UC Irvine's School of Population and Public Health.

"The particles from the fire, especially close to where the fire was, will be contaminated with other toxic materials, and they can be a harm hazard," he said.

PurpleAir, a network of public air quality sensors, offers an alternative view to AQMD's.

Read more from LAist: Does a ‘good’ Air Quality Index rating mean it’s safe to be outdoors?

The AQI is fine, but I'm still worried. What should I know?

Castriotta with USC said toxins from burning homes won't always be taken into consideration in the air quality index. And the closer you are to a fire or burned homes, the higher the risk of those contaminants in the air.

He said potentially toxic ash from burned buildings could get spread in the aftermath of a fire — but where it goes depends on the winds.

"If you're in Santa Monica close to the Palisades Fire, or if you're in Pasadena close to the Eaton Fire and the wind's blowing in that direction, then you probably want to keep your kids out of ... the outside air," he said.

Why are children and pregnant people at a higher risk around wildfire smoke?

These pollutants can be particularly dangerous for young children and pregnant people because they have higher respiratory rates, according to Rita Kachru, the chief of allergy and immunology at UCLA. This means that these groups are breathing faster — so they inhale more pollutants per minute.

"[Children are] considered a little bit more high-risk because they're a little bit more sensitive to the air pollution, because they tend to spend more time outside," Kachru said. "They tend to have more vigorous activity when they're running around outside. It's hard to tell a little 3-year-old, 'OK, go outside, but don't run around.'"

Children with pre-existing health conditions such as allergies and asthma may be at higher risk when it comes to wildfire smoke exposure, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

How do I protect myself and my kids from bad air quality?

The best mitigation is being out of environments with unhealthy air, said Mary Johnson, a research scientist at Harvard's School of Public Health.

" If you can stay away from the smoke and stay indoors, or go where the air quality is better, you should do it. It's always better to avoid exposure," she told LAist on Monday.

If you can't leave the area entirely, multiple health experts agreed that staying inside is important to staying healthy.

"I know we all have PTSD from COVID, and that's the last thing anybody wants to hear is stay indoors," Kachru said. "But really, that is the best thing you can do."

Staying healthy while indoors

Much of the advice for keeping children safe is the same as the guidance everyone is following. The CDC advises parents to:

• Keep children indoors when air quality is poor
• Keep doors and windows closed
• If possible, use an HVAC system with an air filter or a portable air filter.

Kachru also recommends keeping infants and children cool and hydrated during a wildfire, for example by giving your child a cool bath.

"Keep them cool, so they don't have too much internal heat as well," she said.

And here are other tips we've compiled from our previous coverage and elsewhere:

• Experts recommend a HEPA filter — worth noting, HEPA stands for high efficiency particulate air — if you can get one. If you can't access an air filter, here's a guide to making your own out of a box fan.
• The Environmental Protection Agency suggests creating a clean room in your home — a designated space to keep air quality as high as possible. It has a guide to setting this up here.

We have to go outside. What should we do?

If you have to be outside in bad air quality, wear an N-95 mask. Children over the age of 2 can also wear a mask, but make sure it fits properly.

" My suggestion is to make a game out of it, so that the child will accept it," said Castriotta with USC about helping your child to wear a mask.

He also said if you need to take your kids somewhere in a car, run the air conditioning and make sure the air that's circulating is just the air that's inside the car.

We evacuated and are returning to our home. How do I know it's safe?

The L.A. County Department of Public Health advises parents returning home after a wildfire to keep children away from ash and items covered in ash.

"Think of ash like fine, dangerous dust that can be inhaled deep into the lungs and can cause major problems everywhere it lands. It's not just dirt," a county advisory states.

Before returning with children to an area impacted by wildfire, the EPA and pediatric groups recommend you check for:

• safe drinking water
• running electricity
• safe road conditions
• structurally sound homes; and
• sewage, ash, and debris have been removed

Kleinman with UC Irvine advises those returning home to wipe down walls and surfaces, and vacuum to clean the house. The county recommends a vacuum with a HEPA filter — a vacuum that sprays dust around could be counterproductive.

" Even though the ambient air, the outside air, is relatively clean, the air inside the home may be worse," Kleinman said.

He added that if you don't have an air quality monitor, looking for how much dust is accumulating is a good way to get a sense of indoor air quality.

And if you do return to a site where a home burned down, experts say to be careful afterward.

" Don't take your outer clothing that you wore into the fire zone and then wash it with the family laundry, because whatever toxic chemicals are there are going to be spread around," Kleinman said. " People have to be very cautious and avoid unnecessary exposure."

Learn more from an expert

On Jan. 22, we interviewed Kachru about all things air quality for an Instagram Live presentation. Watch it for yourself:

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

The Baldwin Hills Branch of Los Angeles Public Library is now home to a nearly 100-year-old Black history collection containing thousands of historical records and items.

The Dorothy Vena Johnson Black History Collection is named after the poet, educator and co-founder of the League of Allied Arts and contains 2,300 items including newspaper clippings, magazines, photographs, biographies, autobiographies, nonfiction, scholarly texts, multi-volume sets and about 25 rare items found only at the Baldwin Hills Branch, according to Jené D. Brown, the director of the library’s emerging technologies and collections division. 

The library held a ceremony Saturday where they unveiled the collection, whose origins date back to 1927 when Miriam Matthews, the first Black librarian employed by the LA Public Library, began documenting and archiving California’s Black history to ensure its preservation, according to the library. 

“I’m glad it’s still being recognized and acknowledged,” Danielle Durkee, Matthews’ great niece said after attending the ceremony. “She always bought us books, she always had us involved in everything the library had to offer. So that’s what I was exposed to growing up.” 

Baldwin Hills is considered a part of LA’s Black cultural hub and the collection will be more visible and accessible at this location, library officials said during the ceremony. But it’s not just about changing locations, it’s about protecting the legacy of Black stories and placing the collection within a community that will honor it the most. 

“We have insisted that Black history is not a footnote but an essential and enduring part of the American story. This is why this collection matters,” said guest speaker Lura Daniels-Ball, president of the Our Author Study Club of Los Angeles. 

The Los Angeles Public Library displays a timeline at the Baldwin Hills Branch Library outlining how the Dorothy Vena Johnson Black History Collection began nearly 100 years ago.

(

LaMonica Peters

/

The LA Local

)

The collection moving to Baldwin Hills was also an opportunity for the library system to recognize the people who were determined to preserve LA’s Black history for future generations. 

“(Matthews) recognized that our shelves did not represent the communities she was serving,” City Librarian John F. Szabo told The LA Local. “She saw it as such an important thing to develop a collection not only of books and ephemera, but of photographs that told not only the history of African Americans in Los Angeles but of Black history from everywhere.” 

The collection was renamed in 1971 and, until 2025, it was housed at the Vernon Branch Library on Central Avenue where Matthews once worked,  according to Brown, the library’s emerging technologies and collections director.  

Heather Hutt, LA City Council District 10 councilmember, was also in attendance at Saturday’s ceremony. She told the crowd she used to work in the downtown library and that her family loves books. 

“If you get a chance to really look at the collection, share that with other folks so they know what’s happening right here at the Baldwin Hills library,” Hutt said.

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

More than half the money set aside by the city of Los Angeles for programs and services for unhoused people was not spent last fiscal year, according to an analysis by the city controller.

Los Angeles allocates more than $1 billion to agencies and initiatives responsible for helping the city’s unhoused population, which, at about 72,000 people, is among the largest in the nation.

In fiscal year 2025, the city left $473 million unspent.

These funds are intended to go to a variety of programs like emergency assistance for people facing eviction, substance abuse treatment and housing assistance, including shelter that can accommodate pets.

The controller provided several recommendations on how the city can better account for its homelessness budget, including spending housing grants in the same year they are reported, better communicating timelines to the public for when affordable housing will be available, and to analyze the budgets monthly to identify issues faster.

Most of the unspent money comes from special funds that roll over into the next year. But the discrepancy between budgeting in one year and spending another muddies the public’s ability to track how money is being spent on one of the city’s most pressing problems.

“The large homelessness budget leads the public to believe that the city is spending much more on homelessness than it actually is, increasing the public’s expectations and causing frustration when results inevitably do not align with the budget,” Controller Kenneth Mejia said in a prepared statement.

The city’s unhoused population has decreased slightly over the last two years even as it has increased about 18% nationally over that same time period. L.A. Mayor Karen Bass has taken credit for recent drops in the city, one of the primary issues she’s focused on during her tenure.

Bass released a statement supporting the controller’s recommendations on how to better account for the funds.

“We are committed to transparency so Angelenos will have a clear picture and understanding of how much is being spent in one year and what funding is supporting programs over multiple years,” Bass said. “It’s important that we strategically spend funding over multiple years to ensure we can sustain progress despite state and federal changes.”

A spokesperson for her office told The LA Local that Bass has been committed to identifying ways the city can better address homelessness and supported the controller’s recommendations. But stopped short of providing concrete steps for what will be done next.

“She’s been cutting red tape in City Hall from day one and will back any serious proposal to ensure every dollar the City spends is clear, accountable, and effective,” the mayor’s press office wrote by email.

The L.A. controller’s analysis, released Monday, found that the largest share of unspent money came from a state housing grant. More than $223 million in Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) grants, which are issued by the California’s Department of Housing & Community Development, have yet to be used. 

A spokesperson for the state’s housing department told The LA Local that the HHAP grants are provided in multiyear rounds providing two-year windows for when they need to be used. That flexibility is part of what accounts for the delayed spending.

The second-largest amount was a little more than $99 million of unspent funds from Measure ULA, the city’s so-called “mansion tax” on property sales above $5 million. Those funds can also be retained and spent at a later date.

2025 was the second year in a row that the controller found a pattern of underspending homelessness funds. About $513 million went unspent in 2024, of the approximately $1.3 billion in funds set aside. This spending is particularly difficult to track because it comes from an array of sources and is distributed across a variety of agencies.

Mejia explained to The LA Local that tracking this spending was one of his priorities when he took office. His team created accounting codes, which hadn’t been done before, to better account for the money in various departments over several budget cycles.

“Once we started tracking homelessness spending, we were able to find out that the city wasn’t actually spending anything close to what it was budgeting for homelessness – for two years in a row,” Mejia said.

Councilmember Nithya Raman, who represents District 4 and is running for mayor, said the budget included money set aside for a homelessness oversight bureau she helped create, but has not yet been staffed.

“Nearly a year later, not one staff member has been hired,” Raman said in statement attached to Mejia’s report. “Unless we are able to move with greater urgency to provide accountability to the public, Angelenos will lose faith that the city is spending these desperately needed dollars well.”

A Los Angeles jury on Wednesday found that Meta and Google were to blame for the depression and anxiety of a woman who compulsively used social media as a small child, awarding her $3 million in a rare verdict holding Silicon Valley accountable for its role in fueling a youth mental health crisis.

The jurors concluded that Meta and Google should pay the woman $3 million in compensatory damages, with Meta on the hook for 70% of that amount.

The jury also decided that Meta and Google's actions should trigger punitive damages, which means there will be a separate phase of the trial where the jury will decide what amount of damages are appropriate to punish the multi-trillion-dollar companies for their conduct.

As the verdict was read, the plaintiff, known only as Kaley, looked straight ahead stony-faced, while her lawyers shook their heads in approval. The lawyers for Meta and Google did not react to the jury's decision.

Joseph VanZandt, the co-lead lawyer for families and others suing social media companies, said Wednesday's judgement is a step toward holding Silicon Valley giants accountable. 

"But this verdict is bigger than one case. For years, social media companies have profited from targeting children while concealing their addictive and dangerous design features. Today's verdict is a referendum — from a jury, to an entire industry — that accountability has arrived," he said in a joint statement with the plaintiff's legal team. 

A Meta spokesperson said the company disagrees with the verdict and is evaluating its legal options. Google did not immediately respond to the verdict. 

The verdict from a Los Angeles jury over the harms of social media comes a day after a separate jury in New Mexico ordered Meta to pay $375 million in damages for failing to protect young users from child predators on Instagram and Facebook. The New Mexico jury found Meta responsible for misleading consumers about the safety of its platforms, declaring that the tech company had flouted state consumer protection laws.

The blockbuster verdicts land against the backdrop of school districts and state lawmakers around the country limiting or banning phone use in schools. This week's verdicts mark the first time juries have decided that tech companies are at least partially liable for online and off-line dangers kids and teenagers encounter after incessantly using social media.

Over a more than month-long trial in Los Angeles, the jury of five men and seven women heard competing narratives about what role social media platforms played in the mental health struggles of a woman identified as KGM, or Kaley, a now-20-year-old from Chico, Calif., who said she first started using YouTube at 6 years old and Instagram when she was 11.

Lawyers for KGM argued that Instagram and YouTube were deliberately designed to be addictive and the companies knew the platforms were harming young people, while the tech companies countered that its services cannot be blamed for complex mental health issues.

KGM's legal team showed the jury internal documents from Meta in which Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and other executives described its efforts to attract and keep kids and teens on its platforms. One document said: "If we wanna win big with teens, we must bring them in as tweens," and another internal memo showed that 11-year-olds were four times as likely to keep coming back to Instagram, compared to competing apps, despite the platform requiring users to be at least 13 years old.

Under questioning about these documents, Zuckerberg told the jury that keeping young users safe has always been a company priority. "If people feel like they're not having a good experience, why would they keep using the product?" Zuckerberg said.

The trial is a test case, known as a bellwether, tied to about 2,000 other pending lawsuits brought by parents and school districts arguing that social media giants should be considered manufacturers of defective products for hooking a generation of young people to social media feeds.

Google and Meta are expected to appeal.

Throughout the case, the companies insisted that there is no scientific proof that social media causes mental health issues, suggesting that they are being used as a scapegoat for the multi-faceted emotional issues children face that can have many root causes.

Snap and TikTok were also defendants in the case, but both companies settled before the trial began.

This is a developing story and will be updated.
Copyright 2026 NPR

The Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday approved a plan that would allow mid-sized apartment buildings of up to four stories near train lines in certain areas zoned for single-family homes.

The move is a delay tactic meant to help the city put off full implementation of a state law that would allow much larger apartment buildings — some of them up to nine stories tall. The law, known as Senate Bill 79, is expected to take effect July 1.

Since before it was signed into law last year, SB 79 has drawn opposition from several members of the council, as well as L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, in keeping with a long-standing preference among many city leaders to leave untouched the three-quarters of L.A.’s residential land zoned for single-family homes.

On Tuesday, the council voted 13 to 0 (two council members were not present) to move forward with a plan that would encourage development of four- to 16-unit residential buildings in 55 areas of the city within a half-mile of transit stops.

The most affected areas include Central L.A., West L.A., the Eastside and parts of the San Fernando Valley, according to city officials.

Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, chair of the council’s Planning and Land Use Management Committee, described SB 79 as a “sledgehammer,” even though he said its goals — providing more housing options and reducing residents’ reliance on cars — were legitimate.

He said the option approved Tuesday is an alternative that focuses on local needs.

“Really, we want to see those alternatives, those thoughtful alternatives put in place as soon as we can,” he added. “Because ultimately that’s the way that we can meet the goals of SB 79 but do so in a less sledgehammer-y, less ham-handed way.”

How we got here

A provision in SB 79 allows cities to delay the law’s broadest effects until 2030, as long as those cities agree to allow more housing development in certain neighborhoods in the interim.

Last month, the city’s Planning Department produced a report containing three options (each with several sub-options) for consideration.

Blumenfield and Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky came up with a version of one of those options, which the council approved.

Yaroslavsky said SB 79 has flaws that have yet to be worked out, but the option considered Tuesday would allow construction of low-density apartments in single-family neighborhoods “for the first time in decades and some for the very first time ever.”

“We need more housing,” Yaroslavsky said. “What we decide today will shape what actually gets built across the city if we do it right.”

Other options would have reduced the number of affected areas or allowed taller builds.

Next steps

Yaroslavsky said the plan the City Council adopted Tuesday expands the Corridor Transition Program — a provision of the Citywide Housing Incentive Program — launched a little more than a year ago.

Although the program provides incentives for developers to build small, multi-family housing along transit corridors, no applications were submitted within its first year.

“Not because there’s no demand for this type of housing, but because the math doesn’t work,” Yaroslavsky said.

The new plan fixes some of the program’s problems, but not all of them, she said. For example, the Corridor Transition Program could be changed to increase allowable floor areas and update rules for three- and four-bedroom apartments, which are hard to find in L.A.

“If we expand this program today without fixing it, we’ll get additional zoning on paper and not necessarily housing in reality,” Yaroslavsky said.

She introduced a motion that she said focuses on making sure the homes “actually get built.” The motion was sent to the city’s Planning and Land Use Management Committee.