The Brief

Is my kid’s local LAUSD campus earthquake safe?

That’s what listener Connie Lichtenstein wanted to know after she found out that the school they were considering sending one of their children to had a building that may need to be retrofitted.

After looking into it I can say it’s a complicated question with an unsatisfying answer, but it’s worth exploring because it can give Connie and maybe even you, an insight into earthquake safety at schools, about which questions have been raised before.

What is Assembly Bill 300?

In 1999, the California legislature passed AB 300, which directed the Department of General Services to put together a list of public school structures that didn't meet a major 1976 code overhaul called the Uniform Building Code.

More than 9,600 buildings across the state were identified for review, according to a 2002 report prepared by the DGS.

After assessments, each of those structures fell into one of two categories:

1. Those that are likely to do well in an earthquake (2,122 structures)
2. Those that might be a danger and need to be evaluated (7,537 structures)

According to representatives from LAUSD, 667 district buildings were ultimately identified as needing seismic evaluations.

Since then:

• 34 buildings have been successfully retrofitted
• 139 buildings have had their seismic evaluations completed and are in some stage of the retrofit process
• 459 structures are still in the process of being assessed for seismic safety

All tilt-up, non-ductile concrete and brick buildings (one of the riskiest types of buildings) have been demolished or retrofitted.

LAUSD lists their building inventory online, but that only identifies 645 out of a potential 667 buildings. It's unclear why. Representatives say it's up to date.

A classroom.

(

Alison Yin

/

EdSource

)

What does LAUSD say?

I requested an interview with an expert from LAUSD to discuss the safety issue and was denied.

After more than a week of waiting for answers to a list of questions, the school district followed up with a statement from a spokesperson.

Looking for clarity, I asked: Are students and faculty safe inside of buildings on the AB 300 list in the event of an earthquake, even if a building has not yet been assessed or had its retrofit completed? Are they expected to meet life safety performance? The question that's at the crux of this entire piece?

LAUSD did not answer the question.

So ... is my kid's school safe?

If you do find out that one of the unimproved buildings is on your kid's campus, should you be worried?

"The fact that the building is on this list doesn't automatically make it a highly vulnerable building," said Henry Burton, an associate professor in the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at UCLA.

"Because of the number of variables that are involved it's very hard to say if there's a building that's in imminent danger."

A whole lot of work goes into figuring out if a building is going to perform OK in an earthquake. Experts need to review building plans, do on the ground assessments, take into consideration everything from materials to the way that they're joined together. They also need to do ground motion modeling that considers different types of potential quakes.

If they do find out that a building needs to be retrofitted, the structures often need to be opened up for expensive improvements that can take years to complete.

Students at Bryant Elementary School take cover under their desks during an earthquake drill as part of the Great ShakeOut event on October 18, 2018 in San Francisco, California.

(

Justin Sullivan

/

Getty Images

)

Multiple structural engineers I spoke with also said that even if a building was built 100 years ago, that doesn't necessarily mean it won't do well in a quake.

"Usually when I'm talking with parents, I will often throw my poor daughter under the bus by reaching the conclusion that there aren't too many school buildings out there that I would not allow my daughter to go to class in," said Kenneth O'Dell, a structural engineer in Long Beach.

"I have confidence in the building inventory within the local market for schools. And that confidence comes largely from the knowledge that the Division of State Architect has been involved in certifying school buildings since shortly after the 1933 earthquake."

The structural integrity of schools has been a priority in California since 1933, after the Long Beach Earthquake destroyed 70 schools. Luckily, students weren't in school at the time and mass death was avoided. A month later the legislature passed the Field Act, which set more strict building requirements for schools than were previously in place. It's often pointed out that since then, no school buildings in California have collapsed in an earthquake.

Ultimately, it's up to you to decide if you're OK with the risk, as is always the case when we talk about anything disaster related. That was the entire conclusion of our podcast The Big One, which dives deep on the impacts of a major San Andreas earthquake.

“If they continue to be on this list and they're not retrofitted in any way, then yeah I think I would either continue homeschooling my kids or I would find a school for them that isn't on that list that we don't have to worry about," said Lichtenstein, when I told her what I learned.

What should I ask my child's school?

"The only thing I would suggest is to try to get more information from the relevant school district about what they're doing about the buildings, and if they have a sense of the timeline for evaluating and retrofitting these buildings," Burton said.

Feel free to ask either your kid's school or an LAUSD board member about a particular building, whether it's been assessed and what its shortcomings may be. If you get stonewalled or find anything out, shoot me a note.

Outside of structural safety, there are some important questions about earthquakes that the school should be able to answer:

• What are the school's earthquake plans and can you see them?
• What sorts of supplies do they have available and when were they updated?
• What sorts of precautions are they taking in terms of strapping down heavy items in the classroom and how often are classrooms inspected?
• Where will parents be able to pick up kids after an earthquake?
• If you can't get to your kids after the earthquake, what happens?
• Is there anything you can prepare for your child in anticipation of a disaster to make them more comfortable while they're waiting?

You should also consider printing out an emergency card and sticking it in your kid's backpack, so they always have critical information on them that they can refer to amidst the chaos.

This story first published in The LA Local.

Take a deep breath. The elimination rounds of the World Cup have begun. Mexico will battle against Ecuador on Tuesday, with kickoff at 6 p.m. local time.

After winning every game in their group for the first time in their history, Mexico faces their toughest opponent yet. There is no room for mistakes, a loss means instant elimination for either team. Ecuador barely squeezed out of their group with a final impressive victory against Germany. Now potentially 80,000 Mexican fans await them in Estadio Azteca.

Here are the free spots showing the game all over Koreatown, Pico Union, and Westlake. There are no official park-sponsored watch parties in the local neighborhoods, according to the city’s Kick It In the Park schedule, but here are a few of the local sports bars, restaurants and other spots that will be showing the game.

Koreatown

The Line Hotel
3515 Wilshire Blvd. 
The hotel has been showing games throughout the tournament and will have special offers on drinks and food. The venue will show the game on a large LED screen, with live mariachi band and DJ set by Chulita Vinyl Club. There will also be a 90-minute unlimited margarita pitchers for $45 per person, according to the organizers. More information can be found here.

Biergarten
206 N. Western Ave.
Don’t be mistaken. The Biergarten is showing every match on multiple screens all over the bar. Their promise of Korean-German fusion is accompanied by a plethora of drinks on tap. More information can be found here.

Eastwood
611 S. Western Ave.
The country inspired bar and restaurant will host the game on various screens around the bar as well as serving bar towers and other specials. If the game isn’t enough of an emotional rollercoaster for fans, they can try their luck on the bar’s mechanical bull. Door will open at 430pm. More information can be found here.

Baja’s Grill Sports Cantina
3250 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 103
For flavors of Baja California during the game this Cantina will be running specials and happy hour. The Bar is surrounded by multiple screens and regularly hosts $35 open bars from 6-10pm.

Lock and Key 
239 S. Vermont Ave. 
The cocktail den will be hosting the game alongside $8 drink specials for margaritas, palomas, and vodka martinis. Multiple DJs will also be present during and after the game. More information can be found here.

DJM Soju Bar
3275 Wilshire Blvd.
The restaurant will host the game both indoors and outdoors alongside food and drink specials. They serve a variety of plates from spicy pork bulgogi, seafood soup, to sweet and sour chicken. A wide variety of soju is also offered. Doors will open at 4pm. More information can be found here.

Westlake and Pico Union 

Pulgarcito Family Restaurant 
2500 W. Pico Blvd.
This family-owned restaurant serves pupusas, quesabirria and plato de dirria, along with camarones a la diabla, plátanos fritos with beans and crema and many more Salvadorean meals. They also have cold drinks and multiple screens for the game. More information can be found here.

Casa Gish Bac Cocina Oaxaqueña                                                                                 1436 S. Vermont Ave. 
The Oaxacan restaurant will be showing the games on multiple TVs as well as on a projector. Happy hour is from 2-6pm right before kickoff. Deals include $5 beers and $2 tacos. They’re also sweetening the celebrations with a free shot with every Mexico goal. More information can be found here.

Huicho’s Bakery                                                                                                                 1250 Vermont Ave.
The local bakery will be showing the game outside of their shop on one TV. They offer a variety of Central American and Mexican food as well as pastries and bread.

Xecul Restaurante Guatemalteco
1051 S. Alvarado St.
The Guatemalan restaurant will show the game on two TVs indoors. They offer a wide variety of traditional Guatemalan flavors like their El Shuco Xecul as well as mixed fusion plates like Chowmein mixto.

Sol Agave
800 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite A130
For a more relaxed atmosphere this restaurant serves upscale Mexican cuisine and will be showing the game with TVs around their bar and dining areas. Margaritas and drink specials will be served.

Cafe con Ron
819 S. Flower St.
The Mexican seafood and brunch location will be hosting the game with TVs around their cantina area. They offer fish tacos as well as quesabirria and drink specials. More information can be found here.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Tuesday agreed to pay $9.6 million to the family of a man fatally shot by sheriff’s deputies in Compton in 2020 to settle a wrongful death lawsuit.

The unusually large settlement came amid claims Samuel Herrera Jr. was unarmed, targeted by deputies because he was Mexican American and that the deputies involved were part of a law enforcement gang.

The shooting was the subject of a rare coroner's inquest in 2021 — one of three conducted amid widespread criticism of law enforcement shooting in the wake of the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. That inquest did not conclude deputies acted wrongfully.

A review by the District Attorney also determined the deputies acted within the law.

But a civil rights lawsuit filed by Herrera’s family claims deputies acted with negligence.

“This lawsuit concerns the outrageous and unlawful use of deadly force by county deputies and officers, as well as their malicious effort to distort the true facts of their own misconduct,” the lawsuit states. Herrera posed no threat to deputies, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of Herrera’s two minor sons and minor daughter.

While the county admitted no wrongdoing, it's not unusual for the county to settle a lawsuit if they believe the damages could be higher if they lost in a jury trial.

A Corrective Action report issued by county lawyers laying out a chronology of events appeared to contradict the lawsuit’s allegations. It also said the use of force and tactical actions employed by some deputies were inconsistent with established policy, practice and training. Contributing factors included deficiencies in coordination, use of cover, communication, and target acquisition.

What the County Counsel report said

Deputies were serving an early morning search warrant on a house where Herrera, 41, was believed to be selling methamphetamine, according to a report by the County Counsel’s office. The report said Herrera was also believed to carry a gun when he sold drugs.

The deputies ended up outside a back garage where Herrera was inside. What happened next was a series of shootings by deputies.

The County Counsel said deputies heard gunshots from the garage and shot at one of the side doors when they thought they saw the barrel of a gun. When a second door opened, deputies fired again. A short time later a fire broke out in the garage, according to the report.

Herrera eventually crawled out of a hole in the garage and “paced back and forth, then turned to the left and made a sudden movement, as if to shoot at the deputies,” the County Counsel report said. Deputies opened fire.

Deputies fired “another volley of gunfire” as Herrera lay wounded on the ground, believing he was reaching for a gun. Herrera was hit by bullets 10 times, according to the medical examiner.

An AR-15 magazine and .45 Glock handgun magazine were found directly next to him, according to the report.

What the lawsuit said

The lawsuit by Herrera’s family claimed he was unarmed at the time of the shooting and said that he did not pose an “objectively reasonable threat” to anyone. It noted deputies opened fire on the garage while Herrera’s brother and a woman and child were still inside. Herrera’s brother Jesus suffered a gunshot wound.

Deputies “through the exercise of reasonable and due diligence, should have known that minors, infants, women and other unintended targets of their raid,” would be on the property.

The lawsuit also claimed Herrera and the others were targeted because they are Mexican American and that the deputies were part of a law enforcement gang.

The lawsuit states the shooting was “part of the county’s long-standing custom, habit, and practice of promoting certain gang-like clique members of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department who wear matching tattoos, and engage in initiation rites including using deadly force, seemingly as a part of some gang initiation-like rite, in an unreasonable or excessive manner against Black and Brown men in Los Angeles County.”

The lawsuit does not name the deputies that might have been involved.

A Loyola Law School report documents the existence of at least 18 different deputy gangs and cliques over the last five decades, such as the Banditos, Executioners, and Regulators.

In a statement, the Sheriff’s Department said it does not tolerate any gang-like behavior and “is actively addressing the long-standing issue of law enforcement gangs and is holding personnel accountable for misconduct related to gang like actions.”

The statement also said the department “categorically rejects any suggestion that our deputies target individuals based on race or ethnicity. Such allegations are inconsistent with our policies, training, oversight, and our commitment to constitutional policing.”

In a video reviewing the incident released shortly after the shooting, the unnamed narrator said deputies found a loaded AK-47 assault weapon and loaded handgun inside the garage. That video contains audio, still photos of the scene and text on screen, but no video.

California can continue its long-held policy of allowing transgender student athletes to play on girls’ and women’s sports teams, under a U.S. Supreme Court ruling issued Tuesday.

“With this ruling, schools and states like California can continue to adopt inclusive policies that ensure every student is treated with dignity and respect,” Tony Hoang, executive director of the LGBTQ advocacy group Equality California said. “Inclusive policies are working across the country, including here in California, where transgender young people have participated in school sports for years without incident.”

The court’s 6-3 decision allows – but doesn’t require – states to bar transgender student athletes from playing on girls’ and women’s sports teams, upholding state laws in Idaho and West Virginia. Including California, 23 states let transgender students play on teams that align with their gender identity.

Proponents of a ban also celebrated the court’s ruling, saying it’s a major step forward in their fight to keep transgender athletes out of girls sports, and it potentially opens the door to restrictions in the future.

“The Supreme Court just delivered a major victory for girls and for common sense,” said Sonja Shaw, a Chino Valley Unified school board member who’s running for state superintendent. She added that “California should be leading the nation in protecting girls, not forcing them to surrender their rights … We will continue fighting until every girl has the opportunity to compete on a level playing field.”

California, an epicenter of the LGBTQ rights movement, has long maintained policies that protect transgender students in K-12 schools. The California Interscholastic Federation, which oversees high school sports in the state, also allows transgender students to play on sports teams that align with their gender identity.

Nationwide, LGBTQ advocates decried the court’s ruling as a blow to transgender peoples’ rights generally, especially in states that currently restrict – or are leaning toward restrictions of – those rights.

“The SCOTUS majority decision furthers the Trump administration’s widespread attack on civil rights protections and continued attempt to erase transgender individuals from society, including through distorted interpretation of law,” said Noreen Farrell, executive director of Equal Rights Advocates. “(We) will continue fighting for trans equality and trans rights.”

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