The Brief

Third grader Lenny Rodriguez enjoys playing and reading in his school’s yard, but it can get extremely hot outside.

“Sometimes, I’ve experienced heat waves. My feet were burning even when I had my shoes on,” Rodriguez says. “The playground is missing some shade.”

A dire need

Rodriguez’s school, Beachy Avenue Elementary, is in Arleta, near Pacoima and Panorama City. The temperature in these neighborhoods can hit highs well over 100 degrees during different parts of the year. The asphalt in the San Fernando Valley has registered 142 degrees on its surface. But schools all over the Los Angeles Unified School District are feeling the effects of rising heat.

According to the Los Angeles County Climate Vulnerability Assessment, extremely heat-prone regions of L.A. could see 30 or more additional days with temperatures above 90 degrees by 2050.

And that hot weather could stretch further into the school year, says V. Kelly Turner, associate professor of urban planning and geography at UCLA and associate director of the Luskin Center for Innovation.

“That's just going to be how it is in the future,” Turner says.

Turner and her colleagues have studied extreme heat and the role design plays in how people experience it. They found that “schools are some of the hottest places in communities” as a result of how they’ve been built.

Campuses all over the district, from West Hollywood to Watts, are asphalt jungles, and fixing it, says Turner, is “not just as simple as putting up trees.”

The indoors are a problem too: Many schools still lack air conditioning.

Turner says it’s important to think about schools as community resources, especially for kids who come from historically disinvested and disadvantaged communities.

“If kids live in a home without air conditioning or a cool place to go on hot days, then come to school, which also lacks cooling inside and shade outside, their core body temperatures are never getting down to safe levels,” Turner explains. “That's going to cause them to have difficulty concentrating … and it's going to be very, very hard for a child to learn in that context.”

Research shows that heat can negatively impact students’ ability to learn, which results in lower academic performance. Conversely, other studies have found that students benefit from time spent in green spaces and that exposure to nature can help kids focus better.

The demand for cooler schools

Parent groups and climate advocates have been trying to bring attention to this issue for years — and many say action has been a long time in coming.

Robin Mark, the L.A. program director for Trust for Public Land, says it’s important for people to understand that greening schools is not a landscaping project, it’s about school infrastructure that supports student learning, well-being and climate resilience.

“It’s not a nice-to-have,” Mark says, “It’s not really cool that the yard is so pretty. That’s not what we’re going for. What we’re going for is that we’re creating environments for students to thrive.”

First graders at Brainard Elementary demonstrate the very lengthy process of lining up, socially distanced, outside.

(

Kyle Stokes

/

LAist

)

The district's efforts so far

Last year LAUSD took a big step forward in addressing concerns. In June 2022, district officials allocated $58 million to outdoor education initiatives, including greening. A few months later, then-LAUSD board president Kelly Gonez authored a resolution calling for Superintendent Alberto Carvalho to develop a plan to ensure school campuses are at least 30% green by 2035.

But Gonez says she is still waiting. The plan was supposed to be given to the board in February.

"We need a systemic approach from the district," Gonez says. "Not to do this in a piecemeal fashion, because we know that's far from sufficient. It requires a really significant transformation in most cases because of the way the playgrounds have been set up. It's not aligned to the 21st century environment our kids live in.”

According to a district spokesperson, the Green Schoolyards For All Plan will be given to the board members in the coming weeks. It will include a prioritized list of the highest-need schools.

Since the pledge to green schools, district officials say they’ve met with stakeholders and experts, updated their data systems to include a pollution indicator and surveyed 349 people about what they think should be prioritized.

District officials say that there have been various greening projects underway that include modernizing campuses, creating school gardens and planting new trees. But the reality is that it will take a lot of money and a lot of time to reach the goals outlined by the Green Schoolyards initiative.

The funding challenge

More than 600 LAUSD campuses do not meet that 30% threshold. Even if the district prioritizes elementary schools, as promised, more than 200 of those campuses are less than 10% green. And some of the schools require infrastructure upgrades before greening can even happen.

LAUSD secured $400 million from Measure RR to modernize schools, including green efforts, and collected $100 million in other funds.

Funding has also come through partnerships with nonprofit groups and state grants, but it's nowhere near enough. District officials say it’s going to take an additional $4 billion to ensure all schools have enough green space and students are kept cool.

Officials say additional funding might have to come from another bond, which will require voter buy-in.

But even if LAUSD had all the money it needed, it would take decades to complete all of these projects. During a recent school board meeting, member Nick Melvoin estimated it could take up to 15 years to green the top 50 highest-need campuses, based on a district calculation that it would take about three to four years to update around a half-dozen schools.

“We are by no means mission accomplished,” Mark says. “There's a lot of learning on all of our sides about what we can do on a school campus, so that everybody's needs are being met, particularly the students and the teachers."

'Cool' pavement v. trees

While district officials have yet to provide the school board with a final plan for how they will achieve these green goals, some advocates have already questioned how the money is being spent.

For example, some of the ongoing bond investments include $300 million for "playground and campus exterior upgrades" that include the use of "cool pavement" coating that is designed to bring down surface temperatures. But parent advocates like Angelenos for Green Schools co-founder Aleigh Lewis argues that natural spaces should be prioritized.

She says understands the need for pavement for sports and other play but believes trees, grass and other natural surfaces should be prioritized over repaving surfaces with a reflective coating.

“You have all this money and you could do so much more for every school and cool them down,” Lewis says.

A community survey shared with the LAUSD school board in mid-October showed that stakeholders, including parents, teachers and students, want to prioritize trees and shade structures over other cooling efforts.

Gonez says there is room for all of it. Some schools have asked for the specialized cool pavement as part of much needed repaving but she agrees that the district “can't just do that alone.”

One small step to a greener school yard

Beachy Avenue Elementary, where Lenny Rodriguez goes to school, now has a new “reading garden” where students can sit outside in a cool, natural space. There are two blue circular platforms with a stretch of grass in between, and new trees that, once they are full grown, will offer shade for students.

Beachy Avenue Elementary's new reading garden is one of the first initiatives toward greening the school to meet the district's 30% goal by 2035.

(

Aaricka Washington

/

LAist

)

“I think this project is really helping our schools get better with shade on global warming,” Rodriguez says. “So, overall, I think this is a good thing for us in this district. We’re going to grow up with it.”

But that garden was five years in the making, notes Beachy Principal Lisa Dachs-Ornelas. She says she called on Gonez, her district board member, to help secure more than $100,000 for the reading garden.

And, still, there’s so much more that needs to be done. According to the district’s Greening Index, Beachy is almost 80% asphalt.

“It is very hot out here and the kids sometimes don't play," says Dachs-Ornelas. “They'll go under a shade and then they'll just socialize with a friend because it's too hot to play kickball on the asphalt.”

Gonez acknowledges the district is coming late to the climate crisis. Though some LAUSD schools might have been able to add a garden or plant some trees, green campuses haven’t been a district priority, she says, largely due to other issues officials had to handle: overcrowding, aging facilities and the pandemic.

But now that there is some collective attention on the issue from the state and local officials, Gonez emphasizes: “I think we need to do more, and I think we need to do more faster.”

Public health officials are urging people to be wary of flea-borne typhus after a recent outbreak of the illness.

The outbreak in late July was centered in the Pico-Union neighborhood of Los Angeles. The L.A. County Department of Public Health said five people were hospitalized; all recovered.

The outbreak comes as typhus cases continue to tick up in L.A. County.

Cases have been increasing fairly steadily for more than a decade, but they nearly doubled over the last three years. The Public Health Department logged a record 220 cases in 2025, and officials say this year is on track to exceed that.

Public health officials say the increase is likely because human-animal interactions are also increasing. That could be due to human population expansions into areas with more animals, available food sources for wildlife in populated areas or more people owning pets.

The bacteria that causes typhus is transmitted from animals to humans through fleas.

Typhus can’t be passed from one human to another, and public health experts say the illness is completely treatable, especially if it’s caught early.

Outbreaks and how to prevent them

Most of the time, typhus cases are spread out across L.A. County. But sometimes, there’s a localized spread over a short period of time that turns into an outbreak.

Public health officials respond to a few of them in L.A. County each year.

Generally, outbreaks are triggered by high concentrations of host animals.

“Wherever these animals may be present or wherever they may be congregating, in those areas we can see an increase in the number of human infections,” said Dr. Aiman Halai with the L.A. County Department of Public Health.

The most common hosts for typhus are rats, opossums and free-roaming cats. When people or pets come in contact with host animals, they can pick up the infected fleas and bring them into homes, spreading them to other people and animals in the process.

Halai says a variety of factors can attract animals and lead to an outbreak, including overflowing dumpsters, overgrown vegetation or a well-meaning neighbor feeding local critters.

You can help prevent outbreaks by securing trash in bins, making sure food isn’t left outside, and ensuring pets are on up-to-date flea control medication. Cutting back overgrown vegetation and blocking off crawl spaces can eliminate places where animals can shelter in and around homes.

Halai also says it’s important not to feed wildlife.

Should you be worried?

Although public health experts are wary of the typhus uptick in L.A. County, the 220 cases recorded in 2025 in L.A. County are not overly concerning.

"That’s a very  low rate at the population level,” said Dr. Jeffrey Klausner, a professor of infectious diseases at USC’s Keck School of Medicine.

Typhus is an acute infection caused by bacteria known as Rickettsia typhi. Variations of the bacteria also cause other illnesses transmitted by fleas, ticks, lice and mites, including tick-borne Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever.

Doctors can test for typhus fairly easily, and it is treatable with antibiotics. Symptoms are similar to the flu, and can include fever, headaches, muscle aches and nausea. It can also cause rashes in some cases.

Most infections are mild, but they can cause hospitalization and, in rare cases, can be fatal.

Klausner said the concern is that testing for typhus is not always routine.

“The most important thing is that when patients come in to their doctor — and they have fever, they may have a rash, they may have headache, may have muscle or joint aches — that the doctor's thinking about potentially flea-borne infectious diseases because the treatment can be different,” Klausner said.

The best treatment for typhus is the antibiotic doxycycline. If a patient with typhus gets another type of antibiotic like penicillin or amoxicillin, the treatment may not be as successful.

According to Klausner, when presented with flu-like symptoms, it’s also a good idea for patients to tell their doctors if they’ve been around animals, spent time in an encampment or even just gone on a hike.

Topline:

Why it matters: The small amphibian is found in the grasslands of Southern California and the Central Valley. But habitat loss, urban sprawl and longer droughts have been threatening the species’ population in recent decades.

What the protections do: Now that the Western spadefoot is a candidate for permanent protections, any development project planned for Western spadefoot habitats will have to take the amphibians into account.

Some exceptions may apply: The commission did carve out exceptions for solar projects in the Central Valley. To take advantage of federal tax credit deadlines, some projects can continue to be built, as long as they protect breeding pools and curtail construction during the season when spadefoots are most active.

What conservationists say: Brendan Cummings, conservation director with the Center for Biological Diversity, said in Southern California the biggest threat to the Western spadefoot is not solar development: “It’s warehouses or data centers and road widenings and all manner of construction activities.”

What happens next: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife will conduct a year-long review to determine if the Western spadefoot should be permanently protected.

More than two dozen California Assembly Democrats and one state senator sent a letter Wednesday to legislative leaders asking them to delay fees under SB 54, the state’s landmark plastic reduction law, for two years — an eleventh-hour push as the Legislature hurtles toward the end of session.

The letter, addressed to Senate President Pro Tempore Monique Limón and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, was signed by 23 Assemblymembers and Sen. Melissa Hurtado. It asks lawmakers to pause fee assessment and collection this year and next, commit to a “reform package” next session, and increase legislative oversight of the program going forward.

The request lands amid a broader fight over how the plastics law is rolling out. Little by little California is demanding that the packages you pick up at your doorstep or at the store contain less plastic. A law Gov. Gavin Newsom signed four years ago aims to phase out 25% of non-recyclable, non-compostable plastic by 2032.

To get there, the state tasked a nonprofit, the Circular Action Alliance, with drafting a plan to meet the state goals. The group estimated the work would cost $17.2 billion over five years – and is asking for a three-year exemption from the source-reduction deadline.

But as the state moves to implement the law, questions are mounting over how the organization calculates the fees producers — and eventually consumers — will pay, and how much oversight the group actually faces.

Industry groups say the price tag for complying with the law could be tens of billions of dollars higher than California originally estimated. An industry-commissioned study found the law could cost consumers three times what the state projected — between $683 and $948 a year, rather than $190.

That means groceries, shampoo bottles and other consumer goods packed in plastic could cost a little more as the law takes effect.

The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, which oversees implementation, declined an interview but said in a written statement that the law puts consumers first and pushes producers to design packaging with recycling in mind.

“Californians are facing rising costs and pollution from increasingly complex packaging that wasn’t designed for the recycling systems local governments, ratepayers, and the state developed and funded over the past four decades,” said CalRecycle director Zoe Heller. “The law’s rollout is a dial, not a switch, giving producers flexibility to redesign packaging, invest in recycling systems, reduce single-use plastics, and make adjustments along the way,” she added.

Watching the watchers

The Circular Action Alliance published its fee schedule in June, spelling out what each producer owes into the system. The fees could add up to more than $10 million for some businesses, according to the Dairy Institute of California. The Dairy Institute is a trade association that represents milk processors and dairy product manufacturers.

But unlike a state agency, the Circular Action Alliance answers to almost no one, said Katie Davey, executive director of the Dairy Institute.

“[The alliance] does not have to go through an audit by the state auditor. They’re not subject to the (California open government law) Brown Act. They’re not subject to public records requests. The Legislature does not approve their budget and does not approve how many employees they need, or how many fees they can charge,” Davey said.

As a private nonprofit, Circular Action Alliance indeed is not subject to the Brown Act or public-records law — but records it submits to CalRecycle or other government entities may be.

CalRecycle must approve its fee schedule and implementation plan, and has the authority to audit the organization’s performance, said CalRecycle spokesperson Lance Klug, who added that the plastics law includes provisions to ensure the group’s budget and fees are appropriate.

The alliance’s role “is not to set California policy,” said its spokesperson, Larine Urbina. “Our role is to implement the framework established by SB 54 under CalRecycle’s oversight.”

Davey said the gap extends to enforcement. Businesses that fall short will face so-called malus fees, which fund bonuses for those that comply. But the Circular Action Alliance hasn’t said what those fees will be.

Shane Gusman, a lobbyist for the Teamsters, which represents hundreds of thousands of California workers, raised similar concerns. “They’re a wholly independent nonprofit organization that has no oversight. That’s part of the problem.” The union backed the plastics law hoping it would boost jobs; Guzman now says the fees could affect workers too.

Shortly after the alliance published its fee schedule, Davey and a coalition of industry leaders — including the California Restaurant Association, the California League of Food Producers, the American Forest and Paper Association and the Print Creative Alliance — commissioned a study disputing CalRecycle’s numbers.

It found CalRecycle’s 2025 estimate of $21 billion in implementation costs, or $190 a year per California household, rests on “idealized assumptions that fail to capture real-world costs and complications the regulations will create.”

The study puts the number somewhere between $35 and $58 billion, rising after the implementation period.

Klug of CalRecycle said the agency’s earlier reports were just estimates. “The actual costs will be determined by producer choices,” he said. “These costs, for example, will reflect the infrastructure needed to recycle materials that producers are choosing to use.”

Agriculture groups push back 

The biggest hurdle for producers is cutting plastic use 25% by 2032 — which state regulators say will require redesigning packaging and shifting toward reusable products, such as dishes at restaurants and paper-based packaging for produce.

Business groups say they support the state’s goals but call the timeline unworkable.

Food safety is one sticking point: alternatives like paper-based containers for berries are less breathable and spoil faster, while heavier glass or cardboard adds transportation costs, said Casey Creamer, president of the California Fresh Fruit Association.

“We just don’t want to force something out and not be able to deliver a fresh, healthy commodity, or create a situation that has more significant or adverse environmental concerns just because we look at plastics and packaging in a silo,” Creamer said.

Environmental groups oppose any pause.

“All of us pay for plastic pollution through higher garbage bills and clean-ups of polluted beaches and waterways, not to mention the damage to our environment and our health,”said Nick Lapis, director of advocacy for Californians Against Waste.

Sen. Ben Allen, a Democrat representing coastal Los Angeles County who authored the law, said it’s time plastic producers are held accountable for the waste they produce.

“This 11th-hour Hail Mary is only trying to maintain status quo and avoid due responsibility, throwing years of good-faith negotiations, and affordability and sustainability improvements out the window,” he said in a statement about producers’ efforts to pause implementation of the law.

Businesses pass costs to consumers

Whether the plastics law is actually driving up grocery prices yet is hard to pin down. Creamer said businesses may already be factoring the organization’s planned fees into their prices.

Federal data show grocery prices dipped slightly in July from June, though prices have climbed year over year and that rate is accelerating, said Richard Volpe, a consumer-price expert at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Neither the USDA nor the Bureau of Labor Statistics has released August figures, and no data yet isolates the state plastics law’s effect from broader inflation.

Volpe said retailers, who run on thin margins, will eventually pass costs on to consumers — but probably not right away.

“It will not happen overnight,” he said. “And it will still be relatively small, mostly on the order of pennies on the dollar.”

Industry groups warn it will add up.

“If someone’s even on the cusp of food insecurity and they’re looking at $1,000 more a year, that’s pushing them over the food cliff,” said Nate Rose, a spokesperson for the California Grocers Association.

The Teamsters, which backed the plastics law hoping it would boost jobs, now worry the fees could affect workers too.

The law “has been morphed into something that is going to cost California consumers a substantial amount of money at a time when I don’t know if we need to spend thousands more on groceries,” said Gusman, the Teamsters lobbyist. “That also has an impact on the workforce.”