The Brief

More than a decade after California began setting aside patches of ocean for conservation, change could be coming to its marine protected areas.

The state is considering a variety of changes to the network — a few proposals shrink those areas or remove certain protections, while most propose expanding existing protected areas or adding new ones. The levels of protection can range from a total ban on commercial fishing and certain recreational activities, to highly limited allowances. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife is in the process of reviewing dozens of proposals from tribes, environmental groups, the fishing industry and other stakeholders.

The discussion comes amid escalating pressures on our ocean — from plastic pollution and offshore energy efforts to rapidly warming temperatures that have, in recent years, led to some of the worst mass dieoffs of marine life ever seen.

So far, the department has recommended denying all 10 of the non-tribal proposals. They have yet to release their recommendations for the five remaining petitions from tribes, including a new protected area proposed by the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians that would encompass about 9 square miles off the coast of Santa Barbara.

Ultimately, the decision on whether to approve or deny the petitions lies with the five governor-appointed members of the state’s Fish and Game Commission. A decision is expected this summer.

Some say the state isn’t being bold enough in its approach to boosting protections for marine life, while others argue the existing network is strong enough. There is agreement, however: Marine protected areas can be a powerful tool in boosting certain fisheries and building resilience to climate change.

Creating underwater refuges

California started the process of protecting areas off its coast in 1999, when the Marine Life Protection Act was signed into law. That kickstarted the process of establishing an interconnected network of marine protected areas off the state’s coast.

But the process to get that done was a long and arduous one, slowed by competing interests and political infighting. It wasn’t until 2012 that the state completed the existing coastal network of more than 120 underwater refuges.

That network provides protections from fishing and other activities for a little over 16% of California’s coast. By 2030, the state’s goal, codified by an executive order from Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2020, is to protect 30% of its lands and waters by 2030.

The science of marine protected areas

Marine protected areas have improved the health of underwater ecosystems.

A state review of its network, released in 2023, found that marine protected areas were largely working — supporting larger, healthier and more abundant populations of many species, as well as creating a “spillover effect” that boosts certain lucrative fisheries, such as lobster, outside the bounds of the protected area. For example, a 2021 study found that a 35% reduction in fishing area due to protected area designation off the Channel Islands resulted in a 225% increase in total lobster catch after just six years.

Marine protected areas have also been found to improve resilience for some species in the face of climate change, as the ocean absorbs nearly one-third of the carbon pollution in our atmosphere and about 90% of the excess heat that that pollution would otherwise generate.

Researcher Kyle Cavanaugh and his team at UCLA analyzed satellite data of kelp forests off the California coast in the decades before and after the establishment of the state’s protected areas, focusing on the changes after a severe marine heat wave between 2014 and 2016.

“Marine protected areas recovered more quickly, more strongly compared to the non-protected areas in Southern California,” Cavanaugh said.

Sheephead fish are natural predators of sea urchins that can destroy kelp forests.

(

Courtesy Laguna Beach Bluebelt Coalition

)

He said that’s likely because these areas protect predators of sea urchins, which graze on kelp and can destroy entire forests if left unchecked. Their predators, such as sheephead fish and lobster, are found in Southern California’s waters.

But the story was a little different in Northern California. Cavanaugh’s team found that marine protected areas didn’t have the same rebound effect for kelp forests there, likely because sea urchin predators up north are sea otters and sea stars.

“Sea otters are protected [by the state] anyway, and sea stars basically have been wiped out across California due to sea star wasting disease,” Cavanaugh said. That disease led to a proliferation of urchins up north, and a dieoff of around 85% of the kelp forest in just the last 10 years.

A seal swims in a marine protected area off Laguna Beach.

(

Alex Cowdell

/

Courtesy Laguna Beach Bluebelt Coalition

)

Though more conservation is likely necessary (and increasingly complicated as climate change shifts ecosystems), a blanket approach to protected areas is not a silver bullet, Cavanaugh said.

“ There's different things going on in different locations, and there's not going to be a one size fits all approach at all,” he said. “We might lose kelp in certain areas in a warming world, and so figuring out which patches might be more resilient to temperatures and protecting those is important.”

Understanding the specific challenges to kelp forest growth or decline in varying regions is key, Cavanaugh emphasized. At the same time, California’s marine protected area network is still young (compare a little over a decade of protections to the more than 150 for many of our national parks), and there’s much to learn about the role they play in boosting the health of our ocean overall.

“These are baby protected areas, and that means we're still learning how they function,” said Douglas McCauley, an ecologist at UC Santa Barbara. “That also means that we're still beginning to see how they mature and the benefits that they can create over time.”

Competing interests, shared connection to the ocean

For Chris Voss, that specificity around the gains of certain marine protected areas is key.

Voss is a lifelong commercial fisherman and president of the nonprofit Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara. He said marine protected areas have been a boon for some industries, such as lobster, but not all, such as urchin fishers.

He argues that the existing network is strong, and that more regulations will harm the fishing industry, which has been declining over the past two decades. He’s particularly concerned about the proposals to expand or add entirely new marine protected areas.

 ”We are all small, independent businessmen with families and kids and a desire to scratch out a living from the ocean, but also produce a high quality food product in a sustainable way from the marine environment,” Voss said.

His group, along with the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations and a handful of recreational fishing groups, want state commissioners to deny the proposals.

“They didn't put the initial network on low-value real estate in the ocean. They put it on a very high-value real estate in the ocean,” Voss said. “The fishing community has adapted.”

Seagulls gather near a fishing boat in Northern California.

(

Brian van der Brug

/

Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

)

He pointed to multiplying pressures on the industry, such as expanded offshore wind and oil drilling (the group opposes both) and aquaculture efforts, as well as the science that not every marine protected area benefits marine life in the same way.

Voss said urchin fishers, for example, could help reduce kelp-eating urchin overpopulation in some areas. Such efforts have yet to scale, and urchins in kelp-barren areas are not very lucrative, though some researchers say urchin fishing as a management tool before kelp forest collapse could be a potential avenue.

“There’s nuance that we should embrace,” Voss said. “We need to think with and understand the complexity of the different fisheries and their impacts, and then make decisions with a more complete understanding so that we can get win-win situations.”

A blue belt off Laguna Beach

Ocean advocates and recreational fishers and divers in Laguna Beach have proposed to extend the marine protected area to fully encompass the city’s coast. The area is a key link for genetic dispersal of sea life between Palos Verdes and La Jolla, as well as a major draw for ocean tourism.

“Marine life within the marine protected areas of Laguna Beach are really thriving, but as soon as you move past the boundary, there's less sea life,” said Mike Beanan with the nonprofit Laguna Bluebelt Coalition. “The kelp forests that were in South Laguna are gone.”

A recent survey commissioned by the Laguna Bluebelt Coalition and Orange County Coastkeeper brought United Nations-approved underwater survey group Reef Check to Laguna Beach, where they found only female sheephead outside of the bounds of the protected areas and a proliferation of kelp-eating urchins. Female sheephead don’t eat urchins like their male counterparts (all sheephead are born female, then turn into males as they age and grow, which can take decades). Sheephead are targeted by spearfishers and commercial fishing in the area.

“Without sheephead, the sea urchins take over and eat the base of the kelp forest, and then the kelp forest goes away,” said Beanan.  

“For centuries,” he added, “we thought the ocean was an inexhaustible source of food, and now we're finding out that that really isn't the case.”

Tidepools in Laguna Beach.

(

Mike Stice

/

Courtesy Laguna Beach Bluebelt Coalition

)

A lifelong diver who grew up in a working class household and often fished for food off the Orange County coast, Beanan said he’d hoped the petition process would finally lead to full protections, but the Department of Fish and Wildlife has recommended denial of the proposal to protect all of the Laguna Beach coastline.

Local fishing businesses have opposed the expansion. Beanan and his Orange County Coastkeeper counterpart, Ray Hiemstra (who is also a recreational fisher) both said they understand the concerns about expanding protections from local fishing businesses.

“There's going to have to be a sacrifice, and I don't want to belittle the impact on the commercial fishers,” Hiemstra said. “But I think this is a small, incremental, necessary step, and this is the time and the process where we're able to take action on that.”

In the wake of the Palisades and Eaton fires last year, much has been reported about the thousands of Angelenos who lost their homes and the dozens who lost their lives.

A new study by UCLA and USC researchers looks at how the fires affected Los Angeles County's unhoused population — and finds that a majority of those surveyed said the disaster put their lives in danger.

The study, published Thursday in the American Journal of Public Health, found that of the 374 people who participated, 56% reported their lives had been in danger and 21% said they had been injured.

About 76% of all the respondents said their routines had been disrupted by the fires, and 46% said their living areas were damaged.

"People are living in these extraordinarily awful conditions where high winds can cause damage to where they live, can displace them and can cause injury,” said Ben Henwood, a professor at USC’s School of Social Work and an author of the new study. “And that's by definition because they are vulnerable living out on the streets.”

The study analyzed data from a monthly survey of unhoused Angelenos that has been going on since 2021, known as PATHS. The participants completed surveys in both December 2024 and January 2025, and responded to specific questions about natural disasters and their housing situations.

Unsheltered respondents described tents and vehicles damaged by falling debris and belongings swept away by high winds, according to the study. They also described disruptions to services, because of clinics and other service sites closing or burning down during the fires.

The 15% of participants who said they lived within wildfire evacuation zones reported that they experienced more frequent evacuations, more prolonged exposure to smoke and more difficulty finding shelter.

The study’s authors say L.A. County and other local governments should recognize the risks and incorporate unhoused Angelenos into climate disaster planning.

Unsheltered risks

Last year’s wildfires in L.A. County killed 29 people, destroyed more than 10,000 homes and displaced hundreds of thousands of residents. The challenges the urban wildfires posed for L.A. County’s estimated 74,000 unhoused residents have not yet been well-documented or studied.

“Most of what we know about homelessness comes from systems-gathered data,” Henwood said. “With people who aren't connected to systems, it’s really hard to know how services or policies are affecting them. And in this case, how natural disasters might be affecting them.”

People who were “unsheltered” — living outside in tents or vehicles — were more likely to be injured, displaced or lose belongings in the wildfire than people living indoors in shelters or publicly-funded hotel rooms, the study found.

L.A. County is home to the nation’s largest unsheltered population, with more than 52,000 people living outside on any given night, according to official estimates.

Of those living in tents or similar makeshift shelters, more than 75% said they experienced damage to their living spaces during the wildfires and preceding windstorm.

"This was as much a wind event as a fire event,” Randall Kuhn, a UCLA public health professor and a study author, told LAist. “A lot of people had lost everything before the fires even sparked. You're living in a wind tunnel and suddenly 90-mile-an-hour winds come through.”

Related studies

Last month, Kuhn, Henwood and colleagues published another study focused on the medical concerns of unsheltered Angelenos, which found that about 40% of that population in L.A. County had mental health conditions and about 33% had substance use disorders.

They published another on the health impacts of police-led encampment sweeps on unhoused people, which found that a third of people living outside face sweeps at least monthly, and that routine sweeps are associated with negative physical and mental health outcomes.

This month, other UCLA researchers published a national study finding that each home lost to climate disaster per 10,000 people was associated with a 1% increase in homelessness.

Researchers say homelessness in L.A. County is in an emergency of disastrous proportions that's in need of its own solutions. And as long as the county has a large population living outside, they’ll be vulnerable.

"If we're gonna have people out on the streets, how do they access bathrooms, how do they access water, how are they gonna be protected when natural disasters happen?” Henwood said. “Those are the sorts of conversations that seem to me to be needed and more realistic.”

The authors recommend better access to emergency shelters near evacuation zones, more provision of protective equipment like goggles and masks and using mutual aid networks to fill in gaps in public services.

The studies were funded by the universities, the National Institutes of Health, Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, the Homeless Policy Research Institute and LA Care.

The union that represents more than 42,000 service and hospital workers across the University of California has announced plans to stage an open-ended strike at all campuses next month, starting May 14.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees local 3299 (AFSCME) has been negotiating with the university system for over two years.

The union’s membership includes custodians, food service workers, patient care assistants and hospital technicians. Members say their wages have failed to keep pace with inflation, and that they’ve been priced out of local housing markets.

Todd Stenhouse, a spokesperson for the union, underscored that strikes “ involve great sacrifice for workers.” He also noted that its members “are overwhelmingly women and people of color.”

AFSCME members “love the university,” he added. But to continue working for the UC, some workers have to drive “ three hours each way.” Other members “are sleeping in their cars or living in homeless shelters,” he said.

“To say that these workers feel undervalued and insulted would be an understatement,” Stenhouse said. “At a certain point in time, you have to just say: ‘Enough.’”

What is the basis for the strike?

The union has filed unfair labor practice charges with the Public Employment Relations Board, formally accusing the UC system of violating California labor law.

AFSCME charges the university system with:

• A “refusal to bargain over housing aid for its workers.” 
• An “imposition of contract terms,” including higher health-care rates, “despite being legally required to bargain over such changes.” 

Here’s what AFSCME is bargaining for.

What is UC’s position?

In a press statement, the UC system said it has exchanged proposals on wages, health care and working conditions with the union, “reaching agreement on 26 contract articles to date.”

“ We're disappointed that AFSCME is moving toward this open-ended strike, despite the real progress that we've made at the bargaining table,” said Heather Hansen, a spokesperson for the university system.

“We recognize that many employees are facing real pressures related to housing, commuting, and the high cost of living,” she added. “That's why we've made the generous offers that we have.”

Hansen said the UC’s proposals include wage increases of 32% or more through 2029, “which means more money in the employee's pockets right away, with continued increases over time.”

The road ahead

Stenhouse said the UC system is touting “fuzzy math.” More than a third of the proposed wage increases, he said, “ are not even applicable to all workers.”

When asked about the unfair labor practice charges filed by the union, Hansen said that “just because AFSCME has filed these charges doesn't mean that [they have] merit. And we disagree with some of the characterizations that they've made.” In the end, she added, it is PERB who will decide whether the charges stand muster.

Last fall, the union staged a two-day strike. If AFSCME decides to carry out the open-ended work stoppage this spring, Hansen said, “ We have robust contingency plans in place to ensure patients, students, and staff members and faculty are minimally impacted.”

Julia Barajas is a part-time graduate student at UCLA Law.

A federal court jury has ordered the City of L.A. to pay more than $11.7 million to a man partially blinded by LAPD officers during a 2020 Dodgers World Series celebration.

Isaac Castellanos told the court that he was struck and permanently blinded in one eye early in the morning on Oct. 28, 2020, when two officers fired 37mm less lethal launchers toward the crowd he was standing in. He was 22 years old at the time.

The jury on Thursday unanimously found that Officers Cody MacArthur and Jesse Pineda acted negligently, used excessive force and violated Castellanos’ constitutional rights when they fired into the crowd and caused his injury.

Castellanos isn’t the first crowd control injury case faced by the LAPD, and more are working their way through the courts.

Already, Los Angeles has paid more than $19 million in liabilities stemming from LAPD’s crowd control actions since the beginning of 2020, according to an LAist analysis of data from the City Attorney’s office. Castellanos’ verdict is by far the largest sum awarded since then.

Castellanos and his lawyers told LAist that people should feel free to peacefully celebrate or exercise their first amendment rights without fear of being injured by the police.

“ I'm grateful to have this system of justice where Isaac can be compensated,” Castellanos’ lawyer Pedram Esfandiary told LAist, “and I just hope that this sends a loud and clear message to the LAPD that this is not okay.”

The LAPD has not responded to LAist’s request for comment on the case.

What happened to Castellanos

Unidentified LAPD officers disperse crowds in downtown L.A. during a celebration of the Dodgers winning the World Series against the Tampa Bay Rays on Oct. 27, 2020. A jury has awarded a man partially blinded by officers that night $11.7 million.

(

Jason Armond

/

Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

)

When the Dodgers won their first World Series in more than three decades on Oct. 27, 2020, Castellanos and his friends went to downtown L.A. to celebrate.

Castellanos told the court that he and his friends didn’t see any police officers nearby when they arrived, but within minutes they noticed a squad of police officers gathering down the street.

Video evidence presented in the trial showed that some people in the crowd threw rocks and glass bottles toward the officers. Castellanos said he was not involved. He said he did not act violently or aggressively.

Castellanos said he saw the officers holding “some kind of firearms” start to move toward the crowd, but he did not hear any order for the crowd to leave. By this time, it was after midnight.

He had begun to leave, he said, when he saw a bright muzzle flash from the direction of the officers and heard a loud pop.

He was immediately in extreme pain and felt warm blood coming from his face, he testified. He also noticed a loss of vision in his right eye.

Dr. Jerry Sebag is an eye specialist who testified as an expert witness in the case. He said that Castellanos experienced “severe blunt force trauma” to his eye, most likely from a rubber bullet, causing legal blindness in his right eye and a loss of depth perception.

Sebag said there is no medication or surgery that could fix his condition.

Evidence provided in the case later proved that the MacArthur and Pineda fired 37mm less lethal launchers at the same place and time as Castellanos says he was injured.

Lawyers for Castellanos argued in court that the officers used their weapons outside of LAPD policy, being too far away from the crowd to accurately use the weapons and not issuing a warning or dispersal order to allow Castellanos a chance to leave.

The city’s attorneys claimed that it was not the officers who caused the injury, and that the officers’ use of their weapons was within policy as they were responding to a threat from the crowd.

Other cases cost the city millions

At least seven other cases since 2020 stemming from LAPD’s crowd control actions have exceeded $1 million in liability costs to the city, according to city data.

Behind Castellanos’ $11.7 million verdict, the next largest was $3.6 million awarded to filmmaker A. Jamal Shakir Jr. after he was found to have been shot by LAPD less lethal projectiles during a May 29, 2020, protest.

City data shows the LAPD’s actions over the course of a single day — May 30, 2020 — eventually cost the city a combined total of $4.25 million to settle three lawsuits.

Iz Sinistra, a Marine Corps veteran who was struck in the head by an LAPD less lethal projectile while attending George Floyd protests on May 30, 2020, was awarded a $1.25 million settlement from the city.

Seconds after Sinistra was hit, Patricia Hill could also be seen struck in the head by a less lethal round fired by LAPD in a video released by the department. Hill was awarded a $1.5 million settlement by the city, according to city data.

Monique Alarcon is an attorney who represented both Castellanos and Sinistra in court.

Alarcon said that while the severity of injuries that have led to lawsuits against the LAPD over its crowd control tactics vary, she sees the improper use of force as a common thread.

“ I think this behooves the City of L.A. and the LAPD to really take a look at their crowd control practices and consider discontinuing using these weapons in those settings, because people get really hurt,” she told LAist.

In the past year, at least two more people have filed lawsuits alleging LAPD less lethal munitions caused permanent eye damage and blindness.

In one such case, Marshall Woodruff claims LAPD fractured his cheekbone and ruptured his right eye while he was photographing the “No Kings” protest on June 14, 2024. His lawsuit claims he is now permanently blind in that eye.

The department acknowledged in a public video that Marshall Woodruff was hit by a 40mm less lethal projectile fired by LAPD.

Jesus Javier Islas says he was blinded in one eye by a less lethal projectile allegedly fired by LAPD at a protest on Jan. 31, 2026. Lawyers for Islas told reporters they are asking $100 million in damages from the LAPD and the City of L.A.

Getting back on track

Castellanos was a college student at Cal State Long Beach when he was injured.

Before the injury, he'd been gaining momentum as an Esports athlete and streamer, testifying that he had recently won a $40,000 prize with a teammate at a competition and had won a qualifying match to play for a professional team.

While he got some accommodations from his college and was able to graduate on time, Castellanos said his Esports career ended with his injury.

Castellanos testified that he played in an Esports competition with a college alumni team after his injury, but he couldn’t play like he did before. By the end of the competition he said his team had done well, but he felt he’d held them back.

No longer able to follow his passion, he said he began working at an Amazon warehouse, packaging and sorting boxes part time. That work, too, was made much harder by the injury.

“I’m always bumping into stuff,” Castellanos testified, “I always mess up and put [items] in the wrong box.”

Now that the verdict is in, he told LAist he wants to get his life back on track so he can lead a full life.

His lawyers described in court how he has suffered from post traumatic stress disorder, depression and panic disorder as a result of the injury. Castellanos said the mental strain also made his relationships with friends and family suffer.

He told LAist the next steps are to mend those relationships and get into professional treatment for his mental health.

“ I want to try to try to get comfortable in my own skin again,” he said.

The U.S. surf team will officially be managed by surfers when the Olympics come to LA in 2028. Duh? Well, for a while there, it was in doubt. Let us explain:

The backstory

US Ski and Snowboard, based in Utah, had initially been vying for control of the Olympic surf team in hopes of turning itself into an action sports juggernaut. But faced with strong opposition in the surf world, the organization dropped its bid to manage the U.S. Olympic surf team late last year.

Why it's a second chance for USA Surfing

The designation of USA Surfing as the official “National Governing Body” for Olympic surfing is a kind of second chance for the organization. Previously, it had relinquished control over the U.S. Olympic surf team following a 2019 audit that found numerous problems with its accounting and finances.

What changed?

In a news conference this week, Gene Sykes, board chair of the U.S. Olympic committee, credited USA Surfing’s “new leadership and new approach” with earning back the board’s confidence. “Surfing is a sport that has deep roots in Southern California and will no doubt be a highlight of the LA28 games,” Sykes said. “We look forward to a positive and collaborative working relationship as we deliver on the promise of LA28 and beyond.”

Tell me about Olympic surfing

Olympic surfing at the LA28 Games will take place at Lower Trestles, a world-class surf break in San Clemente.

Go deeper on this surf v. sand fight, and the latest Olympic news

• Surfers not on board with plan to have ski group control Olympic surfing
• Why are Olympics tickets so expensive?
• LA28 to award billions in Olympic contracts. City officials worry local businesses won't get a slice
• Why city officials are warning that the Olympics could bankrupt Los Angeles