The Brief

As Hurricane Genevieve batters the Southern California coast with heavy swells this week, Long Beach city crews are busy reinforcing protective sand berms and taking extra precautions along vulnerable beachfronts ahead of elevated tides and a regional high surf advisory.

The worst will come at night, officials say. Forecasts show lunar tides will crest over 6 feet and waves will range 4 to 5 feet high on Wednesday and Thursday between 9 and 11 p.m.

It will then taper down through Saturday, with waves expected to drop down to 2 to 4 feet.

Nighttime crews will be on standby during the peak tides, while daytime staffers will spend the morning on frontloaders, reinforcing the sand berms along the Peninsula that forms Alamitos Bay and staging plywood along vulnerable parts of its boardwalks known to flood.

A truck brings in sand to rebuild a berm that was washed away on part of the Peninsula in Long Beach on Wednesday, July 29, 2026.

(

Thomas R. Cordova

/

Long Beach Post

)

The swell is elevated but manageable, local officials say, noting the breakwater and Catalina Island naturally absorb a lot of the wave energy coming from Genevieve, now a Category 4 storm, which continued its stretch across the Eastern Pacific this week.

“We’re planning like we’ve always done,” said Marine Safety Chief Gonzalo Medina, adding: “I don’t foresee anything being different about this one in particular, but Mother Nature is highly unpredictable, especially at sea.”

The city’s primary defense efforts are centered on a narrow strip of oceanfront homes along the Peninsula between 62nd and 69th places, which is exposed to swells that pass through the gap outside the breakwater and jetty that juts from the Alamitos Bay channel.

Dozers were seen early Wednesday, rebuilding a 40-yard stretch of the large sand berm — typically maintained at 7 to 8 feet high — after overnight waves breached a section on Tuesday and knocked over the raised line of plywood.

Kelly Armstrong, a city beach superintendent, said night crews will remain deployed over the next three days to fortify the beach as needed.

The expected tides are elevated but slightly lower than the three previously seen this summer, he said, with waves that were several feet higher. Prior events this summer did not result in any property damage or injuries.

A greater worry, officials say, is the frequency of high tides that trample through the city’s sand walls and flood streets, as changing ocean dynamics and El Niño conditions spurred by climate change create taller and warmer tides — above predictions this season, according to the National Weather Service.

A tractor with a front loader rebuilds the sand berm at the end of the peninsula in Long Beach on Wednesday, July 29, 2026.

(

Thomas R. Cordova

/

Long Beach Post

)

“The tides that we’re seeing now, we did not see in the past,” Todd Leland, manager of the city’s Marine Bureau, told LAist. “We used to not have to build berms year-round. We’d only have to do it on an occasional basis here on the peninsula.”

The city spends about $1 million annually trucking sand six days a week from the wider western beaches back to the Peninsula to replace what waves wash away.

Long Beach is nearing an awarded contract to commence a $14.5 million dredging project that, if approved, should start in late October and extend the beach out by 260 feet using 415,000 cubic yards of sand from the entrance channel of Alamitos Bay.

In the meantime, local life along the waterfront carried on largely as normal on Wednesday.

More than 600 youth aged 9 to 17 arose early in the morning to take part in the Ironguard race — a two-mile swim around the Long Beach Pier and a 4-mile run. It went off without a hitch, Medina said.

If you live in California, chances are you’ve seen the ads that say “Home insurance rates skyrocket” and “The FAIR Plan is broken.”

They urge you to contact your state representative to ask them to “fix our wildfire problem to make California more affordable.”

Those ads are connected to what Los Angeles fire survivors, consumer advocacy groups and the insurance industry say is a secretive, last-minute attempt by Gov. Gavin Newsom to help utilities reduce how much they pay for wildfires they cause.

With the legislative session set to resume next week and run through the end of the month, the governor’s staff has been talking with state lawmakers about addressing challenges around wildfire recovery and rising catastrophic risk in California, a spokesperson for his office confirmed.

Lawmakers have not released the text of the proposals. Newsom spokesperson Anthony Martinez would not say whether the legislation will do the following, as alleged by fire survivors and a consumer advocacy group:

• Limit compensation for fire victims’ pain and suffering.
• Eliminate insurance companies’ right to recover wildfire costs from utilities or other corporations.
• Cap attorneys’ fees, making it harder for fire survivors to get representation.

Every Fire Survivors Network, a group started by survivors of last year’s Eaton Fire, and Consumer Watchdog, a consumer advocacy group that focuses on insurance and other issues, say the bills would shift recovery costs from utility companies to insurance policyholders. Insurance industry representatives agree. The strange bedfellows are calling out the late political maneuvering known as “gut-and-amend,” which lawmakers use to create bills by gutting other pending bills and replacing their language for a different purpose and are meant to be fast-tracked.

The groups are speaking out against the purported bill package, which appears to align with the goals of Wildfire Survivors First, a campaign funded by utilities that, despite its name, has no wildfire survivors groups among its supporters.

“Californians deserve a government that works in the open, not behind closed doors,” said Joy Chen, leader of the Every Fire Survivors Network, in a press conference last week. She urged the governor to “choose democracy over corporate special interests.”

In an open letter to the governor, Chen laid out how she said Newsom has, over the years, already helped utilities shift responsibility for wildfires they cause.

The state's three major utilities, San Diego Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric, have tremendous influence in California. They have what seems to be an unlimited number of names, entities and affiliates; donate to campaigns by Democrats and Republicans; and together employ hundreds of lobbyists who advocate for hundreds of bills every session. In the 2025-26 session, their donations to sitting legislators totaled more than $1.2 million, according to CalMatters’ Digital Democracy Database.

Martinez said the discussions between the governor’s office and California lawmakers are informed by a report released in April by the California Earthquake Authority, which under Senate Bill 254 was tasked with studying how the state should “responsibly and equitably allocate the burdens from natural catastrophes.”

That bill — rewritten so late last year that it required the Legislature to extend its session — also allows utilities to shift additional wildfire costs to consumers if their costs exceed a wildfire fund created in 2019 through legislation also backed by the governor. The three major utilities paid half of the $21 billion fund. Californians paid the other half through monthly surcharges on their electric bills. Eaton Fire survivors have sued Edison over what they say is negligence that led to the fire; the cost of claims from the fire are expected to exceed what’s in the fund.

Among the April report’s many recommendations is to put more money in the wildfire fund by increasing the surcharge on utility customers by $8.50 a month, bringing the total to $11 a month.

Nathan Click, a spokesperson for Wildfire Survivors First, said the campaign is calling on lawmakers to “urgently implement” many of the conclusions in the SB 254 report, which he said “highlighted how payouts to financial middlemen — like trial attorneys, hedge funds and insurance companies — are often paid out before wildfire victims receive a single dollar for rebuilding.”

Click did not answer CalMatters’ question about why there are no fire survivors groups on the list of more than 200 organizations that support the effort. Most are local chambers of commerce or business groups.

CalMatters contacted nearly a dozen of the organizations. Ten did not respond or would not make their executives available for an interview.

But the chief executive of one of them, Jennifer Gray Thompson, said she changed her mind about participating once she realized the coalition did not include fire victims groups. Her organization, After the Fire, which helps support leaders in communities around the country that have experienced mega fires, was briefly on the list but was removed promptly at her request, she said.

“I’m from Sonoma,” Thompson told CalMatters. “I’m a national advocate for fire victims. I’m definitely not on their side,” she added. Former state Sen. Bill Dodd, a Democrat whom she said did a lot of good for fire survivors when he was in office, was among those who contacted her to solicit her group’s support for the effort, according to emails she shared with CalMatters.

Dodd did not return a phone call and text message from CalMatters.

A construction crew works on a home as Eaton Fire survivors and community supporters attend a news conference in support of Senate Bill 1090, the “Keep Altadena Land in Altadena Hands” Act, in Altadena on June 29, 2026. The bill aims to limit high-density development by outside investors on lots where single-family homes stood before the Eaton Fire.

(

Mario Tama

/

Getty Images

)

The Bay Area Council, another supporter, counts PG&E among its member businesses. Spokesperson Rufus Jeffris said the council “generally supports sensible policies and investments that reduce wildfire risk and increase community wildfire resilience and balance the diverse needs of business, consumers and residents.”

A Consumer Watchdog analysis of utilities’ required financial disclosures shows that 66% of the non-governmental organizations on the list have received utility-industry contributions, grants, sponsorships and more worth about $7.3 million from 2023 to 2025.

Click called Consumer Watchdog a “shadow lobby firm for trial attorneys” and said “it should come as no surprise that they are trying to protect a system that prioritizes trial attorneys over wildfire victims.”

Spokespeople for PG&E, Edison and SDG&E referred CalMatters to the Wildfire Victims First campaign regarding the campaign and the legislative proposal.

What state lawmakers are saying or not saying

Sen. Ben Allen, a Democrat from the Los Angeles area whose constituents include survivors of the Palisades Fire, attended the Friday press conference.

“Any solutions that we have have to (hold) the responsible parties accountable,” Allen said in a room full of fire survivors.

Who’s responsible for the costs of wildfire recovery is important to both Allen’s current job and possibly his future one: He is chair of the Senate energy and utilities committee, and is running for insurance commissioner.

Allen’s spokesperson, Ben Cheever, said the senator was not available for an interview about the specifics of the legislative package.

But he sent the following statement from Allen: “I will carefully review any proposal put forth to ensure we hold responsible parties accountable while meaningfully reducing risk to improve affordability. We should not simply shift around the costs consumers pay without addressing this more holistically.”

Fellow Democrat Sen. Sasha Renee Perez, who represents Eaton Fire survivors, said in an interview with CalMatters that if a legislative package contains the proposals fire survivors suspect they do, she would have a “tremendous issue” with them being presented at the last minute. She also said she has talked with other members of the Legislature who “are very upset with what’s taking place.”

Perez said she would oppose any proposal that limits non-economic damages for fire survivors: “I represent Altadena. I have a friend who lost his sister in the fire. How do you put a price tag on losing your sibling?”

The senator also said she was “so frustrated and shocked” that SB 254, which started off as a bill intended to reduce profits for investor-owned utilities, ended up helping utilities instead during the last three days of last year’s session.

“That’s not the way government should work,” she said.

CalMatters also contacted several other lawmakers or their offices, especially ones who lead related committees. The following Democratic lawmakers’ offices did not respond: Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas; Assemblymember Lisa Calderon, who leads the insurance committee; and Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, who leads the utilities and energy committee.

Spokespeople for Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limon and Sen. Josh Becker responded with emailed statements similar to that sent by Newsom spokesperson Martinez: “The current system is unsustainable and not working for fire survivors, utility customers, or insurance policyholders.”

The insurance industry’s concerns

Insurance industry representatives say if insurance companies can’t recover wildfire costs from utilities, also known as subrogation, they will inevitably raise premiums.

“We don't think it's fair to make insurance policyholders pay more to bail out utility shareholders,” said Denni Ritter, a vice president at the American Property Casualty Insurance Association.

Ritter also pushed back against the assertion by the utilities’ campaign that insurance companies usually recover their costs from utilities before paying out claims to their policyholders: “It's not like AAA goes, ‘OK, we'll pay you once we've recovered from the utilities’.”

Rex Frazier is president of the Personal Insurance Federation of California, which represents the largest insurers operating in the state. He said this campaign is the latest attempt by utilities to chip away at their industry’s possible liability for wildfires. Sometimes, the insurance industry has had conversations with utilities, he said. That’s not happening this time, he said.

Now he, like other Californians, is seeing the ads from the Wildfire Victims First campaign, whose website says it’s funded by PG&E, SDG&E and SCE shareholders and three other organizations.

“We’re trying to understand why they’re talking about the insurance market,” Frazier said. “We can’t get a clear answer about what they have in mind.”

Jeanne Kuang contributed reporting.

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

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Permit applications have been filed to repair and rebuild the Lineage cold-storage warehouse in Boyle Heights after the city of Los Angeles ordered the property owner to repair and remove all fire-damaged portions.

Two applications were submitted to the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety days before a July 29 compliance deadline outlined in the city’s code enforcement order. The order, addressed to property owner Chill Build Los Angeles, requires ownership to “obtain all required permits prior to reconstructing the damaged portions of the building.” Failure to comply with the order would mean the property owner could face additional financial penalties and possible misdemeanor penalties under the Los Angeles Municipal Code.

LADBS confirmed staff previously met with Lineage and Chill Build representatives to discuss the city’s enforcement order, including “permitting requirements to rebuild.” 

One application, filed Monday, seeks to “repair and rebuild fire-damaged portions of the building to original, pre-fire condition” with no change to the building’s “footprint, square footage, height, use, or occupancy.” A second application was filed Tuesday and seeks to “repair the fire damaged electrical installation.”

Both applications were filed by Tina Prater of T&B Planning, which provides consulting services on land use planning and environmental compliance. Prater did not respond to a request for comment.

The permit filings also come as Mayor Bass has taken a firmer stance against rebuilding the warehouse. 

In an interview with Boyle Heights Beat on July 9, Bass said she wanted to hear from the community before weighing in on whether the warehouse should be rebuilt. But on Monday, she said in a video posted on social media, that “Lineage shouldn’t even think about coming back and rebuilding the warehouse.”

In a statement on Tuesday, Bass said the company should focus on cleaning up the site before pursuing construction. 

“This corporation has devastated Boyle Heights and East L.A. I can’t believe they would even think about starting the rebuilding process while they haven’t cleaned up the mess they’ve created. That is what Lineage should be solely focused on,” Bass said.

“It’s a slap in the face to the families that are forced to live with the consequences of an irresponsible corporation’s actions every single day.”

Here is what we know so far:

Does filing a permit mean Lineage can start rebuilding?

No. Filing a permit application begins the city’s review process. City staff will review them to determine what approvals are needed before work on the building can begin. Under the Los Angeles permitting process, some projects can move through the city’s Department of Building and Safety (LADBS) if they meet zoning and building requirements. Others may require additional review from City Planning before permits can be issued. 

The applications for the warehouse describe repairing fire-damaged portions of the building “to original, pre-fire condition,” and an electrical system with “like-for-like” replacements, indicating no changes to the building’s size or use. This suggests the applications may follow the city’s standard permit review process, though LADBS has not said whether additional approvals will be required. 

Who decides whether the permits are approved?

The Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety, the city agency responsible for reviewing building plans, issuing permits and enforcing building codes, oversees the permitting process for properties subject to code enforcement orders. 

According to an LADBS information bulletin, owners cannot begin repair work that requires permits until those permits are obtained. Applicants must also obtain zoning information from the Los Angeles Department of City Planning, the agency responsible for determining whether projects comply with the city’s zoning and land-use rules.  

Where does Mayor Bass stand on the rebuild?

In her statement, Bass said her office was in the process “of revising our Executive Order to reflect these rebuilding concerns because this situation has become so egregious.”

In a July 9 interview with Boyle Heights Beat, Bass could not answer whether rebuilding the warehouse should be allowed.

She said she wanted to spend more time talking to residents before coming to a decision. Bass also urged residents to hold her accountable as she oversaw cleanup efforts and looked for ways the city can provide economic relief.

Screen time limits for Los Angeles Unified School District’s youngest students begin in August.

“My hope and expectation is that most families will see a dramatic reduction in screen time during the school day, but also in the evenings, as mandated by school,” said Nick Melvoin, who represents the Westside’s Board District 4.

While LAUSD was the first major U.S. school district to restrict screen time across all grades, the policy, along with a 2024 decision to ban student cellphone use, is part of a nationwide trend toward limiting young people’s exposure to tech during the school day.

Many parents have embraced — and advocated for— less technology in the classroom, but questions remain about how LAUSD will enforce the screen time limits and the potential for unintended consequences for students who have less access to devices outside of school.

Below we break down what we know about LAUSD’s new screen time policy.

What part of the screen time limits start in August?

The policy eliminates digital device usage for students in early education (preschool), transitional kindergarten (TK), kindergarten and first grade.

There are several exceptions, including:

• District- and state-mandated assessments. 
• Students enrolled in the LAUSD Virtual Academy program. 
• To help students with disabilities learn, as mandated by their Individualized Education Program (IEP) or 504 Plan. 

Students will not be automatically issued devices to take home. However, there is still a process for families to request one.

The policy also requires the district to block all students from accessing YouTube, social media and streaming platforms without teacher approval.

The type of work students bring home may change, too. The policy encourages educators to provide off-screen assignments.

“Homework should prioritize reading, writing, problem-solving, hands-on activities, observation, and other learning experiences that can be completed without the use of a device,” the policy reads.

Andrés Chait, the district’s superintendent, said at a July 21 news conference that implementing the new policy will take time.

“On Aug. 12, you may not necessarily see in the immediate all of the changes that the policy calls for, but they will be implemented methodically and transparently,” Chait said.

Where did the screen time policy come from?

A group of Los Angeles parents organized a group called Schools Beyond Screens in 2025 and started speaking at board meetings, collecting petition signatures and advocating for the district to limit student device use.

Melvoin brought forward the resolution that ultimately led to the new policy in April.

“We had not recalibrated or reset our relationship with technology post-COVID,” said Melvoin, at the time. “Six years ago, we sent every kid in L.A. home with a device, which was a lifeline. … But when they came back, I'm still seeing kids as young as preschool on devices all day.”

The board adopted the policy in June after staff conducted research and outreach to parents, educators and community members.

How much does it cost to limit screen time?

District staff estimated the most significant costs include up to $4 million in one-time funds to purchase carts to store laptops in elementary school classrooms and an annual $1 million to pay for software to track screen time and block content.

The district has yet to spend this money, according to a statement from a Los Angeles Unified spokesperson.

“Conversations with schools will take place in the early part of the upcoming school year to assess needs on a school-by-school basis,” the statement read.

Was there any pushback to the new policy?

The board voted unanimously to adopt the screen time policy with the exception of Board President Scott Schmerelson, who recused himself from the vote.

However, there was some discussion about whether the limitations would have unintended consequences for teachers and students.

Board Vice President Rocío Rivas cautioned that the minute limits may discourage teachers from assigning multimedia projects, and adds the burden of monitoring student technology use.

“Schools may end up focusing on counting minutes, documenting usage, auditing classrooms instead of evaluating learning outcomes,” Rivas said.

LAUSD staff’s analysis of the screen time policy noted a “risk of slowing access to technology and its advancement for students to compete with the world.”

During public comment in June, Mireya Garcia, a mother and grandmother, told the board that her family shares a single computer at home.

“I don’t want them to lose access to tools that can help them read, to learn and to be successful,” Garcia said.

How are teachers preparing for the changes?

LAUSD adopted the screen time policy when most teachers and students were off-campus for the summer.

A Los Angeles Unified spokesperson wrote in a statement that training has started with “dedicated sessions” for principals and administrators and that more resources will be available to educators before Aug.12 and throughout the school year.

“This approach allows us to be respectful of educators’ time while ensuring schools are prepared and supported for a successful rollout,” the spokesperson wrote.

The first opportunity for most teachers to return to their classroom is on Monday, Aug. 10, two days before school starts.

Stephanie Levinson, who’s taught at San Fernando Elementary for 28 years, said she has not received any additional guidance from the district since the policy was passed this summer.

This year, she’ll teach a combined first- and second-grade class. Under the new policy, first graders do not have access to digital devices and second graders can use them for up to 20 minutes per day this year.

“It's stressful because we don't know,” Levinson said. “It's hard to plan a school day when we're not sure what's gonna be mandated, how things are gonna work.”

Levinson said that, in the past, she’d assign students to use interactive learning programs like ABCmouse while she worked with their peers in small groups. She also fundraised to bring laptops and tablets to her classroom, where most students come from low-income families, before the devices were widespread in the district.

“If a kid hasn't learned how to even use a computer or type, how are they going to…not be disadvantaged against kids that have computers?” Levinson said.

How can families get access to a digital device?

Parents and guardians can request a take-home device when enrolling their child or through the district’s Parent Portal app or website.

The Los Angeles Public Library has a laptop and hotspot checkout program for adults.

What’s next for screen time in LAUSD?

The policy requires the board to review the screen time rules at least once a year during a public meeting.

“One of the reasons we crafted this policy is because we didn't see a policy that we could just adopt nationally,” Melvoin said. “But that also means that it'll be iterative and that we're working out the kinks.”

The district has also created an ad hoc committee to provide recommendations on how the district is using AI.

When Los Angeles County and city officials released the results of the annual homelessness count last week, there seemed to be a bright spot: While the number of people counted as living on the streets went up by nearly 8%, the number of families reported to be living on the streets decreased by 27% in L.A. and 34% across the county, according to LAist's analysis of the data.

But providers — as well as the agency that oversees the count — are skeptical the numbers match reality.

Those official numbers don’t add up for Constanza Pachon, CEO of The Whole Child, a homeless services agency that solely serves families in southeast L.A. County.

“ It's not what the experience is on our doors,” Pachon said.

For instance, the count found an estimated 274 families experiencing homelessness in her agency’s service area, but Pachon said her organization served nearly 1,500 families last year who were unhoused.

“It’s so unbelievably undercounted,” she said.

Providers have long said that family homelessness is hard to quantify because families with children aren’t always a visible population living on the streets. They’re more likely to experience homelessness by staying in their cars, motels, or by couch-surfing.

“The point-in-time count does not capture that nuance that as providers we see on the day-to-day,” Pachon said.

The way the point-in-time count works, in part, is that volunteers fan out throughout the city and county to physically count who they see experiencing homelessness on the street or in “dwellings” — tents, vehicles and makeshift shelters — places where children may not be visible or present.

“ People who have kids will find places for their kids so that they don't have to live outside, even if they don't have an option themselves,” said Katie Hill, CEO of Union Station Homeless Services.

She said last year alone, her agency had to turn away 500 families for shelter. Meanwhile, the official estimated number of unsheltered families in Union Station’s service area was 42.

“I honestly don't know that I would take a whole lot away from [the family count]. I would look at it as if homelessness is increasing, family homelessness is definitely increasing as well,” she said.

What's behind the numbers?

Officials in charge of the count say they’re also cautious about the numbers. The overall number of people living in families with children countywide — including sheltered and unsheltered — decreased by 14%, the agency said. (LAist's analysis of the numbers show an even more dramatic decline in families that are unsheltered.)

“We have reason to believe that declining resources available to families is behind this family point-in-time count decrease,” said Paul Rubenstein, chief of staff at LAHSA.

Due to funding cuts over the last year, families have been turned away from shelters that were at capacity.

That meant families weren’t seeking help at resource centers like they used to, which made it hard to accurately capture family homelessness. Officials use surveys distributed at Family Solution Centers to help estimate the number of families experiencing homelessness, since it’s hard to physically count families on the streets.

“If fewer families complete surveys, there is less information available to estimate how many families are represented in the count. That can lead to a lower estimate of unsheltered families, even if the number of tents or vehicles counted remains the same,” Ahmad Chapman, a spokesperson for LAHSA, told LAist in an email. "For that reason, the family estimate should be viewed cautiously and tracked over multiple years, rather than relying too heavily on a single year's change."

Funding for a rental subsidy program that helps families move into permanent housing was cut by nearly half, according to the agency, and providers say that has contributed to a backlog of families staying in shelters longer.

Hill, with Union Station Homeless Services, said because people are staying longer, there’s no room to take in new families.

“ One thing we have seen too is people getting discouraged because they keep coming to us for help, and we don't have a lot of help that we can offer,” Hill said.