The Brief

When Gov. Gavin Newsom launched his new podcast last month, he touted it as an opportunity to understand the MAGA movement’s motivations and figure out a path forward for Democrats after the party’s bruising losses in the 2024 election.

But the early response has predominantly been bewilderment — from supporters, critics and the public alike — as listeners struggle to make sense of Newsom’s intentions, his political evolution and what the show signals for his leadership of California.

The governor’s about-face from leading critic of President Donald Trump to MAGA-curious pundit comes at a critical moment for the state, as California launches legal battles against Trump administration policies and faces potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funding cuts.

Republicans have dismissed Newsom’s concerted shift to the center on some issues as disingenuous and roasted him for diverting his attention away from solving the state’s problems. Even many allies who applaud Newsom for reaching across the ideological aisle were troubled by his early guests and how the governor boosted their ultraconservative views.

And in Sacramento, legislators and advocates are scratching their heads. If the podcast is, as insiders widely suspect, Newsom’s attempt to redefine himself ahead of a long-anticipated presidential bid, then what does a renewed focus on the national stage mean for the remaining two years of his governorship?

“Quite frankly, we’re all asking those questions,” said state Sen. Ben Allen, a Santa Monica Democrat.

Allen pushed for a limit on single-use plastics in California that Newsom signed into law in 2022 — before scrapping rules to put the law into effect right before the final deadline this month, citing cost concerns, and telling regulators to start over. Environmentalists fumed that the governor was bowing to industry pressure after an election in which affordability was at the forefront of voters’ minds.

“I think people are trying to figure out what’s going on,” Allen said.

The governor’s mixed messages

Newsom gave nearly all his attention in the first part of the year to the response and recovery from the devastating wildfires that burned through Los Angeles County in early January. Despite initially proclaiming last fall that he would again lead the resistance to Trump, national politics took a backseat as the governor navigated their complex relationship to lobby for federal disaster aid, which California has not yet secured.

But Newsom seemed to flip a switch in late February with the podcast launch. Since then, the governor has not held any public events or press conferences, allowing the four episodes of his show released so far to drive his messaging almost completely, though he has also waded back into denouncing federal Republicans on social media.

That has created a conundrum for those trying to understand how what Newsom says in these casual conversations may translate to his day job running the biggest state in the country. When his remarks generate headlines — as they did during the controversial first episode featuring the Trump-aligned activist Charlie Kirk, where Newsom called it “deeply unfair” for transgender athletes to participate in girls’ sports — his office refuses to clarify his positions.

Speaking to far-right former Trump adviser Steve Bannon on the third episode last week about the president’s foreign trade strategy, Newsom said he was “not an absolutist as it relates to being against tariffs,” just days after the governor put out a statement that “tariffs are nothing more than a tax on hardworking American families.” Spokesperson Izzy Gardon would not explain when Newsom supported the use of tariffs, directing CalMatters back to his comments on the podcast.

Cornered by reporters at the Capitol this week, Newsom dodged questions about whether he supported Republican-led legislation that would ban transgender women and girls from competitive sports in California. “I haven’t seen any bills,” he repeatedly said.

The shifting tone and positions without explanation has undermined Democrats’ trust, said Anthony Rendon, who was Assembly speaker when Newsom took office during Trump’s first term promising to make California a bulwark against the president.

Rendon, who termed out of the Legislature last year, said he talks to former colleagues who now wonder whether they should strategically shift their priorities so that they don’t waste time on measures that Newsom will simply veto.

“They’re mystified,” he said. “‘WTF’ is the most common text message I get.”

Uncertainty in Sacramento

Many lawmakers, not wanting to damage their relationships with the man who ultimately decides the fate of their agendas, are loath to speak publicly about the governor’s podcast. Those who will can be painstakingly diplomatic, emphasizing that they remain committed to their own work.

“We just have to remain focused. The outside noise to me is neither here nor there,” said Sen. Lena Gonzalez, a Long Beach Democrat who serves as the Senate majority leader. “Sometimes words are just words, and I’m hoping that that’s where it stays.”

Some of the most progressive lawmakers at the Capitol have spoken out against Newsom’s choice of guests and his comments about transgender athletes, but they have largely separated those complaints from the governor himself, whom they characterize as an ally.

Assemblymember Ash Kalra, a San Jose Democrat, said there is too much focus on what the governor is doing as the Trump administration challenges democracy itself. He said it was not helpful for Democrats to go after each other when they should be fighting the Republicans in Washington, D.C.

“I do think that every Democrat right now should be ringing the alarm as to the constitutional crisis that we’re having, and anything that detracts from that I think minimizes the dangerous place we’re in as a nation,” Kalra said.

Like many Democrats, Allen complimented Newsom for “talking to people from different perspectives in different parts of the country” as the party tries to make sense of Trump’s victory in November. But Allen said he didn’t want Democrats to take the wrong lessons from the 2024 election and be afraid to assert their values.

“I do think that some of the people who have been on his show have been a little fringe,” Allen said. “I worry that they may be anchoring the conversation in a way that’s counterproductive.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom addresses media after signing legislation in Los Angeles on Sept. 28, 2023.

(

Alisha Jucevic

/

CalMatters

)

Listeners confused and distraught

Listeners have been equally perplexed. Voter data expert Paul Mitchell surveyed 1,000 Californians before and after the first episode of the podcast dropped and found a tangle of conflicting responses.

Asked to watch three snippets of Newsom’s conversation with Kirk, nearly a quarter of respondents said they viewed the governor as more moderate, but twice as many people said the podcast harmed their perception of Newsom as improved it.

“In the short-term, wow, Republicans are not convinced and Democrats are not pleased,” Mitchell said, pointing to hundreds of open-ended comments from the survey in which conservatives largely expressed suspicion of Newsom’s intentions and liberals felt betrayed.

Mitchell also tracked a drop in the governor’s approval rating, from 52% to 47%. But since the launch, positive and negative sentiments about the podcast have dropped while neutral sentiment has nearly doubled — with political independents seeming more receptive.

“That could be voters kind of cracking the door open,” Mitchell said. “If he’s trying to get away from the Gavin Newsom caricature, then that might be something he’s doing.”

Yet a true political reinvention, one that could reshape the arc of his career, is a long-term project, for better or worse.

Liberal donors and activists who backed Newsom in the past were shaken by the early episodes, which also saw the governor brush past comments that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump without any debate as he cozied up to figures who have been accused of antisemitism and doing a Nazi salute. Movie star Jane Fonda compared Newsom to the former UK Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, known for appeasing Adolf Hilter’s early territorial annexations to avoid war.

Ludovic Blain, executive director of the progressive donor network California Donor Table, slammed Newsom for “capitulating to authoritarians,” even as he expressed hope that the governor would grow a stronger backbone and defend civil rights as the podcast continues.

“He’s turning the Democratic Party into one that stands for nothing,” Blain said. “We do expect Gavin to be better.”

‘I don’t think this podcast is gonna help him’

And if Newsom is going to persuade the public that he’s got bipartisan appeal and is electable in purple states, that day still looked far away at the recent California Republican Party convention in Sacramento. Attendees — even the young men whose drift to Trump in 2024 has convinced Democrats that podcasts are the future — were not buying the governor’s transformation.

“He hasn’t done anything to build any trust. And I don’t think this podcast is gonna help him,” said Topher Hall, a 25-year-old college student from El Dorado County wearing a Make America Great Again Again sweatshirt.

Hall said he had watched clips from the podcast on Kirk’s social media and felt that Newsom was merely trying to use the large established audiences of his conservative guests to build his own platform.

After growing up apolitical in the liberal Bay Area, Hall said he was drawn to the Republican Party in recent years by its stances in favor of gun rights and against transgender athletes. But Newsom’s comments about the latter had struck him as opportunistic flip-flopping.

“He’s kind of a slick politician. I think he’s like the used car salesman of politics. I think he’s just Hollywood,” Hall said. “He’s just a sellout.”

Jessica Rutan, a 60-year-old retired educator from Fullerton, said Newsom lost her completely with his dictatorial lockdowns during the coronavirus pandemic. But she listened to his conversations with Kirk and Bannon, curious what they would say to him — and whether the governor would actually take their advice.

She was frustrated that he had not, calling Newsom’s engagement with the conservative activists “so disingenuous” and the “wrong priority” following the Los Angeles fires.

“Your place is the governor. You have a job to do and now you just want to sit on a chair and act like you’re buddies with people?” said Rutan, who sported a bedazzled red-white-and-blue elephant pin. “You have people in the state you need to take care of. Why aren’t you doing your job? And that’s what I’m most annoyed with.”

Three years after Gov. Gavin Newsom proclaimed Imperial County's "Lithium Valley" to be a game-changer for California's economy and alternative energy transition, little has changed.

The southern end of the Salton Sea contains rich sources of lithium, a mineral used for electric car batteries, cellphones and other electronics. A few years ago California politicians raved about prospects for extracting the critical mineral from desert aquifers.

But lithium resources remain untapped, as plans to mine them falter amid legal challenges and funding problems.

The Hell's Kitchen project by Controlled Thermal Resources has been delayed by lawsuits arguing that the company neglected to address its environmental impacts. Last month an appeals court sent the environmental review back to Imperial County to correct deficiencies regarding water and air quality effects.

The appellate decision validates residents’ questions about the project, Luis Olmedo, executive director for one of the plaintiffs, Comite Civico del Valle, said in a statement to CalMatters.

“Do we have enough water to support these projects over the long term?” he wrote. “What happens to our communities if Colorado River supplies are reduced? And what happens to our air as less water reaches the Salton Sea? The Court of Appeal made clear that those questions deserve credible and well supported answers.”

Lauren Rose, communications officer for Controlled Thermal Resources, said the company is reviewing legal options and would not comment because of ongoing litigation. Two other lithium projects are in various stages of development, but none are near full operation.

Newsom’s office didn’t respond to CalMatters’ questions about lithium development, but referred them to the California Energy Commission.

“Though efforts to develop the resources have been slower than anticipated – largely due to global lithium markets and prices – progress is being made, with developers securing funding to advance projects,” said Niki Woodard, communications director for the commission.

Imperial County Supervisor Ryan Kelley said the setbacks aren’t surprising; lithium mining is technically tricky and procedures to extract it from thermal aquifers are new.

“It’s not an easy thing to work with,” he said. “It’s a hot resource with a lot of solids in it, and that’s why the lithium is there. So we’re still very optimistic and encouraged by the companies that are still proceeding.”

The buzz over Lithium Valley

In 2023, Newsom visited the Salton Sea to promote the region as a global center for lithium mining and battery production that would drive a worldwide transition to zero-emission vehicles.

“We’ve been all-in on Lithium Valley, building up a global hub for clean energy and making sure that local communities benefit from this once-in-a-generation opportunity,” he declared.

The Salton Sea is a hypersaline lake in an active volcanic zone that includes five small lava domes, boiling mud pots and underground reservoirs of hot, mineral rich water. Geothermal plants tower over the desert floor with arrays of tanks, pipes and cooling towers that turn steam from the thermal aquifers into electricity.

Those aquifers also contain the highest concentrations of lithium of any geothermal brine in the world, according to the California Energy Commission. The federal Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that there’s enough lithium to make 375 million batteries for electric vehicles, more than the number of cars on the road in the U.S. now.

Developers propose extracting lithium and other minerals such as zinc and manganese from the brine, through a closed loop system they promise will be cleaner and safer than hard rock mines in Australia and China, or evaporation ponds in South America.

For years California politicians were giddy about prospects for a domestic source of the key mineral. In 2021 the state convened the Lithium Valley Commission, which offered recommendations on mining and marketing the mineral, and addressed economic and environmental issues involved in its extraction.

In 2022 Newsom promoted the plan with former President Joe Biden, and directed more than $100 million toward research and development of lithium extraction.

Community groups raise concerns

As companies geared up to start lithium production, environmental advocates put the brakes on plans for Hell’s Kitchen, which would extract up to 300,000 metric tons of lithium carbonate per year and generate almost 50 megawatts of geothermal energy: enough to power tens of thousands of homes.

Comite Civico del Valle, a social justice organization, and Earthworks, an energy and mining watchdog group, challenged the Environmental Impact Report for the project in 2024. They argued that the company neglected potential problems with air quality, water use, hazardous materials and tribal cultural resources.

In January, 2025, a judge rejected their claim and gave Controlled Thermal Resources the go-ahead for Hell’s Kitchen, ruling that the company had met legal requirements for environmental review. Rodney Colwell, CEO of Controlled Thermal Resources, told CalMatters at that time that he expected to start construction shortly, but said the lawsuit put the project at risk and disrupted its financing, setting it back a year or more.

In August an appeals court reversed parts of that decision. It ruled that the project’s environmental documents don’t prove that the Imperial Irrigation District can supply water to the project for 50 years, nor account for possible cuts to Colorado River water supplies.

It also found that the environmental review didn’t address how water use could affect air quality by drying out the Salton Sea lakebed. The court kicked the environmental review back to Imperial County, ordering it to remedy those deficiencies.

“What we see is a big win for the people and environment of Imperial County,” said Jared Naimark, western senior mining manager at Earthworks.

He said the appeals court vindicated complaints that the project didn’t clearly identify its water source.

“They can't just say, we'll figure that out later,” Naimark said. “They need to show their work on where that water is going to come from now, and analyze the impacts of it.”

How lithium development affects people in Imperial County

Although the appellate court concluded that the company properly consulted with local tribal representatives, they want more of a say. Kwaaymii tribal elder Carmen Lucas is calling for protection of key sites, including mudpots that tribes consider the heartbeat of Mother Earth.

“From the beginning I have made it clear that I’m not opposed to development,” she said. “I am asking that it be done in a balanced way.”

She’s pushing to place the Salton Sea area known as the Southeast Lake Cahuilla Active Volcanic Cultural District on the National Historic Register. While that designation doesn’t necessarily limit development, it would affirm the region’s value.

“It’s clear to me that Washington is looking at California’s desert as a wasteland,” Lucas said. “There's a beauty in the desert, and it opens the door for creativity and imagination.”

The county is reviewing the appellate ruling and deciding its next steps, Bari Bean, the assistant executive officer for Imperial County, wrote in a statement to CalMatters.

In the meantime workers who trained for jobs in the upcoming lithium industry are sidelined, as facilities where they hoped to work are stalled.

San Diego State University opened an $80 million STEM facility in Imperial County to train workers to “reap the benefits of the ‘white gold,’” SDSU president Adela de la Torre wrote in CalMatters. “But unless progress in Lithium Valley accelerates rapidly, these students will graduate into an empty local job market,” she warned.

Last year the Trump administration slashed federal clean energy commitments and Congress eliminated federal tax credits for electric cars, leaving lithium development uncertain.

And the Imperial County Board of Supervisors adopted a controversial plan for splitting up lithium tax revenue that reserves most of the money for the county, while dividing remaining funds between local cities based on size, instead of how close they’ll be to lithium facilities.

What happens next?

Despite legal delays, the Hell’s Kitchen project has plodded forward with some notable changes to its business strategy. Last year the Army Corps of Engineers extended permitting deadlines for the project under a designation called FAST-41.

Then in January Controlled Thermal Resources announced a new venture to supply geothermal power for data centers, signalling that it may be shifting its focus from lithium mining to powering artificial intelligence.

Shortly after that it merged with a U.S. firm, Plum Acquisition Corp. to become a publicly traded company and accelerate the first phase of construction for Hell’s Kitchen.

Two other projects are also in the works. Berkshire Hathaway’s CalEnergy operates 10 existing geothermal plants at the Salton Sea and recently completed a pilot of direct lithium extraction, then converted it into battery-grade lithium compounds, Christina Fleming, senior vice president at Berkshire Hathaway Energy Renewables, told CalMatters in a statement.

It plans to launch a demonstration plant in Calipatria by the end of the year and operate it through 2027. Then it will decide whether to build a full-scale commercial project, which could produce 90,000 metric tons of lithium per year: enough for 11 million EV batteries.

A third company, EnergySource Minerals, has permits for a lithium facility called Project ATLiS in the Imperial Valley. Company officials didn’t provide a timeline for the project, but said it’s moving ahead and could bring millions of dollars in tax revenue and hundreds of construction and operations jobs.

“We are actively engaged with all stakeholders to move this project forward as quickly as possible,” said CEO Eric Spomer.

Imperial County aims to streamline and standardize lithium development by creating a Lithium Valley Specific Plan and Program Environmental Impact Report, which would establish a planning and environmental framework for future development.

“I wish we had something of the commodity being produced today, but if it’s going to be produced in the years to come, that’s a good thing,” Kelly said. “And it will be done in accordance with all of the rules and regulations of the state of California, which are not as easy as other states and other regions of the world.”

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

The Trump administration is ratcheting up its fight to get more crude flowing through California and reverse the state’s efforts to move away from fossil fuels.

Its latest salvo is a federal review of California’s coastal management program, which is run largely by a state commission that has had a powerful role for decades in shaping development along the coast. Environmental advocates fear federal officials could use the review to strip the California Coastal Commission of its ability to have a say in projects involving federal agencies that affect the state’s rugged coastal bluffs, pristine beaches and world-class surfing spots.

The administration, citing a need for energy security and job creation, has already announced plans for new offshore oil leases in California as well as Florida, where the federal government has not allowed drilling since 1995 because of concerns about oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico.

Trump officials also helped a Texas firm jump-start an old pipeline system that had been idled since its 2015 rupture caused one of California’s worst oil spills, blackening beaches for 150 miles (240 kilometers) from Santa Barbara to Los Angeles and polluting habitat for endangered whales and sea turtles. Federal officials also recently took a step toward authorizing fracking on an old oil platform 9 miles (14 kilometers) off Ventura County — a move opposed by the state’s coastal commission.

“It’s just part of that overall belief that they have, that they’re going to get rid of renewables and go back to good old-fashioned fossil fuels, and what better place to start than California?” said Deborah A. Sivas, a professor of environmental law at Stanford Law School. “We’re the feds — we’re going to tell the state what to do.”

California has some working offshore rigs, but there has been no new oil leasing in federal waters since the mid-1980s and no new state leasing for even longer. The state barred new offshore oil leases after a catastrophic spill in 1969 spewed between 3.5 million and 4.2 million gallons of crude into the Santa Barbara Channel. The disaster killed thousands of seabirds and helped give rise to the modern environmental movement.

California now uses so much solar and wind energy that nearly half the state’s electricity came from renewable resources in 2024, according to the state’s energy commission. That’s also the source of a fight with the Trump administration. Last week, state officials sued the federal government over its buyback of an offshore wind lease aimed at discouraging the expansion of wind energy in favor of fossil fuels.

California has also tried to wean residents off gas-powered cars — another push opposed by the Trump administration.

California’s coastal commission is the latest target

California’s coastal commission, an independent agency with appointed members, was formed in 1972. It has often been in the spotlight for taking up high-profile projects on the state’s tourism-dependent coast. The panel voted against but later approved a U2 guitarist’s plan for mansions on seaside bluffs, though the building proposal was eventually nixed by a court. It also rejected a proposed desalination plant to create drinking water in Huntington Beach.

The commission also has a say in federal projects along California’s coast, in line with a 1972 federal coastal management law. More than 30 states have similar programs to protect their coastal resources and all are subject to periodic federal evaluation.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick announced the unexpected review of California’s program in May while denouncing the commission’s opposition to an expanded launch schedule for SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rockets from Vandenberg Space Force Base. Commissioners cited concerns that more launches could harm sensitive species and limit public access to the coast.

“Obstructionist policies that delay critical national infrastructure in the name of environmental extremism are unacceptable,” Lutnick said. He said the review will examine how California has addressed federal priorities on spaceport infrastructure, offshore oil production, pipeline maintenance and desalination projects.

Targeting California raises a fight that could reverberate nationwide, experts say. Until now, no state with a coastal program has been stripped of its authority to review federal projects. Many Californians who spoke at an hourslong public hearing in Santa Monica in August said they don’t want their state to be the first.

“This isn’t about performance. This is about power,” said Maureen Ellenberger, a Santa Barbara resident who is upset about the decision to let Houston-based Sable Offshore Corp. resume pumping through the old pipeline. “It’s about whether the Trump administration can strip California’s authority because they don’t like the answers the coastal commission gave to oil companies.”

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is carrying out the review. It isn’t known when it will be completed.

The commission isn’t new to controversy

In the past, California’s coastal commission has clashed with elected officials from both political parties. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom rushed to the commission’s defense this year, but in 2025 suspended its permitting requirements for home rebuilding following the devastating Los Angeles area wildfires.

Trump’s battles with the commission began before his first term when he put up a 70-foot (21-meter) flagpole on his golf club in Rancho Palos Verdes. The commission ultimately allowed for it after a lengthy battle.

Last month, the commission unanimously voted to oppose the plan for fracking on a 45-year-old platform in federal waters off Ventura County after a lengthy public hearing. The federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management released an environmental analysis for the proposal, which energy company DCOR said would more than triple daily oil output in 16 wells from 1,100 barrels to 4,000 barrels.

“This is just simply one of those cases where the juice isn’t worth the squeeze,” Coastal Commissioner Ray Jackson said during a hearing on DCOR LLC’s plan. “It creates far too many opportunities for something to go wrong. When something does go wrong it is our ocean, beaches, wildlife and coastal economy that pay the price.”

The company said it’s evaluating whether to appeal to the commerce secretary.

Legislation that would improve public access to information about violence, medical emergencies, and other serious incidents in privately operated detention facilities in California is now heading to the governor’s desk.

It would require local agencies to release audio and records of 911 calls and other emergency-service calls originating from the facilities upon request. State Sen. Lena Gonzalez, a Democrat from Long Beach, introduced Senate Bill 423 as state investigations and courts are finding serious gaps in essential medical care within the facilities.

“No private contract or detention center wall should be used to hide dangerous conditions or silence people who have been mistreated inside these facilities,” Gonzalez said in a statement.

The bill was prompted by CalMatters reporting on alleged sexual assaults at the Otay Mesa Detention Center in 2025. CalMatters sought information, including 911 audio records and other reports, about alleged rapes and attempted sexual assaults at the facility through a California Public Records Act request. While a San Diego County sheriff’s spokesperson said the agency was not investigating those cases, he said he was unable to turn over additional records because they were part of “a law enforcement investigation.”

“When journalists and reporters attempted to obtain records about reported incidents at these facilities through the Public Records Act, they faced severe pushback from law enforcement, citing vague investigatory records exemptions, despite there being no active investigation,” said Gonzalez before the state Senate vote on Monday afternoon.

“SB 423 would make disclosure mandatory for calls from private detention facilities unless it would substantially interfere with an active investigation being conducted by the agency receiving the request,” she added.

Gonzalez’s bill would require local agencies to turn over recordings and written records of 911 calls from privately run detention facilities, if a member of the public requests them. It includes an exception if an active investigation is underway and requires redacting the names of affected individuals.

The number of people being held by federal immigration authorities in Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities in California has nearly doubled since early 2025, data shows. Between September 2025 and March 2026, there were six deaths at two of California’s private detention facilities.

The San Diego County Sheriff’s Office had a memorandum of understanding with CoreCivic, the private prison company that operates Otay Mesa. The agreement gave the detention center warden discretion of how to investigate alleged sexual assaults.

In May, the California Attorney General’s office released a 175-page report detailing how the dramatic surge in detainee populations strained conditions and access to medical care at immigration detention facilities across the state.

The San Diego County Sheriff’s Office told KQED it does not have a position on the bill. The Kern County Sheriff’s Department told the Bay Area news agency that it will continue to comply with California laws, “as we always do.”

A recent bill analysis by legislative staff showed no registered opposition to the bill.

The proposed legislation was co-sponsored by Immigrant Defense Advocates and the First Amendment Coalition. It was first introduced on June 12.

Paloma Esquivel, a former Los Angeles Times reporter who now works at the First Amendment Coalition, said county sheriffs resisted and stonewalled her requests for 911 records when she worked as a journalist.

“We have a very strong interest and even an obligation to understand how these facilities are functioning and what is happening inside these facilities that are being paid for with billions of dollars in taxpayer money,” Esquivel told KQED.

Jackie Gonzalez the co-executive director of the Immigrant Defense Advocates said the bill is an important first step in addressing what’s going on inside.

“By supporting SB 423, California sends a clear message that the walls of private detention facilities cannot hide the truth of what is taking place in these facilities,” said Gonzalez.

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

Topline:

Street flooding: Roadway flooding was reported this morning on the westbound 134 Freeway at the 5, near Glendale and Griffith Park.

Coastal Flooding: All weekend, forecasters have warned of dangerous rip currents and an elevated risk of coastal flooding.

Flooding was reported yesterday in Seal Beach and Long Beach.

"We have quite a few reports already of waves up to 10 feet on some beaches — Zuma Beach especially, where we've gotten reports [of] strong rip currents," said Todd Hall, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service.

Advisories and closures:

• An ocean water quality rain advisory has been issued for all L.A. County beaches until Wednesday, Sept. 9 at 2 p.m. That means to avoid ocean water contact for at least 72 hours after the rain.
• A coastal flood advisory and a high surf advisory for L.A. and Ventura county beaches remain in effect until Tuesday, Sept. 8 at 11 p.m.
• The City of Seal Beach is closing two beach parking lots due to flooding concerns.

What's next: Hall said to expect more showers across L.A. County throughout Sunday. On Monday, he said isolated rain is expected, mostly in the mountains.