The Brief

In a sport known for turf battles, SoCal surfing is facing perhaps its most epic turf challenge yet — all the way from the ski slopes of Utah. U.S. Ski and Snowboard, the Olympic organization for those sports, is making a bid to add surfing to its roster.

“When you look at the heart of what we do — supporting elite athletes and growing action sports — it makes complete sense,” Sophie Goldschmidt, the head of U.S. Ski and Snowboard, told LAist in an email. “Surfing is a natural extension of our mission.” (Goldschmidt also headed the World Surf League, a pro circuit, before taking the top job at U.S. Ski and Snowboard.)

Many surfers disagree. Ian Cairns, a former champion surfer and coach who helped develop the sport competitively, said the snow group is “ trying to ski-jack the crown jewels of surfing away from the surfing world.”

“ Effectively what they're doing is they’re skimming the cream off the top,” Cairns said of U.S. Ski and Snowboard’s bid to become what’s known as the National Governing Body for the U.S. Olympic surfing team. “They're going to take the commercial rights and they're going to put those dollars into their infrastructure.”

The backers of USA Surfing say they have proof that their rival U.S. Ski and Snowboard doesn't know anything about the sport of surfing: In a presentation to the Olympic committee, they used a surfing icon that appears to show a surfer facing backward on a board. The surfing organization has made it the centerpiece of their P.R. campaign against the group.

San Clemente native Sawyer Lindblad surfs in the 2024 Rip Curl Pro Bells Beach on March 27, 2024 in Winkipop, Australia. Lindblad is backing USA Surfing in its bid to manage the U.S. Olympic surfing team.

(

Morgan Hancock

/

Getty Images

)

Cairns and a number of other pro surfers are throwing their weight behind USA Surfing, the comparatively scrappy organization that trains and develops young surfers with Olympic dreams. The San Clemente-based nonprofit — which helped make surfing an Olympic sport to begin with — is not giving up its chance to represent Olympic athletes without a fight.

They recently launched a public relations blitz in an effort to win over Olympic leaders, who will soon decide which organization will represent the U.S. Olympic surf team at the 2028 Games in L.A. At stake is whether that team will have its home base, and the accompanying money and prestige, on the shores of San Clemente or the slopes of Park City.

The backstory: A brief history of USA Surfing’s troubles

Why is an organization focused on snow sports even in the running to take over Olympic surfing? Because USA Surfing has had a tough run of late.

Back in 2017, USA Surfing became the national governing body for the sport of surfing, charged with training young surfers, developing the sport, and nominating athletes to compete on the Olympic stage. But they lost that status shortly after the sport made its Olympic debut, in the 2021 Tokyo summer games.

That’s because in 2019, the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee audited USA Surfing and found numerous problems, including failing to disclose conflicts of interest. The audit also found minimal documentation and oversight of how the organization’s leaders were spending its money. As a result, USA Surfing voluntarily agreed to relinquish its control over the U.S. Olympic surf team until after the 2024 Paris games.

Despite the turmoil, the U.S. surfing team won gold medals at both games — Carissa Moore in Tokyo and Caroline Marks in Paris (in case you missed it, the actual surfing took place in Tahiti).

During all that time, and to date, USA Surfing has been training Olympic hopefuls and holding competitions at Lower Trestles in San Clemente — the same place surfers will compete in the LA28 games.

And USA Surfing now has entirely new management. CEO Becky Fleischauer told LAist the organization has done all the things the Olympic committee said it needed to in order to regain its role as the National Governing Body, including adopting financial best practices, improving transparency, and showing financial stability.

Fleischauer called the surfing competition at the 2028 games a “legacy building opportunity.” “We want the Olympics to provide the lift to the surfers, the community, the businesses, and our program,” she said.

Despite the high stakes, Fleischauer declined to diss on U.S. Ski and Snowboard and their bid to intrude on the local surf turf.

“ We never really wanted to be in an antagonistic position with another sport that athletes work really hard to do,” she said.

Ian Cairns, a former surfing champion and coach, is among those campaigning for USA Surfing to oversee the entire pipeline of U.S. competitive surfing, including the U.S. Olympic surfing team. (And yes, that neck brace is the result of a surfing accident.)

(

Jill Replogle

/

LAist

)

What’s this really all about?

For most of the public, the Olympics are a national ego-boosting spectacle and a chance to watch athletes and sports that usually don’t get much play in the mainstream media. But the Olympics are also big business.

For one thing, there are sponsorships from companies that want their name associated with popular sports and winning athletes. For another, national governing bodies for Olympic sports get money directly from the Olympic committee. Both US Ski and Snowboard and USA Surfing acknowledge that money is part of their motivation.

For the winter sports group, adding surfing would free them from their seasonal confines. “From a commercial perspective adding a summer sport to our winter sport portfolio gives us year-round assets and programming to sell,” US Ski and Snowboarding wrote in its official bid to absorb Olympic surfing. (Goldschmidt told LAist that U.S. Ski and Snowboard also is interested in assuming control over Olympic skateboarding.)

If that happens, USA Surfing would essentially continue to do most of the work to develop and support the nation’s top surfers without reaping the benefits of representing them at the world’s most venerated competition.

“ It would siphon money and opportunity,” Fleischauer, from USA Surfing, said of the possibility of permanently losing control over Olympic surfing.

On the flip side, she said, “We've talked to sponsors who would support us at another level if we were the national governing body.”

Of course, there are those who wish surfing had remained the weird, counter-culture activity it once was, out of the limelight, anti-commercial. But that ship sailed long ago.

Today, surfing is a $9 billion industry, according to an article published earlier this year in the Orange County Business Journal. And many of the top brands have their roots in Orange County. They also stand to benefit if USA Surfing wins its Olympic bid, said Vipe Desai, executive director of the Surf Industry Members Association, a trade group.

“This is about local jobs, the local economy, local businesses,” Desai said. “If this money gets transferred out of state to another region, it's not going to support the business and the culture.”

Big snow, big money

Financially, U.S. Ski and Snowboard is a goliath compared to USA Surfing. The snow group took in over $38 million in revenue in 2024 compared to less than $900,000 for USA Surfing, according to tax statements. But that’s at least in part because U.S. Ski and Snowboard has 10 Olympic sports in its current portfolio with dozens of athletes.

Goldschmidt, the head of U.S. Ski and Snowboard, said the group’s robust infrastructure, including high-tech training facilities and “commercial support” for athletes (read: sponsorships) would benefit elite surfers.

“I respect the passion and pride that people have within the surf community," Goldschmidt wrote in an email to LAist. “This isn’t about taking anything away — it’s about adding to what’s already been built.”

Growing support for USA Surfing

As the date nears for a decision from the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee, USA Surfing has garnered some key support for its bid. In June, they announced a multi-million dollar investment from San Clemente-based businessman Kipling Sheppard, intended to kickstart an endowment for the organization.

“Our motivation is simple,” Sheppard said. “It's to keep surfing with the surf community and those that are involved in it day-to-day and make sure that the Olympic ‘lift’ that will occur here in San Clemente benefits the people and the community of San Clemente.”

The International Surfing Association, which is recognized by the International Olympic Committee as the authority on competitive surfing, is also backing USA Surfing. That’s key because surfers have to surf in ISA competitions to qualify for the Olympics. Perhaps an even bigger snub: The World Surf League, Goldschmidt’s former organization, is also backing USA Surfing.

USA Surfing has also clinched a bunch of letters of support from local leaders, including a group of U.S. Congress members, O.C. Supervisor Katrina Foley, and the San Clemente City Council. And they have support from some of the nation’s top surfers. Sawyer Lindblad was among a group of pro surfers who showed up at a San Clemente City Council meeting in August to ask for support for USA Surfing. Lindblad, a San Clemente native, was fresh off her first place win, two days earlier, at the 2025 US Open of Surfing in Huntington Beach.

“ I don't think I would be as successful as I am without them,” Lindblad said of USA Surfing. “ It truly shaped me into the surfer I am today.”

 Kirra Pinkerton, another San Clemente native and the 2022 International Surfing Association World Champion, is also throwing her support behind USA Surfing.  “Obviously all of our goals eventually is to qualify for the Olympics,” she said. “I believe the best way to do that is to stick to what our roots are.”

Asked whether fellow athletes might appreciate the bigger platform and deeper coffers offered by U.S. Ski and Snowboard, Pinkerton said she doubted the snow sports group would find much support in the water.

“ Surfers will back surfers forever,” she said.

The ultimate decision about which of the two groups will represent surfers on the world stage is up to the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee. They’re expected to hold their second and final public hearing on the issue later this month, although the exact date hasn’t been set.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that USA Surfing had lost its status as the national governing body for Olympic surfing prior to the 2021 Tokyo games.

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.