The Brief

Homeowners in Los Angeles have started the long process of rebuilding after the destructive wildfires in January. Some are constructing homes that are much less likely to burn when the next wildfire hits. That's because California is one of the few states with building codes that require using fire-resistant materials in places prone to wildfires.

Still, thousands of other homeowners in the urban center of Altadena are about to rebuild without wildfire-resistant materials, because they live outside a state-designated wildfire zone.

For some of those people, the rebuilding requirements are about to change in the coming months.

California fire officials just released long-awaited maps that expand the areas where wildfire building codes apply and that show fire risk is only increasing. Under the new maps, an additional 1.4 million acres statewide is now considered at high or very high risk on land for which local governments are responsible.

In the footprint of the Eaton Fire that hit Altadena, the expanded zone for wildfire building codes now includes more than 500 additional homes and buildings, according to an analysis by NPR. Los Angeles County must adopt the new zones by late July, which means those property owners have roughly four months before the more stringent rules take effect.

The move is a rare example of a community strengthening rebuilding rules after a disaster, in the hope of preventing similar destruction in the future. Governments often loosen construction and permitting rules after disasters, facing immense pressure to speed up the rebuilding process.

Patrick and Ruth Fong's home burned home still shows signs of the toys their kids used to play with. After late July, rebuilding it will require meeting wildfire building codes, based on new state regulations.

(

Lauren Sommer/NPR

)

Research shows fire-resistant construction can dramatically improve the chances that a house survives. Many of the building materials are commonly available, like fiber cement siding, and overall, construction costs can be roughly the same as a standard house.

Still, even with the newly expanded zones, more than 7,800 buildings in the area burned by the Eaton Fire fall outside those zones and won't have to follow the more protective wildfire building codes. Wildfire experts say with so many houses to rebuild, Los Angeles is facing a critical moment to ensure communities are better prepared for future disasters. Wildfires are getting more intense and are spreading faster as the climate gets hotter, and across the Western U.S., many homes rebuilt after fires aren't constructed to withstand future ones.

"If homes are being rebuilt, they should be built with wildfire in mind because unfortunately we do know that risks are increasing," says Kimiko Barrett, senior wildfire researcher at Headwaters Economics, a non-profit think tank. "History repeats itself. This will not be the only time that L.A. experiences a catastrophic wildfire."

Weighing how to rebuild

When Patrick and Ruth Fong look over the charred debris that used to be their Altadena home, they still see where their three kids used to play. The burned frames of the kids' bikes are visible under the crumbled garage door. A blackened, metal ring in the backyard shows where the trampoline once was.

"This is the only house our kids remember," Ruth says. "We were only able to recover some mugs and the kids' clay objects they made in art class at school."

Now, two months after the disaster, they're also starting to envision what could be. They've met with a contractor to plan what they'll rebuild and are now finalizing the floorplan.

"There's been so much grief and sadness, but then you have some glimmers of hope," Ruth says.

Ruth and Patrick Fong debated whether to stay in Altadena after they lost their house in the Eaton Fire. It's the second time a wildfire has burned the property.

(

Lauren Sommer/NPR

)

Just after the fire, the Fongs weren't sure they wanted to stay. Altadena sits next to the dry shrubland of the San Gabriel Mountains and this was the second wildfire to hit their property. Before the Fongs owned it, the Kinneloa Fire also destroyed the home in 1993.

"We had in our heads, we have to build it and sell it, because what if it happens again?" Patrick says. "You know, all these terrible things we're thinking about."

But like many Altadena residents, the Fongs feel connected to their community and especially close to neighbors on their cul de sac. So, they've started talking to their contractor about ways to make the house better able to withstand a wildfire by using fire-resistant building materials. That cost has to be balanced with the other financial constraints of rebuilding, as the Fongs figure out how far their insurance settlement will go.

"With fireproof construction, how much more is that going to be and how much can we really afford?" Patrick says. "Because we're already maxing out our policy."

Newly expanded fire zones show homes at risk

Like thousands of other Altadena residents, the Fongs so far are not required to rebuild with fire resistant materials. That's because California's wildfire building codes, known as "chapter 7A," only apply in areas that are deemed to be at risk. Those "wildfire hazard zones," as they're known, are mapped by California's Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

California's wildfire hazard maps are the bedrock of the state's wildfire policies. In addition to determining where wildfire building codes apply for new construction, property owners in very high risk zones must clear flammable vegetation around buildings. Wildfire hazard zones must also be taken into consideration in land use planning by local governments, including ensuring there are enough evacuation routes.

The maps were first released in 2008, putting California on the forefront of wildfire planning. Many Western states still lack statewide fire risk maps. But as wildfires have become more extreme, fire experts pushed California to update the maps, since the original maps only forecast fires under fairly weak wind speeds and don't take into account high wind conditions that can drive bigger infernos. (Insurance companies typically have their own wildfire risk maps that they use to determine rates for customers.)

The newly released wildfire zones include properties that burned in the Eaton Fire. Pacific Palisades, where the other major fire burned in January, was already in a high risk wildfire zone, so wildfire building codes apply to the more than 6,800 buildings destroyed there.

Under state law, Los Angeles County must adopt the new wildfire hazard maps by July 22nd. According to the Los Angeles County Fire Department, that means if residents in the newly expanded zones get their building permits approved after the maps are adopted, the wildfire building codes will apply.

Beginning in 2026, the requirements will expand again to include any properties in the "high" hazard category of the wildfire maps. That will mean about 1,000 additional properties in the Eaton Fire area will be required to use wildfire building codes, if their permits are approved next year.

Still, even with the new wildfire maps, the majority of homes destroyed in the Eaton Fire won't be required to be built to resist future wildfires. California's maps calculate the hazard from fires spreading in wildland areas, but don't take into account what happens when fires spread from house to house.

"I thought the very high fire severity zones were really going to reach deep, deep down into Altadena, and they haven't," says Los Angeles County Fire Department deputy fire chief Albert Yanagisawa.

The costs and benefits of wildfire building codes

The change in the maps is causing some nervousness in Altadena.

"Some people I see rushing to decide what their rebuild is before that map comes out, which puts into question whether they're thinking about the community or their bottom line," says Nic Arnzen, a member of the Altadena Town Council.

Researchers have shown that using fire-resistant materials makes homes less likely to burn, especially since most homes are ignited by tiny embers carried by the wind. Even in an extreme wildfire, fire inspectors find some houses remain seemingly untouched, like in the Los Angeles fires as well as the wildfire in Lahaina, Maui.

One study found houses built with California's wildfire building codes are 40% more likely to survive. An analysis by FEMA found using California's building codes could save $24 billion in damages to single-family residences over a 75-year timeframe.

California's wildfire building code calls for fire-resistant roofs and siding, as well as using attic vents that don't allow embers to be blown inside a house. It also calls for enclosing roof eaves so the undersides are less prone to igniting. They only apply for new construction or when houses have a major renovation.

Altadena is likely to face more wildfires, experts say, so rebuilding after the Eaton Fire is a crucial time to make the community more resilient to fires.

(

Lauren Sommer/NPR

)

"These are often materials commonly used on the market, widely available," Barrett says. "Things like asphalt roofs. Things like Hardie plank fiber cement siding. Very, very common, very affordable."

The additional cost of meeting the codes can be a few thousands dollars, according to a study from Headwater Economics and the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety, a research group funded by the insurance industry. Adding even more fire-resistant features, or more costly options like metal roofing, can add up to 13% to the overall construction cost.

Some Los Angeles homeowners could find the additional costs will be paid by their insurance company, if the policy specifies it covers bringing a house up to code. Still, not all policies cover those costs.

Los Angeles County officials say they're looking for funding options for homeowners who might struggle with the costs.

"One of the commitments I've made is looking at grant opportunities to see where we can allow people to apply that may not be able to afford it, to harden or do things that would benefit in case of future fires, and see how we can offset the cost," says Los Angeles County supervisor Kathryn Barger.

Rebuilding Los Angeles with wildfires in mind

With a history of frequent wildfires, Los Angeles has long understood how vulnerable many neighborhoods are. Some homeowners rebuilding after the Eaton Fire aren't likely to follow wildfire building codes if they're not required to, especially given that some are underinsured.

"Even if they're not going to have to comply, we're going to be strongly encouraging it for future resiliency," says Amy Bodek, director of regional planning for the County of Los Angeles. "We've been on this trajectory to look at long range plans that will prevent future disasters from affecting so many people. We're certainly not going to prevent the disasters, but how can we minimize strategically the harm to individuals and properties?"

Los Angeles County recently limited the amount of housing that can be built in the foothills of Altadena, where wildfire risk is highest. The region is facing a massive housing shortage, but considering the fire risk, is directing development to denser urban corridors closer to public transit.

Altadena officials say they're hoping to rebuild a much safer community, including putting electric power lines underground so they pose less of a risk. Utility lines have started wildfires in high winds and are still being investigated as a cause of the Eaton Fire.

"We have an opportunity to show people how to create a community that can live in peace and harmony with the natural disasters around them," Arnzen says. "I don't want to waste the opportunity."

Brent Jones contributed to this story.
Copyright 2025 NPR

Just last week California’s secretary of state officially certified that nearly two-thirds of Californians voted to pass Proposition 50, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to temporarily gerrymander the state’s congressional maps in favor of Democrats.

Nevertheless, Republicans and the Trump administration are hopeful a federal district court panel meeting in Los Angeles this week will intervene to bar the state from using the new maps next year.

California Republicans, who sued Newsom and Secretary of State Shirley Weber the day after the election, are staking their challenge on the argument that California’s primary mapmaker illegally used race as a factor in drawing district lines, giving Latino and Hispanic voters outsize influence at the expense of other racial and ethnic groups, including white voters.

This, the Republicans argue, means the maps amount to an illegal racial gerrymander and a violation of the 14th and 15th amendments. Although Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act allows for race-conscious redistricting, they add, case law and judicial precedent have set a strict standard that requires a minority group to prove they have been systematically outvoted by a majority that consistently votes together to deny the minority their chosen candidate.

But the Prop. 50 opponents’ odds look slim, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority recently blessed Texas’ new maps, overturning a lower court’s finding that Republicans there had engaged in unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.

“It is indisputable that the impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple,” wrote conservative Justice Samuel Alito in a concurring opinion supported by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas.

And then there’s the looming possibility that the Supreme Court, in a separate case, could outlaw entirely the use of race in the redistricting process, which could render California’s new maps — as well as the previous ones drawn by the independent citizens commission — unconstitutional. That would also give Republicans a major advantage in Southern states, where several districts drawn to increase Black Americans’ voting power currently are represented by Democrats.

Despite the long odds, the ailing California GOP has run out of other options for resistance. The passage of Prop. 50 is likely to mark the beginning of the end for several of California’s Republican House members, who have been forced to decide whether to run in their current, now less favorable Republican districts, switch to new seats or drop out entirely.

One of them, Rep. Darrell Issa, who represents parts of San Diego County, even considered relocating to Texas and running for a Dallas-area seat that would be more friendly to Republicans, but the president reportedly refused to endorse him for the already contested Texas seat, so he decided to stay.

The legal challenge claims the Prop. 50 maps cause “stigmatic and representational injury” by placing certain candidates, such as Republican Assemblymember David Tangipa of Fresno, who is Polynesian, into districts drawn with a specific racial or ethnic minority group in mind.

Case is in Los Angeles court this week

The challengers, who include Tangipa, the California Republican Party, several Republican voters and the Trump White House, are asking a three-judge panel for the Central District of California to grant a preliminary injunction on the maps before Dec. 19, the date when candidates can start collecting signatures to get their names on the 2026 primary ballot. A preliminary injunction would temporarily prevent the maps from being used in an election.

On Monday in court, the Republican challengers presented their case, arguing that since supporters of Prop. 50 publicly touted that the maps increased representation for Latino voters, state lawmakers and consultant Paul Mitchell, who was hired to draw the maps, took race into account. Therefore, they must justify how their new districts meet the standard for permissible racial gerrymanders, attorneys argued.

“It is legal to race-based redistrict under the Voter Rights Act. Section 2 protects it. But it also gives you guidelines,” Tangipa told CalMatters in an interview after testifying in court on Monday in Los Angeles. “In Sacramento, they did not follow those guidelines.”

Tangipa asserted that even though Democratic lawmakers intended primarily to increase their party’s ranks based on political ideology, “They used race to justify that end goal.”

The plaintiffs sought to have Mitchell testify, but the court denied a request to force him to take the stand to explain whether he intentionally tried to increase the voting power of specific racial and ethnic groups. Since Mitchell lives more than 100 miles away from the court, he was out of the reach of a subpoena. Still, the judges questioned his blanket use of “legislative privilege” to resist producing documents the plaintiffs requested.

At one point, as a redistricting expert testified, the plaintiffs focused on a line from Democratic former Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire’s public statement after the Legislature passed the package of bills paving the way for the Nov. 4 special election.

“The new map makes no changes to historic Black districts in Oakland and the Los Angeles area, and retains and expands Voting Rights Act districts that empower Latino voters to elect their candidates of choice,” McGuire’s statement said.

McGuire announced last month that he will challenge Republican Rep. Doug LaMalfa in one of the newly configured Prop. 50 seats.

But proponents of the new maps argue they intended purely to create a partisan advantage for Democrats, and any increase in voting power for certain ethnic or racial groups was incidental.

Ultimately, 'it was endorsed by the voters'

Also complicating the GOP’s challenge is that California voters overwhelmingly approved the maps.

“Even if we assume that the Legislature improperly considered race, ultimately it went into effect because it was endorsed by the voters,” Emily Rong Zhang, an assistant professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law, previously told CalMatters. “They would have to show that the voters had the intent to create districts that disproportionately favor the voting power of a racial group over another.”

One unknown is how the Supreme Court will rule on a case that questions whether it’s constitutional to even consider race as a factor when redistricting.

The justices are weighing in another ongoing case, Louisiana v. Callais, whether to strike down a part of the federal Voting Rights Act that requires the creation of districts in which racial and ethnic minorities have a chance to elect their preferred candidate. If the ruling is retroactive, a decision to strike it down could invalidate both California’s old and new maps.

Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, other states have jumped into the redistricting effort or are contemplating entering the fray. In addition to Texas and California, four other states have already implemented new congressional maps, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Virginia, Maryland and Florida have also taken some steps toward redistricting.

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

FIFA said on Tuesday it plans to sell $60 tickets for each of the 104 games of the 2026 World Cup — an announcement that comes after an outcry over prices for the tournament that will be held next summer across the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

"Fans of the national teams that have qualified for the FIFA World Cup 2026 will benefit from a dedicated ticket pricing tier, which has been designed to make following their teams on football's greatest stage more affordable," FIFA said in a statement.

But these tickets — called "supporter entry tier tickets" by FIFA — will be available only to supporters of qualified teams and are limited in quantity.

Only 10% of the total number of tickets provided to each qualified team would be available at $60 per game, including the final. Given that each team gets 8% of the available tickets per game, the effective number of tickets available at that price would be only 0.8% of the stadium capacity for that game, or 1.6% for both teams combined.

But the actual number of $60 tickets could vary. Each country would determine which of its fans qualify for the cheaper tickets. In the statement, FIFA requested that countries "ensure that these tickets are specifically allocated to loyal fans who are closely connected to their national teams."

Some fans had called prices 'a betrayal'

FIFA's announcement comes after many fans reacted with outrage at the prices for the World Cup next year, which range from $140 for a handful of initial-round games to as much as $2,735 for the U.S. opening match against Paraguay that will be held in Los Angeles next year.

Prices for knockout rounds surge even more, with FIFA charging charging $4,185 for the cheapest ticket for the final that will be held in July next year in New Jersey — and $8,680 for the most expensive seats.

That's much higher than previous World Cups. For example, the most expensive ticket for the 2022 final at the last tournament held in Qatar was about $1,600.

Unlike previous World Cups, FIFA has yet to publish a list of prices, instead adjusting them across different sales windows without an announcement. Fans found out about the price changes after FIFA opened its latest lottery window last week, which allows fans to apply for tickets until Jan. 13.

And many fans were upset. The Football Supporters Europe, a group that represent fans across the region, called ticket prices "a betrayal to the most dedicated fans." On Tuesday, the group said on X it welcomes FIFA's latest announcement, but added it was not enough.

"Based on the allocations publicly available, this would mean that at best a few hundred fans per match and team would be lucky enough to take advantage of the 60 USD prices, while the vast majority would still have to pay extortionate prices, way higher than at any tournament before," Football Supporters Europe said.

Demand appears high, however

FIFA has defended its pricing policy, saying it's adapting to prices in the North American market. It has also consistently responded by saying it's a non-profit organization that steers the majority of its revenues from the World Cup "to fuel the growth of men's, women's and youth football throughout the 211 FIFA Member Associations."

Despite the outrage over its prices, FIFA is seeing strong demand for next year's World Cup. On Tuesday, FIFA added it had already received 20 million ticket requests during this current sales window, with weeks still to go before the lottery window closes.

But for supporters, following a team throughout the tournament could be prohibitively expensive in 2026 — and not only because of high ticket prices.

The cost of travel across the three countries has also surged, including hotel prices, making it likely that next year's tournament will be among the most expensive World Cups ever staged for fans.
Copyright 2025 NPR

Huntington Beach appears to be running out of options in its effort to stave off state housing mandates after a recent California Supreme Court decision.

California requires cities to plan and zone for housing to meet the needs of the population at all income levels. In the most recent planning cycle, Huntington Beach was told it had to plan for 13,368 new homes.

The city balked, and the state sued Huntington Beach in 2023 for failing to comply.

The city’s argument, in a nutshell

The city has argued it doesn’t have to comply because it’s a charter city, which gives it more autonomy in some areas of governance than non-charter cities.

Huntington Beach also has said that planning for such a large number of units would force it to violate state environmental laws. A state appeals court in a September ruling didn’t buy either argument.

What’s next?

A San Diego court now must determine penalties against Huntington Beach, even as the city has vowed to keep fighting the housing mandate. An appeals court has ordered the lower court to give the city 120 days to approve a housing plan.

Other remedies the court will consider include:

• Suspending the city’s ability to approve building permits — essentially bringing all development in the city to a halt; or, on the opposite end of the spectrum,

• Forcing Huntington Beach to approve any and all applications to build homes — in other words, completely removing the city’s discretion to plan for development. 

The next hearing in the case is scheduled for Jan. 16.

More animals are being run over on Los Angeles streets than ever before, and the lingering effects of the pandemic may be partly to blame.  

Through November of this year, the city’s MyLA311 service has fielded 31,093 requests for “dead animal removal,” an increase of more than a thousand from the same time last year. It marks a 37% increase from five years prior, and is the fifth straight year of increases.  

Fraser Shilling of the Road Ecology Center at the University of California, Davis, studies the impact of transportation on animal populations. While one of the drivers of the increase is the continual loss of habitat from urban development, Shilling says the after effects of the COVID-19 pandemic are also playing a role. The protracted lockdown sparked a boom in pet adoptions, which he says has now transformed into an increase in animals being let go by their owners.  

“Basically, pandemic pets are being abandoned,” Shilling said. “Before they get picked up by animal control, they’re out on the street getting hit.” 

Cats made up nearly a third of animals picked up last year, according to the Los Angeles Department of Sanitation. Dogs accounted for 17%. Raccoons and opossums were the third- and fourth-most common. The vast majority of pickup requests are for animals that have been struck by vehicles. Others include requests to collect pets that have died at their owner’s home.

Want to know the number of requests in your neighborhood? Sign up for the Crosstown Neighborhood Newsletter and get stats about crime, traffic, housing and more for where you live.

Overstuffed animal shelters

Los Angeles has a massive feral cat population, estimated to be close to one million.

In 2020, the Los Angeles City Council approved the Citywide Cat Program aimed at trapping and spaying or neutering stray cats to prevent unwanted litters. But the program’s progress is facing constraints due to local funding challenges, as well as a nationwide veterinarian shortage. 

In August, the City Council unanimously approved a motion increasing the dollar amount pet owners are reimbursed by the city for spaying and neutering their pets, for an estimated cost of $9 million. A proposal from the city administrative officer recommended giving the higher reimbursement rates to shelter-based programs like the Citywide Cat Program, which would have cost an estimated $21 million over three years. That plan was not adopted.  

At the same time, the city’s shelters are overflowing with intakes. Through October of this year, Los Angeles Animal Service shelters took in 36,330 cats and dogs, per the department’s Woof Stat reports, a 6% increase from the same time last year and a 46% increase from the entire year of 2020. Its dog shelter program currently is operating at 123% capacity.  

San Pedro, Los Angeles’ southernmost neighborhood, had the highest number of dead animal removal requests in the city this year, with 922 as of Nov. 30, a 15% increase over the same period in 2024. 

As of Dec. 9, the animal shelter in San Pedro also had the highest dog occupancy rate of any of the six shelters in the city at 159% capacity. 

“Like many shelters across the country, LA Animal Services continues to experience overcrowding and operates at overcapacity, despite the department’s ongoing efforts to promote spaying and neutering, encourage pet adoptions and fostering, and working with rescues to help place animals,” Animal Services said in a statement. 

Where the city meets the wild 

The highest rates of wild animal collisions occur in dense urban areas surrounded by natural vegetation. Van Nuys and Northridge — ringed by the Santa Susana, Santa Monica and San Gabriel mountains — were the neighborhoods with the second- and third-most dead animal reports. While cats were still the most common animals being picked up in Northridge zip codes, according to data from the Department of Sanitation, the region had numbers of opossums, squirrels, coyotes and deer that were higher than the citywide average 

Requests for removals in 2024, the most recent year for which the animal breakdown is available, included 366 coyotes, 191 chickens, 27 turtles and four turkeys. 

The number of dead deer last year was 63, around half of what it was in 2020. While that sounds like an improvement, it actually indicates a dire trend.  

“The population of deer in California is going down by 10% a year, and the population killed by traffic is about 8% or 9% per year, suggesting that the decline in deer in California is directly tied to roadkill,” said Shilling of the Road Ecology Center.  

Habitat loss from urban development is typically accompanied by an increase in traffic, according to the Road Ecology Center’s annual roadkill report. The city has been fast-tracking new development under Mayor Karen Bass’s directive focused on affordable housing, and over 5,600 units have been approved in the San Fernando Valley since 2023, according to the city planning website.  

The best solution to curb wildlife roadkill, Shilling said, is for people to drive more slowly. The second best is fencing along major roads and highways that have become hotspots. He said wildlife crossings — like the slated Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing in Agoura Hills — are ineffective at stopping roadkill unless accompanied by deliberate fencing.  

How we did it: We examined more than eight years of reports from the city’s MyLA311 service data. In addition, we broke down the requests by neighborhood. We also analyzed data from the Department of Sanitation and the city’s Animal Services Department. Have questions about our data or want to ask a question? Write to us as askus@xtown.la.