Topline:
Containment of the massive Palisades Fire increased to 63% Tuesday as red flag conditions are expected to return.
Where things stand: The fire continues to spread across the Santa Monica Mountains, growing to more than 23,700 acres, according to CalFire.
This is a developing story and will be updated. For the most up-to-date information about the fire you can check:
Containment of the massive Palisades Fire increased to 63% Tuesday as red flag conditions are expected to return.
The death toll in the fire that devastated whole neighborhoods rose Tuesday to 11 people. Authorities continue to search the ruins with cadaver dogs.
As of Wednesday morning, sheriff's officials said in areas they patrol they are still investigating six missing people reports in the Palisades Fire.
LAPD officials said they've investigated 38 reports of missing people in the Palisades Fire, and 30 have been found safe. Authorities said they believe that of the eight still missing, three are "most likely" among the dead who have not yet been positively identified and five remain missing.
Roughly 5,000 structures are estimated to have been destroyed, about 700 damaged.
The Sheriff's Department said Thursday afternoon that some evacuation zones will be reopened to residents effective noon on Thursday, Jan. 16.
The following zones will be reopened to residents:
"Resident access will be through the intersections of Mulholland Highway/Old Topanga Canyon Road, Civic Center Way/Malibu Canyon Road, and Mulholland Drive/Topanga Canyon Road," according to the LASD update.
On Friday, some areas under evacuation orders were open for residents.
Orders reduced to warnings:
Areas reopened to only residents:
The sheriff's department said evacuees should have proof of residency when they try to re-enter and that only residents are currently allowed back in.
Here's what to know about returning home after a fire evacuation.
We have some respite from fire weather conditions through Saturday.
This week, L.A. Councilmember Traci Park, who represents the area, told LAist 89.3's AirTalk program that officials will be asking "some very hard questions about what happens and what we are going to do to ensure that something like this never happens again."
"Because frankly," she added, "much of what occurred — even though this was an unusual weather event — what's predictable? The Pacific Palisades is in the very high fire severity zone."
Firefighters have been injured, as have a significant number of residents who didn't evacuate in time, according to authorities. That's in addition to at least 11 reported deaths.
After days of 0% containment, that number moved to 6% a week ago. Last Friday, it was at 22%.
We should note that the estimate of more than 5,000 structures damaged or destroyed is still preliminary and could change. The case is the same for the number of deaths — it takes time to identify remains and L.A. County Fire Department noted there have been more than a dozen missing person reports in their jurisdictions in both the Eaton and Palisades fires.
CalFire also cautioned against believing inaccurate social media posts. One claimed that people can come to California to join clean up efforts, but authorities warned this is false.
L.A. County's medical examiner has confirmed 11 deaths in the Palisades Fire. One victim, Charles Mortimer, 84, died at a hospital.
Officials are mapping where homes and businesses have been lost.
Curfews are now in place for fire areas from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. until further notice.
The L.A. County Sheriff's department said they have made at least 22 arrests for people violating those curfews in the Palisades and Eaton fire areas, mostly on suspicion of looting.
Authorities warn that anyone who violates the curfew is subject to arrest for a misdemeanor offense, and may face jail time, fines, or both, officials said.
" All these individuals were not supposed to be there, meaning they had no business being there ," said LA County Sheriff Robert Luna at a press conference Saturday morning. "You go out there and you violate this curfew, you are going to spend time in jail. You're not going to get cited and released."
L.A. Mayor Karen Bass declared a state of emergency Tuesday night. Newsom also proclaimed a state of emergency in Los Angeles and Ventura counties on Tuesday after meeting with fire officials in Pacific Palisades.
President Joe Biden approved a Presidential Major Emergency Declaration on Wednesday to support the response to the wildfires. He said on social media that he’s directed the Department of Defense to provide additional personnel, and ten Navy helicopters with water buckets are on the way.
Driven by strong winds, it turned into a nightmare scenario that many hoped would never come to pass: an unstoppable fire tearing through densely packed coastal neighborhoods positioned between steep mountains and the Pacific Ocean, with few ways in and out.
While the full extent of the damage is not yet known, it's clear that the storied coastal stretch of Pacific Coast Highway between Santa Monica and Malibu will never be the same. Long standing businesses, including the Reel Inn, a seafood restaurant located across the street from Topanga State Beach, have been destroyed.
The fire was reported around 10:20 a.m. on Tuesday and immediately began heading toward the community of Pacific Palisades, driven by 70 mph wind gusts. The fire grew from 10 acres to 200 acres in just minutes.
During the early hours of evacuations, some residents fleeing the fire were told by officers to abandon their cars and walk to safety.
Many were seen holding bags and pets as they made their way towards the ocean. Abandoned vehicles were then bulldozed to make room for emergency vehicles.
Total destruction in Malibu. These were beachfront homes on Pacific Coast Highway. #palisadesfire pic.twitter.com/DhQnJMmoUW
— Liz Kreutz (@LizKreutzNews) January 8, 2025
Evacuation zones are changing fast, so check out the most up to date, interactive map here.
Authorities on Tuesday announced certain areas would open for repopulation:
LA County Sheriff's Eaton Fire Update for Tuesday, January 21st, 2025: Repopulation and Safety Guidelines
— LA County Sheriffs (@LASDHQ) January 21, 2025
LASD announced evacuation warnings have been lifted for the following evacuation zone communities impacted by the Eaton Fire, effective 12:00 P.M. on Tuesday, January 21st,… pic.twitter.com/ArKB0lIkfh
Officials are pleading with people to avoid the wildfire areas, especially if you don’t live there.
Van Nuys Sherman Oaks Rec Center, 14201 Huston St., Sherman Oaks
Lanark Recreation Center, 21816 Lanark St, Canoga Park
Westwood Recreation Center: 1350 S. Sepulveda Blvd. (accepts small animals)
Pasadena Convention Center: 300 E Green St, Pasadena, CA 91101
El Camino Real Charter High School: 5440 Valley Circle Blvd., Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Pierce College: 6201 Winnetka Ave. Woodland Hills, CA 91371 (accepts large animals)
Los Angeles Equestrian Center: 480 Riverside Dr, Burbank, CA 91506 (accepts large animals)
Agoura Animal Shelter: 29525 Agoura Rd, Agoura Hills, CA 91301 (accepts small animals)
Santa Monica-Malibu USD has been closed since Thursday.
"We watch with all of you in disbelief the devastation and displacement caused by the Palisades fire, which continues to grow and evade containment," Superintendent Antonio Shelton wrote in a statement.
Nearly two dozen school districts are totally closed due to the wildfires — you can find a full list here.
The Los Angeles Unified School District also closed Thursday.
Palisades Charter Elementary School and Marquez Charter Elementary School were destroyed by the fire, an LAUSD spokesperson confirmed Wednesday afternoon.
LAUSD Superintendent Alberto Carvalho said that Palisades High suffered significant damage due to the fire.
Many roads in the area are closed or restricted, including long stretched of Pacific Coast Highway and Topanga Canyon Road. For the most recent information, check out Sigalert.com or this Los Angeles County Public Works map.
The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power replaced its boil water notice with a "Do Not Drink Notice" for the Palisades-area 90272 ZIP code and the area north of San Vicente Blvd. That means people in those areas should not drink or cook with tap water until the notice is lifted. Residents are still advised to limit water use to assist with firefighting efforts.
L.A. County Water Works District 29 has also issued a boil water advisory, according to L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath. This includes the Sunset Mesa community from Topanga Beach and Coastline Drive, to Shore Heights Drive, and from Topanga Canyon Road to Carbon Canyon Road in Malibu. You can call (800) 475-4357 for more information.
_
If you have to evacuate
If you have more time:
Things to consider
Navigating fire conditions
How to help yourself and others
Understanding how it got this bad
Topline:
Duplex projects will be allowed to move forward once again in two Southern California cities affected by last year’s fires. It comes after advocates for denser housing challenged the legality of the local restrictions on state law.
What is SB 9? The state housing law SB 9 allows single-family homeowners to subdivide their lots and build duplexes. They can create up to four units in some cases.
How this started: After the Palisades and Eaton fires, local jurisdictions were allowed to suspend SB 9 projects in certain areas. Advocates for increased housing development sued them and the state, alleging the bans were not legal.
About the result: Pasadena and Malibu are now backing out of the lawsuit, agreeing to settle with the plaintiffs. The two cities have until the end of September to repeal their SB 9 bans. L.A. County, the city of L.A. and the state are still fighting the lawsuit. However, a proposed state housing bill could impact what happens next in Altadena.
Read on…. to learn more about what the settlement means.
Duplex projects will be allowed to move forward once again in two Southern California cities affected by last year’s fires. The change of course is the result of a court showdown between advocates for denser housing and local elected officials who wanted to ban more units from cropping up in burn zones.
The cities of Malibu and Pasadena have agreed to settle with the plaintiffs who brought forward a lawsuit that challenges local jurisdictions’ suspension of Senate Bill 9 in high fire risk zones, according to documents obtained by LAist.
Sonja Trauss, executive director of YIMBY Law, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said the result will help residents get more out of their properties.
“I want them to know that they can build,” Trauss said.
SB 9 allows single-family homeowners across the state to build duplexes and split their lots. It became state law in 2021. SB 9 applicants can use the law to create up to four units where a single-family home once stood, in some cases. The law takes away the ability of local governments to block these projects.
However, after the 2025 fires, some homeowners affected by the fires erupted with anger over the prospect of their burned-down neighborhoods being rebuilt with denser housing. They argued more homes — and the additional residents that come with them — would clog evacuations and hurt neighborhood character.
In July 2025, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an order giving local leaders the power to block the law in very high fire hazard areas within the Palisades and Eaton fire burn zones.
Elected officials in L.A. city, the county of L.A., Pasadena and Malibu followed suit and adopted policies to stop processing SB 9 applications in those areas.
Advocates for increased housing development, including YIMBY Law, sued the governments, alleging they didn’t have the authority to suspend laws passed by the legislature.
Trauss told LAist housing advocates believe the order is being misused for political purposes.
“ It chips away at the policy,” she said. “Especially in the Palisades, everybody could watch the political back-and-forth that caused that to happen.”
The backlash on social media to SB 9 projects in the Palisades was led by former reality TV star Spencer Pratt, who lost his home in the fire and later mounted an unsuccessful campaign for L.A. mayor.
According to the settlement documents, Malibu and Pasadena have agreed to repeal the local ordinances that blocked SB 9 projects by the end of September. The settlements still require City Council action to undo those bans.
The cities are also supposed to process any pending SB 9 applications that were submitted, paused or rejected.
Another plaintiff in the lawsuit — Andrew Slocum, CEO of Green Development Company — said he thinks Newsom never should have signed the executive order in the first place.
Slocum said he hopes to see recovering homeowners have more options when rebuilding their properties. Last year, he told LAist he was working with homeowners on SB 9 projects.
The settlement “allows for the people to hopefully be able to come back and resubmit that application,” Slocum said, “because most people who are doing SB 9 are the homeowners themselves.”
The Pasadena City Council took the first step toward repeal on July 20, according to city spokesperson Lisa Derderian. She said they’ll start processing SB 9 applications once the vote is finalized.
“The City reached a conditional settlement with YIMBY in recognition of the uncertainty inherent in litigation and the significant passage of time since the Eaton Fire in January 2025,” she said in a statement.
LAist contacted officials in the city of Malibu for comment but has not heard back.
The county and city of L.A. are still fighting the lawsuit. They control land use in Altadena and the Pacific Palisades, home to the lion’s share of properties affected by the Eaton and Palisades fires.
State officials also continue to defend the restrictions. Newsom’s office stands behind the executive order and plans to defend it in court, according to a state official.
Trauss said the parties met for a trial setting conference a few days ago.
“ I want the folks in the county and in the city of L.A. who could build … to have hope,” she said.
The lawsuit is playing out while state legislators are moving forward with a new bill, SB 1090, which would expand the ban on SB 9 to all of Altadena.
Topline:
The Cinerama Dome – one of the most famous movie theaters in the world – has been closed since the COVID pandemic. But it's now got a new lease on life, thanks to SONY Pictures and Alamo Drafthouse Cinema.
The backstory: The Cinerama Dome was built in 1963 by William Forman – the founder of Pacific Theaters, who had popularized drive-in cinemas. Forman commissioned a French architect who had studied under R. Buckminster Fuller, a designer of other geodesic structures. The theater was originally made to showcase Cinerama, a format developed in the 1950s that was part of the widescreen craze designed to lure viewers away from television and back to cinemas. Parent company Pacific Theatres and Aclight Cinemas filed for bankruptcy in 2021.
New life for the Dome: The studio announced it will lease, restore and reopen the famous theater in 2028; Alamo Drafthouse plans to program and operate it and 14 other screens at the adjoining multiplex. Sony has promised to preserve the Cinerama Dome's history while ensuring its future.
One Hollywood icon is prepping for a comeback. The Cinerama Dome – one of the most famous movie theaters in the world – has been closed since the COVID pandemic. But it's now got a new lease on life, thanks to SONY Pictures and Alamo Drafthouse Cinema.
The studio announced it will lease, restore and reopen the famous theater in 2028; Alamo Drafthouse plans to program and operate it and 14 other screens at the adjoining multiplex.
"Hot damn! We're bringing the Dome back, baby," SONY Pictures Entertainment Motion Picture Group CEO Tom Rothman said in a statement. "We believe in moviegoing down to our soul, and no venue on Earth stands more for that than the one-of-a-kind Dome."
"There's a lot of passion behind this theater," says Michael O'Leary, who heads Cinema United, the global association of movie theater owners. He says while the Cinerama Dome's closing was a symbol of the pandemic, its recovery is proof the pandemic is behind us and movie theater-going is back.
"It's really exciting," agrees Escott Norton, former executive director and current board member of the Los Angeles Historic Theatre Foundation. "There's been a lot of people waiting with baited breath to see when the dome is going to reopen. People think of this as the ultimate Hollywood experience."
As an LA native and former film production designer, Norton has great memories of going to the Cinerama Dome. He says it was always an immersive experience to watch movies inside the geodesic-shaped auditorium designed to show wide screen movies.
"When I saw Close Encounters on this giant screen curved around me, it knocked my socks off," he says, adding he was also blown away watching Apocalypse Now at the Dome. "The movie opens up with this wide screen of just a quiet jungle, birds tweeting and then it explodes. Being surrounded by that on the curved screen, it still gives me tingles thinking about it."
The Cinerama Dome was built in 1963 by William Forman – the founder of Pacific Theaters, who had popularized drive-in cinemas. Forman commissioned a French architect who had studied under R. Buckminster Fuller, a designer of other geodesic structures. The theater was originally made to showcase Cinerama, a format developed in the 1950s that was part of the widescreen craze designed to lure viewers away from television and back to cinemas.
Forman was able to get the theater constructed in 16 weeks … just in time for the world premiere of a madcap comedy called, It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. The movie ran four hours long, with an intermission. Filmmakers had originally planned to use the Cinerama format, but abandoned it, shooting in Ultra Panavision 70 millimeter instead.
Still, it featured a who's who of comedy at the time – including Sid Caesar, Edie Adams, Milton Berle, and Buddy Hackett. Buster Keaton even makes a ten second cameo. "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World played at the Cinerama Dome, the brand new theater, for two years without stopping," recalled Karen Sharpe, the widow of the movie's director, Stanley Kramer. The former TV actress and producer spoke at a rally to preserve the Cinerama Dome last year, and talked about the star-studded premiere.
"It was a real happening," she remembered. "Bobby Kennedy came, Adlai Stevenson came and President and Mrs. Kennedy accepted the invitation to attend the opening. A few days before, they called to say 'So sorry, we have to [decline] the invitation because President and Mrs. Kennedy have to go to Dallas.' And we know what happened in Dallas."
Over the decades, the theater became a mecca for cinephiles. The dome was sometimes costumed like the movies it screened. Once, a replica Godzilla appeared to burst through the egg-like roof. Another time it was painted green with ears to resemble Shrek's head. Figures depicting the Pink Panther, Spider Man and the Minions have perched or crawled atop the Dome.
And fans were treated to countless premieres and special events, like when filmmaker Quentin Tarantino personally welcomed audiences to his 2019 feature Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. For the film, he included exterior shots of the Dome.
Two years later, after the Cinerama Dome's operators went bankrupt during the pandemic, Tarantino talked about how it was one of his favorite LA landmarks.
"I don't know if I could 100% afford it, but I would love to own the Cinerama Dome," he said on The Jess Cagle Show on SiriusXM. "That would be fantastic."
Tarantino already owns two other historic LA cinemas. But other preservationists and activists have been working to revive the dormant theater. Many of them credit the efforts of Benjamin Steinberg, a 27-year-old filmmaker and actor who appeared on Brooklyn Nine-Nine.
"The Cinerama Dome is the most famous movie theater in the world," Steinberg said, standing outside the boarded-up theater. "It seemed like it was going to be a demolition by neglect. So I was, like, something has to be done."
Steinberg created a campaign to save the Cinerama Dome. He organized a few street rallies, and wrote an online petition that amassed more than 30,000 signatures.
Then in March, Steinberg went even further to get the attention of the Forman family, which still owns the property: he projected images of the owners' faces onto the outside of the Dome, asking them to reopen the theater.
"We actually projected it for two hours and then they called the police on us," Steinberg explains. "We didn't get arrested; The police just said that the ownership considered it an escalation and harassment. I never wanted to anger the owner, so we stopped immediately."
Steinberg's stunt created a lot of buzz, and may have moved the needle, says theater preservationist Norton. His group had been consulting with architects on restoration plans in hopes that someone would save the day.
"We were all working behind the scenes. But Ben Steinberg really got on board on social media to save the dome," says Norton. "I'm very happy he did. You know, you sort of have to rattle the chains sometimes."
Meanwhile, Sony has promised to preserve the Cinerama Dome's history while ensuring its future.
Copyright 2026 NPR
Topline:
A pair of federal court battles unfolding in the coming weeks could reshape the future of homelessness funding across the Los Angeles region.
What’s at stake: Two separate lawsuits challenging recent actions by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will help determine whether L.A.’s embattled lead homelessness agency can compete for up to $241 million in federal grants this year and how that money can be spent.
What’s on the docket: One lawsuit challenges HUD’s suspension of the L.A. Homeless Services Authority from federal grant activity pending a federal investigation into alleged financial mismanagement. The other seeks to overturn HUD’s new grant regulations capping permanent housing at no more than 60% of local spending plans.
Read on… to learn how L.A. homelessness officials and service providers are preparing to deal with the outcomes of these cases.
A pair of federal court battles unfolding in the coming weeks could reshape the future of homelessness funding across the Los Angeles region.
Two separate lawsuits challenging recent actions by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) will help determine whether L.A.’s embattled lead homelessness agency can compete for up to $241 million in federal grants this year and how that money can be spent.
Both legal challenges reflect a broader fight over the Trump administration's efforts to remake federal homelessness policy and crack down on perceived misspending by local governments overseeing federal assistance programs.
The lawsuits center on HUD’s national Continuum of Care grant competition, the largest source of federal homelessness dollars flowing to L.A. each year.
Since the 1990s, HUD has required metropolitan areas like L.A. County to submit one single application for the region’s entire chunk of annual funding. The L.A. Homeless Services Authority, known as LAHSA, has been responsible for submitting that application on behalf of the region.
That changed in June, when HUD suspended LAHSA from federal grant activity pending a federal investigation into alleged financial mismanagement. The federal agency said LAHSA’s suspension meant it was not allowed to apply for this year’s grants, even though the agency has been working on an application.
LAHSA sued to overturn the suspension and is moving forward with its application while awaiting guidance from the court. U.S. District Judge David O. Carter has scheduled a hearing for Aug. 6 on LAHSA’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
HUD has since formally invited homeless service providers to apply directly for the federal homelessness money, bypassing LAHSA entirely.
Meanwhile, the L.A. County Development Authority has offered to apply for the region instead of LAHSA, if necessary.
HUD’s application deadline is Aug. 26. That’s when LAHSA, or an alternative applicant, would submit its final application to the federal government.
The second lawsuit between HUD and local officials focuses on how federal homelessness dollars can be spent.
The L.A. Continuum of Care historically spends about 90% of its more than $200 million federal funding allocation on permanent housing interventions — including subsidies to help cover people’s rent, according to LAHSA.
That approach is part of a philosophy and strategy known as “housing first,” which prioritizes providing unhoused people with a stable place to live as the first step towards recovery from life on the streets. Additional issues, like unemployment, addiction, mental illness or other health problems, are typically addressed only after first moving someone indoors.
But that approach is now under fire from the Trump Administration, which has made multiple attempts to remake the federal Continuum of Care program to fund fewer permanent housing beds and focus more on drug treatment, recovery and enforcement.
As the Trump administration geared up to pivot away from the “housing first” model, HUD initially proposed rules limiting permanent housing to 30% of local spending. Last year, the city of L.A. and other municipalities joined litigation challenging the HUD guidance.
This June, Judge Mary McElroy struck down the proposed HUD rules, but denied cities’ request for a permanent injunction.
HUD had already issued new grant regulations, this time capping permanent housing at no more than 60% of local spending plans, forcing the states to start over with a new legal complaint assigned to the same federal judge.
Last month, nearly two dozen states, including California, sued HUD over those regulations, asking McElroy to again throw out HUD’s new funding rules.
The proposed rules put more than 5,000 Angelenos at risk for homelessness, according to projections by the National Alliance to End Homelessness, a nonprofit research and advocacy group.
The states hope for a ruling by Aug. 10, so that regions like L.A. have time to align their applications. The lawsuit argues the restrictions conflict with federal law and undermine the federal government's long-standing “housing first” strategy.
The Trump administration says the new rules are intended to move federal policy toward approaches emphasizing mental health treatment, addiction recovery and personal accountability.
If HUD prevails, local officials warn the consequences could ripple across L.A. County, affecting one of the region’s largest sources of funding for permanent supportive housing and other homelessness programs.
The federal funding at stake has been roughly a quarter of LAHSA’s annual budget in recent years and is among the largest single sources of money for the region’s homelessness programs, which are also funded by the state, county and city.
HUD imposed the suspension earlier this year amid mounting scrutiny of LAHSA's financial oversight and operations. Auditors and local officials have raised longstanding concerns about the agency’s internal controls, contract monitoring and oversight of homelessness funds.
LAHSA argues HUD's suspension is unlawful and could jeopardize the region's ability to secure funding.
On July 2, Carter directed HUD and LAHSA to propose an order to temporarily keep the current funding process in place while the case moves forward. The two sides couldn't agree on the terms.
LAHSA sent an email to service providers last week urging them to continue with the current process.
“Please do not let this notice disrupt your current application preparation,” the letter said. “We strongly urge all service providers to stay the course.”
Other regional homelessness officials clarified they’re moving forward with the consolidated application and working to protect existing program funding.
Sarah Mahin, director of L.A. County’s new Department of Homelessness and Housing, said the county expects to receive more direction from the court before or at the August 6 hearing. Until then, Mahin said, “The existing competition process and LAHSA’s role as collaborative applicant should remain undisturbed while the court considers the preliminary injunction motion.”
In a July 21 court filing, HUD said it intends to delay any final action against the L.A. Continuum of Care until Aug. 10, or whenever the court rules on LAHSA’s request for a preliminary injunction.
HUD also said that if the suspension holds and LAHSA and the court determine local applicants must apply directly, the federal agency will give providers an additional 30 days to submit their applications.
Carter is also overseeing a major L.A. legal settlement stemming from a lawsuit by the L.A. Alliance for Human Rights over the city and county’s response to the homelessness crisis. Carter ordered all of the parties in the Alliance settlement to also appear at the Aug. 6 hearing in the case between LAHSA and HUD.
Homeless service providers, caught in the middle of HUD’s legal battles with LAHSA and with states, say they want to make sure services aren’t disrupted.
LAHSA’s own deadline for local homeless service providers to submit their individual applications as part of the collaborative application process was last week. More than 100 local nonprofit service providers have already submitted theirs.
Several organizations told LAist they’re prepared to submit applications directly to HUD, including Hope the Mission, a large homeless services provider operating primarily in the San Fernando Valley.
“While larger organizations have the administrative capacity to pivot quickly, we are concerned about smaller, specialized community providers who may struggle to navigate a direct HUD submission without localized technical assistance,” said Ivet Samvelyan, a vice president at Hope the Mission.
Service providers told LAist they’re watching the two court cases closely, and awaiting clearer guidance from local officials about what to do next.
“Our concern is less about the application process itself and more about the policy direction it represents, which is an attempt to take funding away from evidence-based practices such as permanent supportive housing and instead fund programs that require sobriety and compliance,” said Tian Martinez, a spokesperson at Union Station Homeless Services.
Topline:
The Alhambra City Council voted unanimously Monday to put a measure on the November ballot that will ask local voters to ban data centers citywide.
Why it matters: Alhambra could become the second city in California to pass a ban on data centers through a public vote. Monterey Park became the first city to pass such a ban in June.
The details: The new ballot measure proposes expanding an existing prohibition on data centers in Alhambra's office and industrial zones. It would effectively ban data centers in all of the city.
The backstory: Local citizens and groups like No Data Centers San Gabriel Valley and No Data Center in Monterey Park have been organizing to oppose the construction of data centers and other infrastructure that supports them, such as battery energy storage systems.
Read on... for more on Alhambra's new ballot measure.
The Alhambra City Council voted unanimously Monday to put a measure on the November ballot that will ask local voters to ban data centers citywide.
If the measure passes, Alhambra could become the second city in California to pass a ban on data centers through a public vote.
In June, Monterey Park became the first city to pass such a ban.
Council members previously voted to establish an official definition of what qualifies as a data center. At an earlier meeting last month, they also added data centers to a list of prohibited facilities in office and industrial zones.
The new ballot measure proposes expanding the prohibition. It would effectively ban data centers in all of the city.
Andrew Yip, an Alhambra resident and an organizer with the group SGV Progressive Action, spoke about the importance of ballot language during Monday’s council meeting.
Yip said the name of Monterey Park's June ballot measure — Measure NDC, which stood for "No Data Center" — left some data center opponents unsure about whether to vote yes or no.
“It was very confusing,” Yip said. “I encourage the city to consider a different acronym if possible, maybe BAN, so people know to vote yes on a ban.”
Local citizens and groups like No Data Centers San Gabriel Valley and No Data Center in Monterey Park have been organizing to oppose the construction of data centers and other infrastructure that supports them, such as battery energy storage systems.
Plans for a proposed data center in Monterey Park were pulled in March, and the Covina Planning Commission voted down a proposed storage system in June following public input.
Alhambra voters will decide the fate of data centers in the city in the general election on Nov. 3. The ban needs a simple majority of support from local voters in order to pass.
The Alhambra City Council tends to meet a few times per month, generally on Mondays. Meetings typically start at 6 p.m.
Here’s how you can follow along:
