The Brief

Months before the Eaton Fire tore through Altadena, Calif., destroying more than 9,400 homes and buildings, the community had already been debating a fateful question: are there places too risky for new housing to be built?

Like so many communities, Altadena had grown over decades with little consideration of the risk of wildfires. Houses spread steadily into the foothills, nestled against the dense, flammable brush of the San Gabriel Mountains.

In December, Los Angeles County officials considered a new land use plan, one that would control building decisions for Altadena and the surrounding area for decades to come. The plan sought to balance two major problems. To address a housing shortage, more density would be allowed in the interior of Altadena. To reduce the danger from wildfires, new construction would be restricted in the foothills.

Some of the affected landowners pushed back, saying the plan devalued their property and their rights to use it. Those same tensions about where to build housing are playing out around the country, as hurricanes, floods and wildfires get more extreme as the climate gets hotter.

Building regulation decisions generally fall to local elected officials, who have to balance their constituents' concerns about land use with the reality of a national housing shortage and growing threat of extreme weather. As a result, few communities around the country have adopted strict development limits to reduce the risk of disasters. Now, as it picks up the pieces after the fires, Altadena will follow those new development rules as it rebuilds.

The danger of wildfires was well-known to Los Angeles County. California is one of a handful of states that has mapped where the highest risk areas are.

(

Ryan Kellman/NPR

)

"Nobody likes to hear about constraints but at the same time, do we want our neighborhoods to burn down?" says Jennifer Balch, professor of geography at the University of Colorado Boulder. "There are things that we can do and should be doing to mitigate that risk."

Altadena foreshadows a disaster

In the weeks after the Eaton fire, Nic Arnzen was running on little sleep. He was searching for temporary housing after he and his family lost their Altadena home.

"It was completely gone," Arnzen says. "I keep telling people the fridge was gone. I don't understand how a fridge just disappears to dust."

At the same time, Arnzen had the whole community to think of. As vice chair of the Altadena Town Council, he and his colleagues were juggling the logistics of a disaster. Already, many residents were vowing to rebuild.

"The focus needs to be on: what can we plan for now?" Arnzen says. "How can we know the danger we live in now, and try to improve it?"

Altadena had already been trying to plan for wildfires. Los Angeles County officials had been working on the West San Gabriel Valley Area Plan, a plan that would control building decisions through new zoning. (Altadena is an unincorporated area, so planning decisions are made at the county level.)

Boosting housing is one big focus. Los Angeles is one of the most expensive housing markets in the country and as a whole, the county needs to add more than 90,000 housing units, part of a state requirement. The plan rezones land to allow for higher density of buildings and apartments along Altadena's central corridors, where there's already access to transportation and services.

At the same time, properties on the outskirts of Altadena would be zoned for a lower density of housing, particularly areas labeled as "very high" risk of wildfires. That would limit the construction of new homes there, part of a larger county-wide policy to direct development away from places that are likely to burn.

The fires in Los Angeles County could be the most expensive wildfire disaster in history.

(

Ryan Kellman/NPR

)

"This is the example of why," Arnzen says, referring to the Eaton Fire. "To make our town safe, we do have to have some supervision. And we hate to dictate to anyone that: no, you can't develop even though you've been waiting forty years to do that."

Plan comes down to a vote

In December, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors heard that exact feedback. A group of residents who own property in the foothills registered their opposition during public comments at a hearing for the development plan.

"For us, the property is more than just land," said Altadena resident Joseph DiMassa. "It's 50+ acres where we imagine buildings, homes for our children, grandchildren, and possibly even future generations. The downzoning of our property from 52 homes to two isn't just a number, it destroys the dreams we hold for our family's future."

Still, many of the public comments were in support.

"The prevailing sentiment in Altadena is one of endorsement," Victoria Knapp, chair of Altadena Town Council, testified at the meeting. "The plan will direct development away from the Altadena foothills and other high fire zones."

When it came time to vote, the county supervisors passed the plan. That means as Altadena rebuilds and potentially expands, zoning restrictions limiting growth in the foothills will be in place.

After the Eaton Fire, Joseph DiMassa's daughter, Cara, says her family's land in the foothills was burned, destroying a summer camp they run there.

"I love Altadena so much," she says. "And all of that really is gone and it's pretty heart-breaking."

Under Los Angeles County's new plan, development would be limited in the foothills of Altadena, where the wildfire risk is highest.

(

Mario Tama/Getty Images

/

Getty Images North America

)

Her family had opposed the new zoning plan because they felt it drastically limited the housing that could be built on larger properties.

"We really feel like the county did not do a great job at taking a look at some of these really large parcels that are family-owned, that suddenly were becoming completely devalued," she says.

Now, with so much devastation from the Eaton Fire, Cara DiMassa is glad the zoning plan is in place.

"It gives us hope that our hillsides will be hillsides again and I certainly don't want to see huge developments go up," she says.

Tensions of housing needs and wildfire risk

By considering wildfire risk, Los Angeles County's land use planning is ahead of many other Western communities. County supervisors are also considering a new ordinance that would put even more restrictions on construction in risky areas. The county knows which areas to target because the state has mapped wildfire hazard zones. Other states lack those maps or are in the process of developing them, like Oregon.

Across the country, new construction is expanding into areas that are prone to burning, known as the wildland-urban interface. Around 32 million homes were built there between 1992 and 2015, according to one study.

"We're building into flammable landscapes and just ignoring the fact that we're building into flammable vegetation," Balch says. "And we are increasingly doing that, and it's not changing anytime soon."

Wildfires are also spreading more explosively, driven in part by climate change. A hotter, drier atmosphere pulls the moisture out of vegetation, making it more flammable. Balch and her colleagues found that between 2001 and 2020, there was a 400% increase in how fast fires grew in California.

"Fires are getting harder to fight," Balch says. "So we cannot expect to live in flammable landscapes, and firefighters are going to just come along and put out the ignitions in our homes. This is something we need to address well before the fire actually ignites."

Many communities around the country struggle with balancing the need for new housing with the growing risk from more extreme weather.

(

Ryan Kellman/NPR

)

Still, many communities are in desperate need of new housing and elected officials may not want to appear anti-growth. New housing also means an increase in local property taxes, a key source of funding.

"Zoning laws and development regulations really do happen at local levels and so part of the challenge is: what are the incentive structures?" Balch says.

California legislators have attempted to address how communities build in wildfire-prone areas at a statewide level. In 2020, a bill was introduced to put new restrictions on developments in risky areas, requiring them to have adequate evacuation routes and to fund programs to clear flammable vegetation. It was vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom, who cited the state's housing needs. Several similar bills have been introduced since then, but also failed.

"The biggest opponents were the builders and realtors," says Hannah-Beth Jackson, a former California state senator who authored the vetoed bill. "People wanted to just keep building and building. The bottom line is the climate is changing."

When communities build in wildfire-prone areas, there are also few rules about using fire-resistant materials in most states. Studies show that following wildfire building codes can improve the chances a home will survive a wildfire. California has passed those codes, which means many homeowners rebuilding in Los Angeles will have to meet them. But the majority of other states have not.

While the conversation to build or not build can be tense, Altadena's Nic Arnzen says, in light of the devastation his community is recovering from, it's worth having that conversation, no matter the pushback.

"To tell people no is a difficult thing to do because you care about them and they're your constituents," Arnzen says. "But you have to buffer their anger with your knowledge. And sometimes you have to, as I've done as a parent, you just have to say no and take the beating."
Copyright 2025 NPR

Cleanup is just beginning for a contaminated industrial site in South Gate, according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials who are leading the effort.

The small southeast L.A. city was built on industry — in the early 20th century it boomed with auto, chemical and other manufacturers.

That legacy also left it with three Superfund sites, areas designated by the federal government as highly contaminated with hazardous waste.

The three sites are all clustered on a large lot framed by Southern and Rayo avenues. A residential neighborhood is nearby.

“This site is less than 50 yards away from a home, so we want to make sure that we clean it to a point where we can feel confident,” said South Gate Mayor Joshua Barron.

South Gate is home to about 90,000 people, the majority of whom are Latino. The median household income is about $74,500 and the state has identified the city and surrounding communities to be disproportionately burdened by pollution and its health effects.

This site, dubbed the Southern Avenue Industrial Area, housed a screw manufacturing business for 30 years, then a carpet adhesive plant. Both businesses are now defunct and the site was designated by the federal government as a Superfund site in 2012.

The pollution at this property was compounded by pollution from companies next door.

One of the two adjacent Superfund sites was used by Cooper Drum Co., a steel drum recycling plant. A group of Cooper Drum’s former customers, including chemical manufacturers and oil companies, are paying for part of that cleanup. The other site, previously operated by an aircraft rivet and conveyor belt manufacturer, is still in the analysis and planning stages.

At the Southern Avenue site where the EPA broke ground Tuesday, analyses commissioned by the agency found widespread lead and other toxic contamination in the soil, as well as a plume of trichloroethylene, a carcinogen, in the groundwater.

Officials say the plume has not affected the deeper aquifer South Gate and other southeast L.A. cities rely on for drinking water.

In 1986, the city closed water wells contaminated by the neighboring Cooper Drum site.

EPA project manager Kelia Liang explains the cleanup effort in South Gate on Tuesday.

(

Erin Stone

/

LAist

)

“ The water is safe to drink,” said Mike Montgomery, superfund director for the EPA. “What we're trying to do is prevent it from becoming impacted.”

EPA officials estimate soil cleanup will take about two months. Groundwater cleanup planning will start in 2027 and could take a year or more. The whole effort is estimated to cost between $45 million and $60 million, primarily through federal dollars.

The summer heat may be sweltering at the moment in Southern California, but predictions about this winter’s El Niño show it could be the strongest on record.

So the LAist newsroom wants to know: What questions do you have? (You can submit below.)

We can tell you now that El Niño is a climate pattern that happens roughly every two to seven years, and is one of the most powerful drivers of the Earth’s weather.

During an El Niño event, the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean off the coast of South America warms to above normal temperatures. The warm ocean adds moisture and heat to the atmosphere, influencing atmospheric circulation, temperatures and precipitation on a massive scale.

El Niño typically results in mild weather in the northern United States and wetter conditions in the southern part of the country.

In Southern California, we could start to see the effects of El Niño in the late fall or early winter. Generally, those effects include significant rain and high sea levels and the consequences that come with them, such as flooding, mudslides and coastal erosion.

Forecasters say there is a more than 90% chance of a powerful El Niño event this year, and a 70% chance that it’s record-setting.

That said, uncertainty remains around how exactly this winter’s El Niño will play out here.

So as you gear up for an El Niño winter, ask us your questions and we’ll do our best to get answers in the months ahead.

The company behind the Garden Grove hazardous waste scare earlier this year is planning to resume full operations in late September, subject to an independently monitored, court-approved safety plan.

GKN Aerospace employs 500 people at its Garden Grove facility.

What happened?

GKN Aerospace said in a news release that it had permanently decommissioned the tank that set off the hazmat scare in May and forced some 50,000 nearby residents to evacuate.

Removal of the tank is pending review and approval from state regulatory agencies, according to an emailed response from Salma Elshakre, a spokesperson for the Orange County Health Care Agency, which is overseeing the cleanup.

All of the toxic chemical, methyl methacrylate (also known as MMA), has been removed from nearby tanks as well, Elshakre said.

What about the compensation fund?

This week, the company also announced a forthcoming $100 million compensation fund for affected residents and businesses. GKN expects to release details on how to apply in the coming months.

What's next?

At least 39 lawsuits have been filed against the company in conjunction with the hazmat incident, according to a GKN webpage set up to track the fallout. The company pledged to explain the legal effect of participating in the compensation fund before it is launched.

What's the community reaction?

Garden Grove Mayor Stephanie Klopfenstein said in a statement that the city “welcome[s] this progress and will continue to expect GKN to address the broader effects on our community.”

A coalition of community groups called GKN Out of Garden Grove Coalition wants the city to shut down the GKN plant completely. The coalition plans to release a report documenting the company’s alleged history of hazardous waste failures at a news conference Tuesday at 5:30 p.m. at 11300 Stanford Ave. in Garden Grove.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration is preparing to revoke the business and tourism visas of up to 200,000 foreigners who have applied for or are currently seeking asylum status in the United States. If it happens, the move would be the largest single mass revocation of visas in U.S. history and would likely face legal challenges.

Unless challenged or revised, the State Department is expected to announce in the coming weeks the revocation of so-called B1 and B2 visas issued between 2016 and 2026 whose holders have sought asylum or are now seeking asylum, according to State Department documents obtained by The Associated Press and two U.S. officials. The action will be taken in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security.

“We are coordinating with DHS to identify and revoke the nonimmigrant visas of foreigners who have come to the United States claiming to be short-term visitors, but then file for asylum to stay here permanently,” said State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott.

He declined to comment on the number of visas that might be revoked, saying “as the process will be ongoing, the number of revocations remains dynamic and will be done on a rolling basis.”

The revocations would not necessarily result in their immediate deportation, the officials said. Most of those with asylum cases currently pending would be recategorized but would lose their status as business or tourism travelers, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the revocations are not final yet.

Since President Donald Trump took office for his second term last year, his administration has steadily ramped up restrictions on visa applicants — demanding more information about their social media histories, requiring the posting of expensive bonds for the processing of visas, and outright banning the issuance of visas to citizens of certain countries.

In a social media post on Monday, Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau called out people who he said try to use tourist and business visas to get into the United States and then apply for asylum.

“People in the US and all over the world are fed up with bogus asylum claims,” Landau wrote on X. “Asylum isn’t supposed to be a loophole to circumvent immigration law.” Landau cited the case of a Colombian citizen who came to the U.S. in 2015 on a tourist visa and then applied for asylum.

B1 visas are generally issued for business trips and B2 visas are generally issued for tourism, family visits or medical care. It was not immediately clear from the documents or the officials how many of these visa holders are seeking or have sought asylum in the United States and would be affected by the revocations.

Current applicants for B1 and B2 visas are asked to affirm that they will not apply for asylum in the United States and prove that they intend to return to their home countries.

In the past 18 months, the State Department has revoked about 175,000 visas for people who have been convicted or accused of crimes ranging from drunken driving to rape and robbery, as well as for people who have spoken out publicly against U.S. policies, particularly in the Middle East.

The administration has also moved to crack down on so-called birth tourism, a practice the administration claims is used by foreign pregnant women to come to the United States to give birth so that their child will benefit from birthright citizenship. Trump has tried several times to end birthright citizenship, but those challenges have been rejected by courts, including the Supreme Court.

The State Department documents obtained by the AP suggest screening of current B1 and B2 visa holders began after the State Department received information about asylum requests from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.