The Brief

Many Pacific Palisades locals, current and former, have been following the Facebook feed of 56-year-old Kent Steffes. He lives in nearby Brentwood now and hasn’t lost his home, but perhaps that’s given him the emotional bandwidth to share more effectively with others what’s happened to their old neighborhood.

Overlooking the Pacific Ocean like its neighbors Malibu and Santa Monica, Pacific Palisades is an affluent neighborhood by any measure. It’s home to celebrities like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Reese Witherspoon and Tom Hanks. Median home values often exceed $3 million. Luxury homes sell for tens of millions. But many of the families who’ve lost their homes are not fabulously wealthy.

“What most people don’t know is that a lot of the homes are owned by people who can’t afford to live here anymore. They won’t be able to rebuild,” Steffes said. That’s because many family members can’t afford to buy the homes they own at the current market rate. “They couldn’t afford to get a mortgage on it.”

Along with his 20-year-old daughter, Katharine Steffes, who also attended Palisades High (partially burned), we toured the neighborhood as it lay smoking. “All my friends live here,” the sophomore at the University of Notre Dame said. “I don’t know if this place will ever be the same.”

Kent Steffes’ family moved to the Pacific Palisades highlands in 1973 when he was 5. His dad, an engineer at Hughes Aircraft Co., bought a home for $75,000, which would be around $533,000 in today’s dollars. The house had five bedrooms, although many homes built in “Pali” in the 1960s and ’70s featured two or three bedrooms.

“What most people don’t know is that a lot of the homes are owned by people who can’t afford to live here anymore. They won’t be able to rebuild,” said Kent Steffes, 56, who grew up in Pacific Palisades.

(

Rachael Myrow

/

KQED

)

“You were always outside biking or riding skateboards around town,” said Steffes, who grew up to win the inaugural beach volleyball gold medal at the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta. He works in finance now. “There was always someplace to explore and have fun and plenty of friends to do it with. We ran out of the house in the morning and didn’t come home until the street lights came on.”

But as the decades passed, the neighborhood grew wealthier. By the time Steffes was in his 30s, many modest three- to four-bedroom homes were giving way to “McMansions,” double the size, on the same small lots. Big or small, the original owners aged and died and passed on their homes to their children, as Kent Steffes’ parents did. “We just sold that home last year for $2.5 million.”

Because of Proposition 13, passed in 1978, family members who inherited properties were essentially given the original property tax rate. Steffes’ parents paid about $4,000 in property taxes. Steffes said the people who bought the house last year pay about $37,500.

In addition to the much higher tax rate, a lot of insurance plans cover only the value of the house as it is, not the cost to rebuild according to modern building codes.

“So they’ll say, ‘Hey, your house is worth $300,000,’” Steffes said hypothetically. “But it’ll cost you $1 million to rebuild that same thing.”

Nancy Wallace, a real estate professor at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, lost her own home to the Oakland Hills fire of 1991. She’s now considered an expert in price modeling and wildfire “mispricing,” as she puts it, in the insurance market.

Marquez Charter Elementary School was destroyed in the Palisades fire, erasing cherished childhood memories for countless individuals.

(

Courtesy Kent Steffes

)

“Insurance adjusters are not your friends,” she said. “They’re not there to sympathize. They’re there to minimize the payout of their company. It might be dressed up with nice words, but that is the challenge that you’re facing.”

Due in large part to climate-change-driven wildfires, hundreds of thousands of Californians have lost their insurance policies altogether in 2024. This has forced many homeowners to turn to the California FAIR Plan, a state-mandated insurance market of last resort, which often provides more expensive and limited coverage.

State Farm, the largest insurer group in California, announced a halt to new homeowner insurance policies in the state in 2023 and began canceling or non-renewing policies for tens of thousands of properties in 2024.

However, a spokesman told KQED State Farm still insures 250,000 homes and “as of Tuesday, Jan. 14, we’ve begun to process over 6,700 home and auto claims, already putting tens of millions of dollars back into customers’ hands. We are prepared to address the growing number of claims expected as residents return and assess damage.”

Allstate paused the sale of homeowners insurance policies for new customers in 2022. “We continue to offer coverage to most existing homeowners insurance customers,” an Allstate spokesperson wrote KQED.

Based on Wallace’s analysis, about 1 million California homes are in high- or very high-risk areas, with 2 million to 4.5 million more in vulnerable wildland-urban interface zones. The time it takes to rebuild a home after a wildfire varies significantly depending on the severity of the damage, availability of contractors, and compliance with updated building codes, but Wallace estimates it could take up to four years to rebuild a home destroyed by a wildfire.

“Four years is a lifetime for many people,” she said but noted the incentives in the current system are to rebuild, and for those with the money to rebuild, build back bigger and more expensively. That’s if they have insurance policies that will meet the demand now.

Given how expensive the Palisades Fire is expected to be, Wallace warned the California insurance market could fail because many insurance policies are too generous given the actual risks, and the state insurance commissioner’s office has only recently begun to allow the industry to adjust for the changing reality.

All these factors exacerbate the trend toward gentrification in Pacific Palisades and neighborhoods like it, meaning home ownership in those places is becoming infeasible for any but the most wealthy Californians.

Ultimately, Wallace said, many homeowners in Pacific Palisades will choose to do what she did after the Oakland Hills fire took her home: move out of the neighborhood.

The Los Angeles City Council decided Tuesday to put off the full effects of a major new state housing law by allowing low-rise apartment buildings in some neighborhoods where such housing has long been banned.

All council members voted in favor of those plans except for Traci Park, who was absent from the meeting.

California’s Senate Bill 79 is set to take effect July 1. The law overrides local limits on housing development by allowing apartment buildings between five and nine stories tall near train stations and rapid bus stops.

However, cities are allowed to postpone those changes until 2030 by developing their own incremental plans for more housing. L.A. elected leaders have chosen to delay. They’re doing so through the city’s new Low-Rise Ordinance, which aims to allow buildings up to four stories tall in 57 neighborhoods near transit lines.

Why it matters

L.A. lawmakers have tried many approaches to bring down L.A.’s high rents. But they have consistently voted to stop apartment developers from encroaching on the nearly three-quarters of city residential land reserved for single-family homes.

Pushed by state lawmakers, city leaders are now having to accept some changes in single-family neighborhoods located near public transit lines.

The reaction

Some local officials and homeowners have expressed frustration over new state limits on their ability to stop development in low-density zones. But advocates for more development said the council’s decision will help address high rents by allowing more housing in areas that have long been off-limits to new apartments.

“The City Council voted to open up high-resource single-family neighborhoods near transit stations,” said Scott Epstein, policy director with Abundant Housing L.A. “This reform is long overdue and will help build a future where Angelenos of all incomes can find homes in the neighborhoods of their choice.”

Where will the projects be allowed?

Officials with the city’s planning department said residents can see whether Low-Rise Ordinance projects will be allowed in their neighborhood by clicking on this interactive map and making two selections from the “layer list” menu: “Opportunity Station Sites Eligible for Low Rise” and “Sites Eligible for Low Rise Outside of Opportunity Station.”

The map shows that some of the areas eligible for new apartment buildings under this plan include Westside neighborhoods within a half-mile of the E Line’s Westwood/Rancho Park station, pockets of the San Fernando Valley near G Line stops, and parts of Eagle Rock along Colorado Boulevard’s planned North Hollywood to Pasadena rapid bus line.

Is this a done deal?

Both plans — the decision to delay full SB 79 implementation, and the new Low-Rise Ordinance — now go to Mayor Karen Bass for final approval. Council members are also considering some tweaks they say would help Low-Rise Ordinance projects get built.

Those changes would include letting developers build denser projects if they reserve more units for low-income renters, as well as rules that would let developers build ground-level parking instead of costlier underground parking. The council’s planning committee voted Tuesday to forward those suggestions to the full City Council for further debate.

There’s a new tool to fight illegal fireworks this Fourth of July: drones.

“A drone’s real-time aerial view can help officers assess situations faster, improve safety, support faster response times and ensure the right resources are sent where they’re needed most,” the Anaheim Police Department stated in an Instagram post.

Anaheim's department is the latest law enforcement agency using the technology to quickly identify illegal fireworks use. The Downey City Council is expected to vote Tuesday night on potential new fines and new rules that would allow local law enforcement to use drones to patrol neighborhoods for illegal fireworks usage.

How it works

Here's how the tech is put to use: Seconds after authorities receive a call reporting illegal fireworks activity, drones can take to the air, hovering above neighborhoods and businesses to find a specific location and an offender. The surveillance devices are equipped with night vision and zoom lenses that allow first responders to record high definition videos right from their Real Time Crime Center at the station.

Then, officers can determine whether to send out a patrol car or issue a citation for the incident.

Why it matters

The city’s drone usage comes as law enforcement agencies across Southern California brace for the annual flood of complaints about illegal firework use at this time of the year. Drones make the most effective use of time and resources, experts say.

“We'll typically see about 2,000 calls and about 300 related to fireworks,” Anaheim’s chief communications officer Mike Lyster explained about the Fourth of July. “It really is a better use of resources on what is always a very, very busy holiday for us.”

Drones allow officials to collect enough evidence to issue these citations. In Anaheim, the punishment starts at $1,000 and climbs to $3,000 by the third offense. But authorities say the goal is to curb illegal fireworks use altogether due to the risk of injury and wildfires.

Lyster hopes that people will think twice about using illegal fireworks this holiday — not just because of the fines — but because of its negative impact on local communities.

“The Palisades fire was ultimately started by illegal fireworks, and sadly, not in our city, but in our neighboring city, a young Anaheim girl died in an illegal fireworks incident last year,” Lyster said.

Where are drones already in use?

More cities are testing this method in order to crack down on illegal firework use. Sacramento, San Bernardino and Riverside are just a few of the other areas that have adopted this technology in recent years.

How do I know what's legal?

If you have any questions about what is legal or not in your community, a quick Google search can help.

Each county goes by different regulations for the types of fireworks you can use — if at all.

For example, parts of Anaheim allow “safe and sane” fireworks to be used only on the Fourth of July between 10 a.m and 10 p.m. This includes non-explosive, non-aerial devices like fountains, sparklers and smoke balls. State-approved fireworks will have a State Fire Marshal seal.

LAist staffer Anjanette Gile also contributed to this report.

The story first appeared on The LA Local.

Your neighborhood has a reporter. Have you met them yet?

On Saturday, coffee shops across L.A. are turning into places where you can tell a journalist exactly what’s been bugging you about your block … while drinking amazing coffee.

From Boyle Heights to Silver Lake to Inglewood to Long Beach, local reporters will be set up at neighborhood coffee shops from from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. — to hear what’s on your mind. Got a tip about a pothole that’s been eating tires for years? A landlord the city keeps ignoring? A community hero nobody’s written about? We want to hear it all!

It’s part of Local News Day LA, a pop-up series organized by The LA Local that connects you with your local reporter and give you a chance to become the source instead of just the reader.

LAist has been meeting community members in person through LAist Listens tabling events by popping up at local businesses.

See below for the full list of participating media outlets and coffee shops — The LA Local and our media partners hope you’ll join us:

LAist will be joining The LA Local and other local media partners for Local News Day LA on June 27.

(

The LA Local

)

Where to find a journalist

1. The LA Local – Koreatown, Pico Union, Westlake will be hosted by Open Market
2. The LA Local – Inglewood and South LA will be hosted by Asteroid Vinyl Cafe
3. Boyle Heights Beat will be hosted by Picaresca Cafe
4. CalMatters will be hosted by Yia Caffe 
5. Calo News will be hosted by Cruzita’s Deli and Cafe
6. The Eastsider will be hosted by Rosebud Coffee (Highland Park location)
7. LAist will be hosted by Cafe Calle
8. Los Angeles Radio Collective will be hosted by Spoke Bicycle Cafe
9. LA Sentinel will be hosted by Patria Coffee
10. LA Taco will be hosted by Cafecito Organico (Silverlake location)
11. LA Public Press will be hosted by Holy Grounds Coffee & Tea
12. Long Beach Post will be hosted by Wrigley Coffee
13. Q Voice News will be hosted by Hot Java
14. USC Annenberg Media will be hosted by South LA Cafe (Western location)

Come enjoy a cup of coffee (or tea) with us while supplies last. 

A coalition of 17 states and a trade association representing U.S. wholesalers and distributors have sued California to block the enforcement of a stringent recycling law that aims to reduce plastic packaging waste.

The lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court, argues that California’s recently finalized regulations that will gradually require companies to scale back single-use plastics and ensure all packaging is recycling or compostable should be struck down. The plaintiffs called the regulations “onerous mandates” that will cause steep price increases in everyday necessities that will be passed on, at least in part, to consumers.

“Once again, California is trying to enact a policy that negatively impacts the rest of the country. If California goes unchecked, consumers will be forced to pay more for basic necessities,” Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers, who led the coalition, said in a news release.

The law, called the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, was enacted in 2022.

“Virtually every product packaged or shipped in plastic containers, as well as a significant number of other types of packaging materials that merely incorporate plastics, fall into the Act’s remarkable sweep,” the lawsuit said.

The National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, which represents companies that import and distribute goods in California, also joined the lawsuit.

“California is not entitled to pronounce nationwide policies,” Eric Hoplin, the trade association’s president and CEO, said in a statement. “Because the Act extends California’s regulatory reach far beyond its borders and brings within its sweep conduct wholly unconnected to California, the Act violates principles of federalism, the horizontal separation of powers, and due process.”

The lawsuit argues the law violates both the U.S. and California constitutions. It asks the court to declare California’s law invalid and unenforceable, and halt its implementation.

The lawsuit names as defendants Zoe Heller, director of California’s recycling agency known as CalRecycle, and the Circular Action Alliance, a nonprofit involved with implementing the law.

Melanie Turner, a spokesperson for CalRecycle, said in an emailed statement that the agency does not comment on pending litigation and that it remained focused on implementing the law.

The alliance said in a statement that it was aware of the lawsuit and closely monitoring developments while at the same time working to implement the law’s “ambitious goals.”

In a May news release announcing regulations under the law, state officials said the changes would fight plastics pollution while protecting the interests of taxpayers and local governments.

“California is shifting the responsibility of managing single-use plastic and packaging onto the producers. New packaging reforms lower waste costs for communities and decrease garbage and pollution across the state,” Environmental Protection Secretary Yana Garcia said in a statement. “This approach pushes producers to innovate and design packaging that truly supports a circular economy.”

Joining Nebraska in the lawsuit were 16 other states with Republican attorneys general: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.Environmental groups also have sued over the law. A coalition that included the Natural Resources Defense Council recently filed a complaint over what it said in a news release were “weakened” final regulations for the “landmark” law.