The Brief

Altadena may get a reprieve from two of California’s marquee housing laws after a bill to temporarily exempt the fire-torn community sailed through back-to-back Assembly hearings on Wednesday.

The two laws being put on hold — Senate Bill 9 from 2021 and Senate Bill 1123 from 2024 — legalize the construction of up to 10 small houses on plots otherwise reserved for single-family homes and make it easier to split land into smaller parcels which can be sold off individually.

Senate Bill 1090 by Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, a Democrat whose district includes Altadena, would exempt the unincorporated town’s single zip code from the two laws through 2030.

That’s meant to give Eaton Fire survivors “the time they need to rebuild their community without the overpowering influence of predatory developers looking to take advantage of the devastation and suffering,” Pérez said at a press conference on Wednesday morning.

Altadena “shouldn't be a playground for people who want a return on investment,” added the town’s Assemblymember John Harabedian, a fellow Democrat. The bill is “about protecting Altadena and keeping Altadena Altadena.”

With the rebuilding effort in Altadena progressing slowly, mired by sluggish insurance payouts, pending litigation and escalating construction costs, only a few dozen permits have been filed that make use of these state laws, either by professional property developers or individual homeowners.

Some pro-housing advocates and even some Altadena residents worry that the new bill, which supporters frame as a curb on out-of-town investors, could inadvertently make it harder for some fire survivors to rebuild and remain.

The stated purpose of the legislation is “to stop greedy developers from taking advantage of Altadenans, which, of course, we all agree with,” said Caroline Paules, a town resident and founder of a small home construction company, speaking before the Assembly’s housing committee. “I believe what it actually does is prevent Altadenans from housing themselves — and also Altadenans from helping to house each other.”

Preventing speculators from profiting from the Los Angeles rebuild without also harming homeowners is a tough balance to strike. Lawmakers are also considering a bill to give the California Coastal Commission more authority over reconstruction projects pursued by anyone who purchased a property after a future disaster. That’s meant to check investor-led redevelopment. It could also make it more difficult for survivors to sell their properties should they decide or be forced by necessity not to rebuild.

SB 1090 received unanimous support from both the Assembly housing and local government committees, even if some “Yes In My Backyard”-aligned members expressed some apparent discomfort.

The debate over the legislation pits California’s longstanding efforts to turbocharge housing construction against the interests of many Altadenans who want to rebuild the community as it was. It also raises questions about who and what gets prioritized when a community is rebuilt after a natural disaster in California.

“I don’t think it’s NIMBYism and I don't think it's unreasonable for us to say, ‘We’re still in a state of emergency. Let us recover,’” said Nic Arnzen, chair of Altadena’s Town Council and a supporter of Pérez’s bill.

Arguments like these are a fixture of California housing debates. Locals often object to new, denser development, or to the policies promoting it, on the grounds that while more homes may be needed statewide, the conditions specific to a particular town or neighborhood — whether it’s heightened wildfire risk, historic significance, the physical scale or demographic make-up  — argue that it shouldn’t be built here. But Arnzen and other supporters of SB 1090 say that the temporary nature of the bill and Altadena’s extraordinarily unusual circumstances make this a legitimately special case.

The two housing laws at issue were intended to gradually add density to urban areas as existing homes are periodically sold and as rare vacant parcels are developed, he said. They were “never meant to apply to towns that were two-thirds destroyed.”

Before the fire, 95% of all the houses in parts of Altadena touched by fire were single-family homes, according to a UCLA analysis.

Forcing the state laws upon the burn area would “completely reshape the character of the neighborhood,” said Arnzen.

A lot split as a lifeline

Though Pérez’s bill is written to help Altadenans rebuild on their terms, Andrew Post worries it might prevent his parents from rebuilding at all.

Post’s parents, retired physicists Jonathan and Christine, lost their house on North Marengo Avenue. They were determined to rebuild from the start, over their son’s initial objections. But an as-yet uncertain insurance payout, the couple’s modest fixed incomes and uncertain construction costs make for a tight reconstruction budget.

Unexpected construction delays or a denied insurance claim and “they could be dead broke and have an unfinished house,” said Post. Even if construction goes as planned, the couple will have little left to live off of.

In early June the family filed paperwork with the county to see if they could split the parcel, as allowed under the law.

The typical Altadena homeowner hoping to rebuild is short $550,000 after accounting for past and expected insurance payouts, according to a survey by the nonprofit Department of Angels. Splitting up a lot and selling a chunk to a developer, as SB 9 allows, could help many homeowners close that gap, said Azeen Khanmalek, director of the pro-housing advocacy group Abundant Housing LA.

These density-boosting state laws should be seen as “potential tools and pathways to help some homeowners come back and rebuild, rather than as threats,” he said.

Post, who grew up in Altadena, said he’s sympathetic to concerns about density, historic preservation, parking and traffic — to a point.

Altadena prides itself as a historic refuge of relative affordability, diversity and tolerance in Los Angeles County. The best way to preserve that legacy is to enable more multiplexes and small starter homes, said Post.

“The character of the neighborhood is, I think, better preserved by keeping it affordable rather than by keeping the white picket fence architecture,” he said.

“I am very focused on the question of whether my parents ever live in Altadena again,” he added. “It’s hard for me to prioritize a preference for the neighborhood character over an ability to be part of that character.”

SB 9 in Altadena

Of the 5,645 parcels with damaged or destroyed homes in Altadena, 52 have active permits that invoke SB 9, according to a data dashboard commissioned by the town council. Of those, 14 are under construction and two are complete.

That relatively low number may partly reflect the typical geometry of Altadena parcels, said Devang Shah, a principal with Genesis Builders, which is building single-family homes for fire survivors.

“They’re narrow and deep,” he said, which makes it hard to pack in additional units or dice them up for sale.

Even so, the handful of submitted plans — and renderings depicting a type of multifamily dwellings largely alien to pre-fire Altadena — have provided ample fodder for some locals eager to protest denser development and the perceived threat posed by investors and developers capitalizing off the community’s tragedy.

John Chan, a Los Angeles architect who has pushed for redeveloping Altadena to be more pedestrian-oriented and who supports the use of density-boosting state laws, said a handful of poorly designed SB 9 projects — “sardine cans for rent extraction,” he said — have soured many locals on the possible upsides of density.

“It’s creating a backlash to SB 9 that I think is really going to hurt Altadena,” he said.

“Altadena not for sale”

In both Altadena and the Palisades that backlash began brewing almost as soon as the flames were extinguished.

In the summer of 2025, long before hinting at any aspirations for higher office, former reality TV star Spencer Pratt began posting on social media assailing SB 9 and “opportunistic developers” hoping to make use of the law to rebuild in the Palisades. Responding to that pressure, Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass issued dueling executive orders to nullify the law in areas that fall within state-designated “very high” wildfire hazard severity zones inside Los Angeles county.

Newsom’s order only covered a small portion of Altadena. Even after the state expanded its fire severity maps, much of the Eaton Fire burn area did not fall into the “very high” category. The order therefore did little to quell anxieties among the residents who saw denser redevelopment not as an opportunity for struggling homeowners, but as a boon to out-of-town developers and speculators.

Pérez was hoping to address those concerns when she introduced an earlier version of SB 1090 this spring which would have banned large residential investors from making unsolicited offers to purchase parcels in the burn area. That hyperlocal focus also tapped into a growing national interest in preventing investors from purchasing single-family homes, a remarkably bipartisan cause championed by both Newsom and President Donald Trump.

The bill sailed through the California Senate on partisan lines.

In mid-June, Perez rewrote the bill to focus on the state density laws. Her office said the bill’s new focus reflects the more pressing concerns of many Altadenans.

“What I am not going to allow is for my community to be treated differently than the Palisades or than Malibu,” Pérez said on Wednesday.

Arnzen, for one, said he’s less concerned about existing homeowners selling to land speculators.

“I don't fault people for selling to the highest bidder,” he said. “If I was selling my property, would I have the wherewithal to make sure it goes into the right hands? I don’t know.”

Instead, he wants to see temporary limits on what those new buyers can do with the property once they have it.

Arnzen said he moved to Altadena two decades ago because he wanted his young kids to grow up “in a small town, not in a cookie cutter subdivision, not in a city.”

After losing their home to the fire, he and his husband are now in the process of relocating to an accessory dwelling unit on their property, which they’ll live in while they rebuild. When construction wraps up, the two plan to move into the new house and rent out the smaller one “to push back on the housing crisis in the state,” he said. “Because I think we should all do our part.”

Jeremia Kimelman contributed the data visualization to this story.

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

California has been preparing to fill a budget gap for gender-affirming care procedures after the federal government pulled the funds under the direction of President Donald Trump and Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

LAist crunched the numbers to see if the state has budgeted enough, and here’s what we found.

Youth on Medi-Cal bill $1 million yearly for hormones

People under 18 covered by Medi-Cal filed about $1 million in claims in 2025 for hormone replacement therapy and puberty blockers, according to data California’s Department of Health Care Services. That accounted for about 4,000 claims.

Some providers that take trans youth patients on Medi-Cal, like Children’s Hospital Los Angeles’ trans youth clinic, closed last year, though many doctors still were able to write out prescriptions that lasted patients for months after that.

Some care remains covered 

Medi-Cal also covered 4,800 claims for about 1,500 Medi-Cal members under 18 in 2025 for “doctor visits, counseling, surgeries, speech therapy, and other services,” totaling $6.4 million. Gender-affirming surgeries are only recommended for minors in rare circumstances.

However, the restrictions in the federal Medicaid rule only affect puberty blockers, hormone replacement therapy and surgeries, according to health policy organization KFF, so services like mental health treatment would still be reimbursable with federal funds. The rule, which would take effect Oct. 13, also lets states pay for minors’ gender-affirming hormone treatments and surgeries themselves.

The state has already set aside two pots of money to close gaps in funding for gender-affirming healthcare services: a $30 million fund for gender-affirming care and abortion services, and a $26 million trust fund specifically for trans healthcare. California Health & Human Services Agency leaders anticipate the funds will cover these Medi-Cal services over the next three years.

Medi-Cal’s budget

The overall Medi-Cal program budget during this period was almost $200 billion, according to state data. Transgender youth health services, including mental health services, make up just 0.004% of the plan’s budget.

Medi-Cal administers both the federal Medicaid program and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) under a Medicaid expansion allowed for by the Affordable Care Act.

“The federal rule applies solely to federal Medicaid and CHIP funding; California will determine any adjustments needed to align with federal requirements,” California Department of Health Care Services spokesperson Anthony Cava said in a statement. “California remains committed to safeguarding access to medically necessary care for Medi-Cal members, including gender-affirming care.”

Medi-Cal agencies like L.A. Care have stated that they are continuing to cover gender-affirming care services.

Issues may still arise

While they celebrated the establishment of the fund, trans healthcare advocates have noted that some issues may arise due to providers who are unsure how the new state rules apply.

The California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus has also said it’s bracing for future budget years to be “even more challenging as federal funding cuts and attacks on targeted investments to marginalized communities continue to threaten critical services.”

Meanwhile, California Attorney General Rob Bonta has denounced the restrictions on federal funding since they were first floated last year. A lawsuit has not yet been announced, but a spokesperson for his office told LAist, “We are closely reviewing the final rule.”

After homelessness advocates pushed a Los Angeles City Council member to change how the city treats encampments in his district, the full City Council voted Tuesday to selectively stop enforcing a law that bans unhoused people from sleeping in certain areas.

A controversial policy

One of the city’s most controversial enforcement laws on homelessness is found in section 41.18 of L.A.’s municipal code. It allows local elected leaders to establish zones where unhoused people cannot sit, lie down, sleep or keep belongings on sidewalks or other public areas.

What's new?

Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martinez — who represents a district including Hollywood, Silver Lake and Echo Park — recently introduced a motion to remove some of the 41.18 districts established by his predecessor, Mitch O'Farrell.

On Tuesday, the council voted 10-3 to allow some zones to be erased in Soto-Martinez’s district. The zones include underpasses in Silver Lake, underpasses in Echo Park and 101 Freeway overpasses in Hollywood.

Soto-Martinez said he believed today’s measure was the first effort to have 41.18 zones removed rather than put in place.

The debate

Supporters of 41.18 have said the policy allows officials to keep encampments away from schools, parks and other areas deemed “sensitive” by the city, enabling parents to keep their children away from encampments and helping to keep important pedestrian infrastructure clear.

Critics have said the policy doesn’t reliably keep encampments away from sensitive sites because people simply return after sweeps that don't offer them housing.

In Tuesday’s meeting, Soto-Martinez said enforcement in some of these areas leads to unhoused people losing their belongings, becoming lost to outreach workers and sometimes getting arrested.

“To me, that is a policy that does not work,” Soto-Martinez said in Tuesday’s meeting. “In our district, these zones were making it harder to do the things that do work.”

Councilmember Nithya Raman, now running for mayor, has also argued the policy is ineffective, saying it merely moves encampments to other blocks without getting people into housing.

A 2023 report from L.A.’s lead homelessness agency, first covered by LAist, concluded that the policy hadn’t kept most areas clear of encampments, and was “generally ineffective” at connecting people to housing.

Dissenting votes

Some council members strongly defend using 41.18 in their districts. Three voted against rescinding the zones in Soto-Martinez’s district.

Monica Rodriguez, council member for a district that covers much of the northeast San Fernando Valley, said during Tuesday’s meeting that “41.18 was never intended to be the solution to our homeless problem. In fact quite the opposite. It’s just about protecting public spaces for families who want to be able to take their kids to the park and not have to be exposed to it.”

El Niño is officially with us, and it’s looking like it’s likely going to be a doozy.

The natural global climate pattern temporarily warms the eastern tropical Pacific, causing extreme weather patterns across the globe. A strong El Niño has historically, though not always, been associated with very wet winters here in Southern California.

“ We are now explicitly expecting the strongest El Niño event ever observed,” said UCLA climate scientist Daniel Swain. “ There will be a strong tilt in the odds towards wet, perhaps even very wet conditions in Southern California.”

Maybe you remember the very wet El Niños of years past — 1982 and 1997. Both were historic events that led to billions of dollars in damage and dozens of deaths.

“This is highly likely to exceed what occurred in [1982 or 1997], and by a considerable margin,” Swain said.

The good news? You still have time to prepare.

Experts emphasize that people need to develop an understanding of their personal risk, talk to neighbors who may have experienced flooding in the past and consider getting insured.

Know your risk

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, compiles flood risk maps (you can also use this L.A. County map here).

Be aware that they are not comprehensive and can be out-of-date. Also, they include only risk from coastal flooding, such as tides and waves, as well as from rivers, creeks, channels and levies, which risk spilling over after back-to-back severe storms.

But the maps don’t include flood risk from short, heavy downpours or mudflows in recent burn zones, said Brett Sanders, a professor leading UC Irvine’s Flood Lab. So even if your home is not within an official flood zone, you could be at risk.

“What used to be grasslands and open space has been covered more and more by asphalt and concrete,” Sanders said. “And so more and more water runs off and these flood risks are increasing.”

Flooding diverts traffic on a Long Beach street in 2024.

(

Eric Thayer

/

Associated Press

)

His lab has been working to figure out how to develop more comprehensive flood maps, to better determine risks and reflect changes brought on by a warming climate.

But Sanders said one of your best bets to prepare is low-tech: speak with neighbors or officials who know your local area, and remember how past severe rain events have affected your street or neighborhood. For example, if you live at the base of a hill, or in a basement or ground-level apartment, you’re more likely to see some water flow. That historical memory can help you develop a plan for a worst-case scenario.

“Some common sense local awareness from people is really valuable,” Sanders said. “Talk to somebody that's been around for a while. Ask them, ‘Do you remember floods happening here in the past?’ Or, ‘What happened in 1997 when we had our last really wet El Nino?’”

Once you know, consider filling sand bags ahead of time, keep drainages around and on your house clear, and think about how flooding may affect your travel routes.

People who live in recent wildfire burn areas are likely through the worst of it, Swain said.

“ I think the initial highest risk period will have passed by this winter,” he said.

Still, mudflow is possible. So remember how mud flowed during the storms soon after the 2025 L.A. fires and make sure you have what you need to protect your property and evacuate safely if needed.

Consider flood insurance

Homeowners and renters should take a moment to read their current insurance policies closely. Most homeowners insurance, as well as renters insurance, does not include coverage for flooding (water damage coverage is not flood coverage). Less than 2% of Californians have flood insurance at all.

If you don’t have it, get a quote, said Amy Bach, director of United Policyholders, a nonprofit that advocates for insurance consumers. Flood insurance is usually a lot cheaper than typical insurance.

“ Don't make a decision not to carry flood insurance without getting a quote,” she said. “Find out how much it would cost before you decide.”

If you do get flood insurance, it’ll take about a month to kick in, so you want to start looking now before the official start of the wet season in October.

You can get flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program, or some private companies. United Policyholders has a variety of resources to figure out which product is right for you. Bach also pointed to a tool by the California Department of Insurance to compare various insurers based on complaints against them, as well the Federal Alliance for Safe Homes, which can help you identify your risks.

“If it rains, it can flood,” Bach said. “And that is more true today than it used to be.”

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Hundreds of East Los Angeles households near the site of the Lineage warehouse fire will begin receiving a one-time $200 utility credit on their Southern California Edison bills after weeks of pressure from residents and L.A. County Supervisor Hilda Solis to extend relief beyond Boyle Heights. 

Lineage, the owner of the cold-storage warehouse, initially provided $50,000 in utility assistance to 218 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power customers in Boyle Heights. Residents in unincorporated East L.A., including some who live just blocks from the warehouse, were not included in that support. 

Last week, David Eisenhauer, a representative with Southern California Edison (SCE), told Boyle Heights Beat that Lineage provided $26,600 to cover $200 credits for 133 households in East L.A. These residents live within a boundary designated as Zone 2, which stretches between Indiana Street and Hicks Avenue, and Union Pacific Avenue and the 5 Freeway. SCE said customers living within the boundary will receive an automatic $200 credit applied to their accounts. 

The expansion came after Solis called on Lineage to provide East L.A. residents with the same level of support that was given to the city.

“Lineage has a responsibility to provide fair and equitable support to everyone affected by this disaster, including delivering the remaining $25,000 in utility assistance that was allocated for East Los Angeles residents,” Solis said in a statement to Boyle Heights Beat. 

“After learning that Lineage was working with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to provide utility assistance to Boyle Heights residents, I made clear that East Los Angeles residents deserved the same level of support through Southern California Edison,” Solis said. 

On Monday, a Lineage representative told the Beat that the relief had been expanded to cover hundreds more households in East L.A., extending as far as Herbert Avenue. The company has not yet determined the exact amount of support it will provide and some SCE customers’ credits are still being distributed.

The utility assistance comes as residents continue to report higher electricity bills after relying on air purifiers and air conditioners to cope with the stench of rotting food inside the warehouse and poor air quality following the June 17 warehouse fire. 

Why some residents qualify and others don’t

The boundaries of Lineage’s relief programs have been a source of confusion for residents. 

At a virtual community meeting hosted by the mayor’s office last Thursday, a resident sent in a question asking, “Why are not all residents affected by the fire and stench eligible for financial assistance?”

Officials have used a map dividing the area around the warehouse into Zones 1, 2 and 3, with the zones representing the areas closest to the fire. It is unclear who created the map and how those boundaries were established. 

A map of Zones 1, 2 and 3 used by Lineage to determine the type of support offered to households closest to the Lineage warehouse.

(

Courtesy of Lineage

)

Lineage has used the map to determine which households are eligible for various forms of relief, including air purifiers, air conditioners, housing support, grocery vouchers, cash assistance and utility credits. 

For weeks, residents have called for broader relief, saying the effects of the fire and lingering odors have affected not only homes close to the warehouse, but neighboring areas as well. 

In response, Jenny Delwood, deputy chief of staff to L.A. Mayor Karen Bass said that while the areas closest to the warehouse had been prioritized, “… Bass and her partners from the county and city are working to raise additional funding to provide more utility assistance and additional bill payments for a larger geographic area.”

Details on expanded support for households outside of the boundary were not immediately available.

How to know if you qualify: 

According to SCE, customers living between Indiana Street, Herbert Avenue, Union Pacific Avenue and the 5 Freeway will begin receiving an automatic credit to their account.

No further action is required from qualified customers.

LADWP customers living between Los Palos Street, Indiana Street, Union Pacific Avenue and Beswick Street received an automatic credit to their account on July 31.

What support is available for residents who live outside of the boundary?

SCE customers can apply for:

• A number of income-based programs with discounts, including the California Alternate Rates for Energy and Family Electric Rate Assistance. 
• Payment plans, including a long-term installment plan, so customers can spread their balance over time with manageable payments, and the Budget Billing Plan, which helps spread energy costs more evenly throughout the year. (For customers within the impact boundary who enter into a long-term installment plan, the down payment for a new payment plan will be waived.) 
• The Energy Assistance Fund, which provides one-time bill assistance of up to $200. SCE works with United Way and over 80 community-based organizations to provide the assistance but customers need to apply directly through the organization. To find the partner organization closest to you, click here.
• Customers in areas affected by the fire can get more information on SCE’s support programs here.

LADWP customers can request:

• Payment arrangements: No down payment, no interest, no fees; A long-term payment option that divides the total account balance evenly across a specified number of billing periods.
• Payment extension: A short-term payment option that gives customers additional time, up to one billing period, to pay their full balance.
• Level pay: A billing option that helps you plan by providing predictable monthly bills based on average usage. You can also roll in past-due balances.

To inquire about these programs, call 1-800-DIAL-DWP, visit a customer service center or use the online form on LADWP.com/ContactUs.

LADWP customers can also apply for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) through the Maravilla Foundation. But the Maravilla Foundation website says that due to reduced government funding and high demand, fewer applications are being accepted. To qualify for LIHEAP, the monthly income for a family of four must not exceed $6,407.16. A full list of requirements and application instructions can be found here.