The Brief

A year and a half after the Eaton Fire burned thousands of homes, Altadena residents are grappling with a question shaping the community’s future: Should rebuilding efforts make room for dense, more affordable housing, or should they seek to recreate the same kind of single-family housing that existed before the fires?

The debate has triggered advocacy around a new bill, lawsuits against L.A. County from developers, petitions from neighbors and emergency town council meetings.

On one side are Altadena residents rallying behind proposed state legislation to temporarily block developers from using California density laws to build multi-unit housing on single-family lots.

They say they want to stop out-of-town developers from building structures like duplexes and bungalow courts, which residents say threaten the neighborhood’s identity and will lead to congestion on narrow roads.

On the other side, developers are looking to build denser housing under existing laws that expedite lot subdivision.

But the county has delayed or denied some of their applications, leading at least three developers to file lawsuits in L.A. County Superior Court.

How we got here

In July 2025, Gov. Gavin Newsom issued an executive order allowing local governments to prohibit new duplexes in burn zones such as the Pacific Palisades and Malibu. But the order didn’t include most of Altadena, which technically isn’t in a very high fire-hazard severity zone.

“When residents from my community had initially seen this executive order, they were pretty concerned and upset that they were not included,” state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez said.

“We need protections as well,” said the senator who represents the area.

That’s why some residents are supporting Pérez’s Senate Bill 1090 — which is headed to a full Assembly vote in August.

The frames of new buildings rise next to 411 Punahou St. in Altadena, where a multi-unit complex has been at the center of a rebuilding controversy.

(

Sena Chang

/

LAist

)

On the ground

On Punahou Street, near Farnsworth Park, nearly every single-family home was destroyed by the Eaton Fire.

More than a year and a half after the fire, rows and rows of empty lots remain scraped raw and swallowed by untended weeds. “Altadena is not for sale” signs lay strewn among fallen branches and charred shrubs.

On a handful of properties, wooden frames are beginning to take shape.

Altadena residents began noticing plans to build multi-family complexes this spring.

Their focus was drawn to 411 Punahou St., where a single-family home once stood. In March, neighborhood captain Angela Uriu spotted digital renderings showing a sleek, multi-unit complex with parking spaces.

At a community rally in support of SB 1090, the project at 411 Punahou St. was a topic of discussion.

(

Brian Feinzimer

/

For Beautiful Altadena

)

Her home on the same block, a one-story Cape Cod-style house built in 1939, burned to the ground in the fire.

“We have a small street, and it felt like [the developers] made no attempt to be neighborly in the aesthetics of the structure and how they faced our street or the neighbors on either side,” Uriu said.

She soon started a petition opposing the development, which was one signature shy of 1,500 on Thursday.

Uriu is among a growing number of residents who say the rebuilding process has opened the door to predatory outside developers.

“You have speculative developers for whom their entire business plan relies upon purchasing these lots, getting plans approved for the lots, and then flipping them,” said Shawna Dawson Beer, who founded the community activism group Beautiful Altadena in 2015.

“That should not be easier than getting people home and getting people to rebuild their homes,” she added.

A legal battle brews

Recently, developers in Altadena haven’t gotten housing applications approved under SB 1123, leading some to sue the county. Only a few SB 1123 applications were approved after the fire, according to the county’s permit finder.

This spring, L.A. County sent out one-paragraph rejections of SB 1123 applications to developers, saying that the properties’ perimeters were not substantially surrounded by developed parcels — a requirement for projects to qualify for SB 1123.

“We actually voided all applications because [SB 1123] was meant to be infill building, and there’s nothing around,” L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger told the California Assembly at the beginning of July. Barger’s district includes Altadena.

The decision to void the applications was based on guidance from the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development, according to Anish Saraiya, the director of Altadena recovery in Barger’s office.

Kensington Homes, Caldev and other development companies quickly sued the county, alleging that the rejections were based on “a pretextual political decision to prevent increased density in post-fire Altadena.”

The county Department of Regional Planning wrote in a statement to LAist that new applications for multifamily projects under SB 1123 can’t be approved “based on current law.” The department did not elaborate.

At least three lawsuits allege that the delay and denial of these applications were inconsistent with the county’s past actions and messaging.

Brick Work, a land use startup suing the county, submitted applications to build multifamily homes in late 2025.

“We were just going about business as usual,” founder John Jung said.

But county officials in March declared the project ineligible due to the urban infill requirement, Jung said.

Multiple lawsuits cite a now-offline brochure published by the L.A. County Planning Department, which provided guidance on using SB 1123 and SB 9 to split lots for Eaton Fire survivors. They allege that the county changed its position by replacing the brochure this spring.

“Content on the Disaster Recovery webpage is updated regularly to reflect the latest information in the most accessible form, and this particular brochure has been replaced by other content,” the Department of Regional Planning wrote in a statement to LAist.

At the heart of the lawsuits is a thorny question: What counts as urban infill after a neighborhood has burned?

One lawsuit filed by Kensington Homes argues that the definition of a “qualified urban use” can also include remnant residential structures left following the fire. Therefore, it argues, “virtually all of the land in Altadena qualifies for the program.”

Jung argues that although the lots are currently vacant, “the use is still residential, and they’re all in the midst of rebuilding — they’re not going to stay vacant,” he said.

The county’s current interpretation stands contrary to the purpose of SB 1123, according to Jacob Pierce of Abundant Housing L.A., a pro-housing nonprofit.

“The county’s interest in reading a temporary post-disaster condition as disqualification does not pass the smell test,” he said.

But supporters of SB 1090 say that SB 1123’s urban infill requirements were never intended to include burned lots. They argue that fire-scarred blocks should not be treated the same as intact urban neighborhoods.

“There is no question that an entire town that was wiped off the map overnight is not urban infill,” said Dawson Beer, the community activist.

UC Davis law professor Christopher S. Elmendorf says that the statute doesn’t directly address the issue.

But, Elmendorf noted, “it would be strange for the city to declare that the sites are ‘not urban’ because the existing uses burned, while at the same time it issues permits for the rebuilding of single-family homes.”

Rebuilding on their own terms

SB 9 projects, on the other hand, are still being approved by the county. More than 5,600 parcels were damaged or destroyed in Altadena. Fifty-seven, including 411 Punahou Street, have active permits invoking SB 9. Only two have been completed, and 14 are under construction.

But this was enough to unite Altadena residents in opposition. Similarly, a handful of SB 9 applications brought the Palisades community together against “opportunistic developers” last year, leading L.A. Mayor Karen Bass to suspend SB 9 in very high fire-hazard severity zones.

At a June 16 town council meeting in Altadena, more than 450 residents packed the overflow space to voice concerns about the developments and push for housing density exemptions under SB 1090. An “emergency” community meeting on Zoom was held later that month, gathering more than 100 residents.

Recovering and rebuilding after a traumatic event like a large-scale fire can cause friction within communities, said Megan Mullin, a public policy professor at UCLA.

“There can be a tension between what individuals and households need for their own recovery and the vision that a community has for what it wants to be in the future,” Mullin said.

Altadena town council Chair Nic Arnzen addresses Altadena residents at a June rally for SB 1090.

(

Brian Feinzimer

/

For Beautiful Altadena

)

Among those who are critical of SB 1090 are residents who plan to earn additional income by renting out secondary units.

Geoff Ramsey-Ray’s insurance claims were not enough to cover the cost of rebuilding his home on two acres of land, leading him to pursue a lot split under SB 9. Selling the second lot is “the only feasible way” he can stay in Altadena, he said.

The SB 9 approval process has been slow, Ramsey-Ray said.

“Ironically, preventing the speculators is also hurting some of us in Altadena who are trying to find a way to afford to rebuild here,” Ramsey-Ray said.

Many SB 1090 advocates say they’re targeting only out-of-town developers, and the latest version of the bill carves out an exemption for community land trusts and affordable housing organizations.

Veronica Jones, president of the Altadena Historical Society, hopes for a middle ground.

“We just want to protect what makes Altadena Altadena,” she said.

Whether that middle ground can be reached — or even exists — remains a question.

What comes next?

After swiftly passing two committee votes in the state Assembly in early July, SB 1090 awaits a full Assembly vote in August. Then it would go to the Senate and, if passed, on to the governor for his signature.

If passed in its current version, the bill would go into effect starting Jan. 1, 2027, which residents say leaves too much time for developers to continue building. They’re now fighting to get an urgency clause added to the bill, which would have the moratorium take effect as soon as the governor signs it.

An "Altadena is not for sale" sign lies on the ground of an empty lot near Punahou Street.

(

Sena Chang

/

LAist

)

“We might still be able to move forward even if the moratorium passes, because there might be language in there that allows existing projects to still move forward,” said Jung, one of the developers suing the county.

Meanwhile, the land on 411 Punahou Street was sold, with site plans for a multi-unit building approved last December. The empty lot has been cleaned and leveled.

Uriu, the neighborhood captain who lost her home nearby, is distressed.

“To think,” Uriu said, “that I’m spending my retirement and going to have to work the rest of my life to build this new home and have a five-unit complex with two stories next door looking into my backyard — it’s just a really hard pill to swallow.”

Residents say that the debate around SB 1090 is only one piece of a much larger recovery process mired in permit delays and insufficient insurance payouts. More than 18 months after the Eaton Fire, only 1% of homes have been rebuilt, and some survivors have left L.A. altogether.

“Everybody who wants to come home should be able to,” said Katie Clark, the co-founder of the Altadena Tenants Union. “And the reality on the ground is that for many of us, that is an uphill battle.”

Left-leaning candidates running in three school board contests flagged by EdSource as races to watch are each leading comfortably in unofficial election results more than a week after a so-called “blue tsunami” swept the country.

Unofficial results also show progressive candidates ahead in some races in the Inland Empire, a conservative stronghold where several far-right school board candidates ran on issues such as gender identity and parents’ rights. Counties have until Dec. 3 to certify election results.

In the Orange Unified School District, four moderate incumbents are far ahead of conservative challengers in separate races. One of them, board President Stephen Glass, defeated challenger Jack Chang, and has declared victory. The conservative candidates ran largely on parents’ rights and fiscal responsibility.

“We won,” Glass said on social media. “We’ll keep putting students first and supporting every teacher, every classified professional and every family.”

All four incumbents are up by double-digit percentage points, Orange County election results show. The election follows last year’s recall of two conservative school board members.

In a race for the Davis Unified school board, an anti-transgender candidate who once stripped down to a bikini at a school board meeting, lost decisively, according to unofficial election results. Beth Bourne, president of the Yolo County chapter of Moms For Liberty, trails incumbent Elizabeth Moon by 89 percentage points, results show.

In Palo Alto — where issues over academics dominated the race — newcomers Avery Wang and Linda Henigin are ahead in unofficial results for two seats. John Craig, who ran in tandem with Wang, conceded on election night. Wang ran primarily on retaining academic rigor, especially in math. “It’s the beginning of a movement,” Wang told Palo Alto Online.

Henigin ran on a platform of improving student well-being following a recent spate of student suicides.

Elsewhere in the state, school board candidates in conservative strongholds such as Chino Valley and Temecula fared poorly in local school board races.

In Temecula, school board President Joseph Komrosky trails challenger David Sola by 10 percentage points, results show. Sola has declared victory. Komrosky had voted to ban critical race theory in district schools and attempted to ban teaching materials that mentioned slain gay rights icon Harvey Milk, drawing a sharp rebuke from Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Komrosky’s apparent defeat was part of what The Press-Enterprise reported as “a seismic shift in local governance given recent elections that gave power to the Christian right.”

In Chino Valley Unified in San Bernardino County, two conservative school board candidates are trailing far behind, results show. Chris Shaw, the husband of State Superintendent of Public Instruction candidate Sonja Shaw, trails Frank Gerdine by nearly 17 percentage points, while Meagan Lichthart is ahead of Shaun Smith, backed by Shaw, by 15 percentage points.

This story was originally published by EdSource.

Major service cuts to Metrolink are on hold for now thanks to a $20 million grant from California’s State Transportation Agency. The Metrolink board of directors approved the agency’s $420 million budget on Friday.

The previous budget proposal included slashing a third of weekday trains and 40% of weekend trains.

“Thankfully, our customers were spared the disappointment and frustration of losing the service they rely on to travel the region for business and pleasure,” Tom Schamber, chief financial officer at Metrolink, said at the board meeting.

How did we get here? 

The Metrolink budget had been approved quarterly since June as staff worked out the annual budget.

Metrolink staff have worked on this year’s budget since last September. The agency has pointed to slowing fare revenue, rising costs due to inflation and low ridership numbers for its budget troubles.

“Fare box revenue ended the year $14 million under budget. This was sobering, and we realized that not only was fiscal [20]26 off, but our ridership expectations for fiscal year [20]27 would need to be recalibrated to this new baseline,” Schamber said.

A majority of Metrolink’s budget is funded by Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties’ transportation agencies. For more than a year, Metrolink officials have been building a budget that member agencies, like the Orange County Transportation Authority and L.A. Metro, would approve.

L.A. Metro and OCTA cut their subsidies to Metrolink by 3% and 10%, respectively.

“The challenges ahead of us were becoming more evident,” Schamber said at Friday’s board meeting. “In addition to disappointing fare revenue and funding limitations, we must absorb inevitable cost increases in several of our largest contracts.”

What we know about the grant

The $20 million grant from the state comes with the expectation that Metrolink will retain the same service levels provided today, Schamber added.

Metrolink CEO Darren M. Kettle said another expectation is that the agency must plan to maintain its services for the upcoming year.

“We don't have a plan. We're working on a plan to make sure we have the funding to deliver the same level of service at a minimum,” Kettle said. “With respect to these conditions, based on what we know now, as of last evening, our staff is confident that Metrolink will be able to meet these conditions.”

What’s next? 

Kettle said staff got a head start on next fiscal year’s budget through the state grant application. Officials said the rail agency is also gearing up for the 2028 Olympic Games.

The Federal Aviation Administration grounded all flights nationwide Friday afternoon because of communications problems at regional air traffic control centers.

The FAA notice said the ground stop was being imposed “due to extraordinary circumstances and for reasons of safety.”

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said there is a communications issue affecting the 22 regional air traffic control centers that direct planes en route between airports nationwide. He said FAA technicians are investigating. This is the first nationwide ground stop since January 2023, when a key FAA computer system malfunctioned. Before that the last time had been after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin said there was no indication yet that “this was a nefarious attack against us. It’s just a telecommunications outage.”

“Everybody’s safe. There’s no reason to be concerned about your loved ones if they’re flying,” Mullin said.

There is no timeline for restarting flights. Mullin said investigators will look at whether there is any link to the FAA’s nationwide rollout of a new artificial intelligence system to help identify problems and reroute planes. But that system operates out of one location near Washington, D.C., and just sends recommendations to the air traffic control centers.

The government has been working to overhaul the outdated technology that air traffic controllers rely on since Congress approved $12.5 billion for the project last year. Miles of old copper wires have been replaced with fiber optic lines and old radio systems are gradually being replaced at airports across the country.

But much work remains. Duffy has said that another $30 billion will be needed to complete the work, and the White House has begun lobbying Congress to approve it.

The problem appeared similar to a regional air traffic control communication outage in September that snarled hundreds of flights across the Northeast, aviation safety expert Steve Arroyo said, except this time on a nationwide scale. It may be linked to the outdated technology used by air traffic controllers.

“If you don’t have that ability, whether it’s because the old wires that they have are just run down or for whatever reason, you’ve got to stop airplanes on the ground,” said Arroyo, who is a former United Airlines pilot. “And not put them in the air where you’re going to risk not being able to communicate with them.”

Friday’s ground stop was different than the one after Sept. 11 because planes were not being told to land immediately and pilots likely were able to communicate with ground controllers at airports, Arroyo said.

___

AP writer Mead Gruver contributed to this report from Fort Collins, Colorado.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

By the time Gov. Gavin Newsom spared the lives of over 500 prisoners who were sentenced to death last week in the nation’s largest act of mass clemency, capital punishment had long become an afterthought in California.

The state hasn’t executed anyone since 2006. Newsom guaranteed that wouldn’t change when he issued a moratorium on the practice shortly after taking office in 2019. He later dismantled the San Quentin State Prison death chamber and sent condemned prisoners across the state to other facilities.

Of the 548 people whose sentences he moved to commute last week, the vast majority were waiting to be appointed lawyers for appeals and challenges. Just 45 faced imminent execution if the moratorium were lifted, though that was unlikely with Newsom’s successor, Gov.-elect Xavier Becerra, saying he also would not execute anyone while in office.

And even before Newsom acted, a pending California court case that argues the death penalty is applied in such a racially biased manner that it’s unconstitutional, might end the imposition of death sentences indefinitely.

Voters as recently as 2016 indicated they wanted to keep the death penalty on the books when they passed a ballot measure to speed up executions and rejected one to repeal the practice. Death penalty opponents believe they won’t immediately have to run another campaign to repeal capital punishment if they prevail in the court case.

Still, the contradictory status quo remains: Like about half of U.S. states, California still has the death penalty on the books. It also allows for a death sentence under broader circumstances than any other state, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Those include the murder of a police officer, prosecutor or any other public official, and murders involving gang activity or financial gain.

Local prosecutors have vowed to continue pursuing the punishment when allowed, meaning the state is likely to slowly continue sending defendants to death row, even if the Supreme Court approves all of Newsom’s commutations.

“I think for all intents and purposes, the death penalty is over in California and nobody will be executed again,” said Michael Romano, director of the Three Strikes Project at Stanford Law School, who chairs a state committee on revising criminal sentences. “The energy and focus and money around criminal justice reform have shifted elsewhere.”

Romano predicted advocates will turn their attention to issues like restricting solitary confinement in jails and prisons and changing the cash bail system.

It’s unclear where California voters stand, but in a nationwide Gallup poll conducted in October in the wake of a botched execution in Tennessee, American support for capital punishment dipped just below the majority for the first time in 55 years.

The sweeping commutations mark how far California has moved in three decades, from the nation’s toughest crime laws to, under Newsom, experimenting with a Nordic approach focused on rehabilitation and preparing most offenders to re-enter society.

Despite their 2016 vote in favor of the death penalty, Californians have also since 2012 passed ballot measures to reduce criminal sentences. The Legislature has passed several laws allowing prisoners new release opportunities and the state Board of Parole Hearings earlier this year allowed some prisoners serving life without parole to gain the opportunity to be resentenced, inspiring a legal challenge from law enforcement groups.

Even Proposition 36, the tougher-on-crime measure voters approved overwhelmingly in 2024, focused on requiring defendants in drug- and theft-related cases to undergo treatment rather than go straight to jail. Results have been mixed, with few defendants getting mandated treatments, CalMatters has found.

“It wasn’t, ‘Lock people up,’” Romano said. “It was, ‘We are going to give people rehabilitation.’”

For San Bernardino County District Attorney Jason Anderson, that “doesn’t change the fact that the law still allows for the death penalty to be sought.”

Anderson, who opposed Newsom’s commutations, is one of several district attorneys who have said they’ll continue to push for death sentences when appropriate, including in Los Angeles, Riverside and Orange counties.

He discusses the likelihood an execution won’t happen with murder victims’ families when deciding whether to pursue the death penalty, Anderson said, but the moratorium doesn’t deter him. Nor, he noted, has it deterred juries that recommend the sentence.

“All that other stuff is a side argument,” he said, of the long appeals process and unlikelihood of an execution.

Since Newsom’s moratorium, Anderson’s office has secured death sentences against five men.

Another one is on the way. Louis Gabriel Lucero of Victorville pleaded guilty this year to killing his girlfriend and her two sons in 2020. Last month a jury recommended the death penalty and a judge next month will decide whether to impose it or a sentence of life without parole. If he’s sentenced to death, Lucero would be among the first to be sent to a post-clemency death row.

Of the 40 condemned prisoners from San Bernardino County, nine had their sentences commuted automatically by Newsom; the state Supreme Court will need to review those of 31 others who had more than one felony conviction. Anderson has filed a motion to unseal their criminal records so the details of their crimes and what he called their “recidivist nature” are public as the court considers Newsom’s requests.

The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, which opposes the commutations, has filed similar motions. State public defenders and anti-death penalty advocates have also filed briefs supporting the commutations.

Anderson said while he respects differences of opinion on capital punishment, he disagreed most with Newsom’s wholesale commutations, saying the governor should have considered each case individually and that if his goal was to end the death penalty he has “enough power, prestige and political savvy to put another proposition on the ballot.

“You have a law on the books that’s essentially been overridden by one person,” he said.

Newsom said, in an open letter last week to Californians explaining his decision, that he didn’t want to create two tiers of murder victims in which some perpetrators deserved to die for their crimes and others did not.

“I carefully considered different categories of capital crimes and offender characteristics,” he wrote. “I have learned, however, from speaking with the victims harmed by these crimes, that each experiences their loss as the worst of the worst.”

Rather than propose another ballot measure, death penalty opponents are instead hoping a state court strikes down the death penalty in a case brought by the NAACP, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Office of the State Public Defender.

In a novel challenge to the death penalty, the plaintiffs argue California death sentences are broadly applied with such stark racial disparities that it violates state constitutional protections against discrimination. They say four decades of sentencing data show that Black defendants are up to 8.7 times more likely to receive a death sentence than other defendants in murder cases. Defendants are 8.8 times more likely to receive the death penalty in cases with a white victim than a non-white victim. The state Supreme Court allowed the case to move forward in August; a Sacramento County court is now hearing evidence.

The plaintiffs seek a court order barring counties from imposing death sentences. If they prevail, the death penalty would remain in state statute, said Avi Frey, deputy director of criminal law at the ACLU of Northern California, but “any county that tried to bring a capital prosecution would first need to demonstrate that they had basically corrected” any racial disparities.

Natasha Minsker of the California Anti-Death Penalty Coalition said she’ll now advocate for district attorneys like Anderson to stop seeking the sentence. San Bernardino and Riverside counties are among the top 10 counties seeking death sentences in the nation, Minsker said.

“The reality is most district attorneys in California understand that the death penalty is a failure,” she said. “That is where we’re turning our attention, to those counties that really are outliers.”

Tinisch Hollins is a crime victim and executive director of Californians for Safety and Justice, which advocates for using state funds currently spent on incarceration on crime prevention programs instead.

The commutations, she said, offer some finality in the death penalty debate that she hopes will allow policymakers to move on to other changes in the criminal justice system. She wants the state to expand victims’ services like cash assistance and mental health services for survivors of violence, and to consider more programs that allow prisoners to face crime victims as part of their rehabilitative efforts. And she said even those prisoners whose crimes were eligible for death affect the rehabilitation of others when they interact with other prisoners.

“Their fate is already sealed,” she said, of those whose sentences were commuted to life without parole. “Even for people who have committed the most serious crimes and those who may not ever have the opportunity to return to society, what do we want to happen during their sentence? What do we want to put our dollars toward that will ultimately ensure our future safety?”

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