The Brief

In the fall of 2023, the California Legislature tasked the state’s fire safety regulators with writing a report that some housing affordability advocates say could make it easier to build bigger, airier and better lit apartment buildings in California’s housing-strapped cities.

The Office of the State Fire Marshal was given until Jan. 1, 2026 to come up with a report on single-stair apartment buildings — a type of mid-sized multifamily development legal in much of the world, but effectively banned across most of North America.

More than a month later, single-stair advocates are still waiting on that report — though a draft version obtained by CalMatters hints that the office may be considering a modest change to the state building code.

“They were given a deadline,” said Stephen Smith, founder of the Center for Building in North America, which advocates for cost-reducing changes to building regulations.

That safety-minded code is meant to provide residents with multiple escape routes in the event of a fire. But it has also become a focal point of criticism among a growing number of housing advocates, architects and urbanists, who say it raises the costs of multifamily construction, limits where apartments can be built, pushes developers toward darkened studios and away from family-sized apartments and provides limited health and safety benefits.

“I know there’s been a real desire among politicians in California to change the state’s image as a slow moving state, but in this case I don’t see it,” said Smith, who was also a member of the working group of fire service professionals, building code experts and housing advocates tasked with writing the first draft of the report for the state Fire Marshal. The group’s last meeting was on November 4.

“This report is still under review and we will publish the report as soon as it is approved for publication,” said Wes Maxey, CAL FIRE’s assistant deputy director of legislation, in an email. He would not say when the report is expected to be released or what the hold up is all about.

The state legislature regularly assigns research reports of this kind to various corners of the state bureaucracy — and, as CalMatters has reported before, the state bureaucracy regularly blows past its assigned deadlines.

But the single-stair analysis has garnered considerable interest outside of Sacramento.

Current rules in California (with the one, recent exception of Culver City) require apartment buildings higher than three stories to have at least two staircases connected by a hallway.

The Legislature was clearly interested in raising that height limit when it ordered the report in the first place.

“Many European countries allow buildings with single staircases and have better records on fire safety than the United States,” said Assemblymember Alex Lee, a Milpitas Democrat, urging a “yes” vote on his bill in the summer of 2023. “I believe having the Fire Marshal conduct the study will start the conversation about leveraging existing fire and emergency response technologies and strategies to maximize housing projects.”

Local fire marshals, fire chiefs and fire fighting unions have, by and large, opposed easing staircase requirements in the building code wherever they’ve been proposed.

The final report is likely to disappoint either those organized fire services, a politically powerful constituency, or “Yes In My Backyard” advocates that have found an ally in Gov. Gavin Newsom.

A draft version of the report circulated among stakeholders in late October included a half-hearted endorsement of a change to the state building code. If the State Fire Marshal recommends new policy, the draft reads, the change should only be from a three-story maximum up to four. Any new four story single-stair structures should also be restricted in size and abide by a number of other added safety-oriented restrictions, the report added.

Culver City, west of downtown Los Angeles, passed a single-stair ordinance last year to nix the second-stair requirement in certain apartment buildings up to six stories. Six stories is also the cut-off in the four other jurisdictions that go above three: New York City, Seattle, Honolulu and Portland, Oregon.

The draft report, which is not final, also went out of its way to emphasize “the near unanimous feedback from California Fire Departments who are opposed to permitting single-exit stairway construction … greater than 3 stories.”

Whenever it is finalized and published, the report won’t have the force of law. But should state legislators opt to take up the issue in the future, its final recommendations are likely to carry weight with undecided lawmakers.

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

Ghislaine Maxwell, the former girlfriend of Jeffrey Epstein, declined to answer questions from House lawmakers in a deposition Monday, but indicated that if President Donald Trump ended her prison sentence, she was willing to testify that neither he nor former President Bill Clinton had done anything wrong in their connections with Epstein.

The House Oversight Committee had wanted Maxwell to answer questions during a video call to the federal prison camp in Texas where she's serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking, but she invoked her Fifth Amendment rights to avoid answering questions that would be self-incriminating. She's come under new scrutiny as lawmakers try to investigate how Epstein, a well-connected financier, was able to sexually abuse underage girls for years.

Amid a reckoning over Epstein's abuse that has spilled into the highest levels of businesses and governments around the globe, lawmakers are searching for anyone who was connected to Epstein and may have facilitated his abuse. So far, the revelations have shown how both Trump and Clinton spent time with Epstein in the 1990s and early 2000s, but they have not been credibly accused of wrongdoing.

Dressed in a brown, prison-issued shirt and sitting at a conference table with a bottle of water, Maxwell repeatedly said she was invoking "my Fifth Amendment right to silence," video later released by the committee showed.

During the closed-door deposition, Maxwell's attorney David Oscar Markus said in a statement to the committee that "Maxwell is prepared to speak fully and honestly if granted clemency by President Trump."

He added that both Trump and Clinton "are innocent of any wrongdoing," but that "Ms. Maxwell alone can explain why, and the public is entitled to that explanation."

Maxwell's appeal hits pushback

Democrats said that was a brazen effort by Maxwell to have Trump end her prison sentence.

"It's very clear she's campaigning for clemency," said Rep. Melanie Stansbury, a New Mexico Democrat.

Asked Monday about Maxwell's appeal, the White House pointed to previous remarks from the president that indicated the prospect of a pardon was not on his radar.

And other Republicans push backed to the notion quickly after Maxwell made the appeal.

"NO CLEMENCY. You comply or face punishment," Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, wrote on social media. "You deserve JUSTICE for what you did you monster."

Maxwell has also been seeking to have her conviction overturned, arguing that she was wrongfully convicted. The Supreme Court rejected her appeal last year, but in December she requested that a federal judge in New York consider what her attorneys describe as "substantial new evidence" that her trial was spoiled by constitutional violations.

Maxwell's attorney cited that petition as he told lawmakers she would invoke her Fifth Amendment rights.

Family members of the late Virginia Giuffre, one of the most outspoken victims of Epstein, also released a letter to Maxwell making it clear they did not consider her "a bystander" to Epstein's abuse.

"You were a central, deliberate actor in a system built to find children, isolate them, groom them, and deliver them to abuse," Sky and Amanda Roberts wrote in the letter addressed to Maxwell.

Maxwell was moved from a federal prison in Florida to a low-security prison camp in Texas last summer after she participated in two-days of interviews with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.

The Republican chair of the committee, Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, had also subpoenaed her at the time, but her attorneys have consistently told the committee that she wouldn't answer questions. However, Comer came under pressure to hold the deposition as he pressed for the committee to enforce subpoenas on Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. After Comer threatened them with contempt of Congress charges, they both agreed to sit for depositions later this month.

Comer has been haggling with the Clintons over whether that testimony should be held in a public hearing, but Comer reiterated Monday that he would insist on holding closed-door depositions and later releasing transcripts and video.

Lawmakers review unredacted files

Meanwhile, several lawmakers visited a Justice Department office in Washington Monday to look through unredacted versions of the files on Epstein that the department has released to comply with a law passed by Congress last year. As part of an arrangement with the Justice Department, lawmakers were given access to the over 3 million released files in a reading room with four computers. Lawmakers can only make handwritten notes, and their staff are not allowed in with them.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, spent several hours in the reading room Monday morning. He told reporters as he returned to the Capitol that even if all the House members who triggered the vote on releasing the files "spent every waking hour over at the Department of Justice, it would still take us months to get through all of those documents."

Democrats on Raskin's committee are looking ahead to a Wednesday hearing with Attorney General Pam Bondi, where they are expected to sharply question her on the publication of the Epstein files. The Justice Department failed to redact the personal information of many victims, including inadvertently releasing nude photos of them.

"Over and over we begged them, please be careful, please be more careful," said Jennifer Freeman, an attorney representing survivors. "The damage has already been done. It feels incompetent, it feels intimidating and it feels intentional."

Democrats also say the Justice Department redacted information that should have been made public, including information that could lead to scrutiny of Epstein's associates.

Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who sponsored the legislation to force the release of the files, said that after reviewing the unredacted versions for several hours, he had found the names of six men "that are likely incriminated by their inclusion." He called on the Justice Department to pursue accountability for the men, but said he could potentially name them in a House floor speech, where his actions would be constitutionally protected from lawsuits.

Massie, along with California Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, said they also came across a number of files that still had redactions. They said that was likely because the FBI had turned over redacted versions of the files to the Justice Department.

Khanna said "it wasn't just Epstein and Maxwell" who were involved in sexually abusing underage girls.

Release of the files has set in motion multiple political crises around the world, including in the United Kingdom, where Prime Minister Keir Starmer is clinging to his job after it was revealed his former ambassador to the U.S. had maintained close ties to Epstein. But Democratic lawmakers bemoaned that so far U.S. political figures seem to be escaping unscathed.

"I'm just afraid that the general worsening and degradation of American life has somehow conditioned people not to take this as seriously as we should be taking it," Raskin said.
Copyright 2026 NPR

This story was originally published by The LA Local on Feb. 9, 2026.

Long-discussed improvement projects in and around Koreatown — some first proposed more than a decade ago — are beginning to take shape as L.A. moves closer to hosting the 2028 Summer Olympics.

Among them are the Olympic Gateway at Olympic Boulevard and Normandie Avenue, pedestrian improvements near the Koreatown Senior and Community Center and a stormwater capture project connected to MacArthur Park.

Koreatown Gateway

Picture a roughly 50-foot gateway structure with LED lighting at the intersection of Olympic Boulevard and Normandie Avenue.

Construction on the Olympic Gateway, a project first proposed in 2008, is expected to begin in the fall after years of delays tied largely to funding.

Steve Kang, president of the L.A. Board of Public Works, said the project has been divided into two phases to address rising material costs. The first part was authorized late last year, which included ordering materials to erect the gateway, Kang said.

“The second phase is when all the materials arrive and are assembled, will be to break ground and complete construction,” Kang said.

The city is aiming to break ground by early fall.

“What has been the biggest challenge is, because of the tariffs, steel prices have gone up significantly,” Kang said. “That is having some impact on the overall budget and that’s why we bifurcated the project into two phases so that we keep the project momentum going.”

The project’s cost has increased to nearly $6 million, and about $2.6 million has been raised so far. Kang said funding challenges were the primary reason the project stalled for years.

“The Korean American community and the Koreatown community have been advocating for a gateway similar to that of Chinatown and other ethnic communities for a long time,” he said.

He also cited complications tied to the site, including the proximity of an elementary school.

PUB Construction CEO Chris Yi, who’s overseeing the project, said he’s excited to finally have a landmark that represents the Korean community.

Pedestrian improvements near the Koreatown Senior and Community Center

At the same intersection, the city is moving forward with a pedestrian improvement project focused on the sidewalks surrounding Dawooljeong, a traditional Korean pavilion on the northeast corner of Olympic Boulevard and Normandie Avenue.

The L.A. City Public Works Commission recently selected the contractor for the project, which is expected to cost around $285,000.

The project will add two benches, two trash receptacles, four trees and five tree uplights, which are lights aimed up at a tree. Construction is expected to take about 180 days, with completion planned within the 2026 calendar year.

“It’s really going to beautify that corner of that intersection,” said Kang.

The area was prioritized in part because of the nearby senior center and frequent foot traffic by older residents. The city plans to coordinate construction to avoid disrupting the annual L.A. Korean Festival held each fall near Normandie Avenue.

MacArthur Park stormwater capture project

Artist’s rendering for the MacArthur Lake Stormwater Capture Project, slated to be completed before the 2028 Summer Olympics.

(

Rendering courtesy Studio-MLA

)

Put an asterisk next to this project, because even if it starts tomorrow, it will be cutting it close to the completion date.

This project would change the look of MacArthur Park Lake, and the construction would likely stretch over a roughly 2 1/2-year period.

The stormwater capture and treatment project is designed to divert and treat stormwater from a roughly 200-acre drainage area before it reaches Ballona Creek.

Stormwater will flow through a pretreatment system, before arriving at a treatment unit in MacArthur Park and either diverted into the park’s lake or returned to the storm drain system. The project is intended to reduce pollutant loads entering Ballona Creek and Santa Monica Bay and to offset potable water used to refill the lake. Funding for the project will come from a $20 million Measure W allocation, along with Proposition K, and the Stormwater Pollution Abatement (SPA) Fund, according to city reports.

The final cost for the project has not been nailed down, and the project is expected to take roughly 30 months, according to the city’s latest estimates. The goal was to have the project complete before the Olympics, Kang said, but that timeline now appears unlikely, as work is anticipated to begin this summer.

Construction will take place in the southern section of MacArthur Park and along portions of 7th Street, Lake Street, Grand View Street and an adjacent alley. A pathway and access ramp along 7th Street will be temporarily removed and rebuilt to allow maintenance access. Plans also include a new pedestrian bridge along the southern edge of the park.

A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked California from enforcing a new law that would have banned federal immigration agents from wearing masks during immigration sweeps.

U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder ruled that the state could not enforce the facial-covering provision of SB 627, the No Secret Police Act, while a legal challenge brought by the federal government moved forward. That lawsuit argued that SB 627 conflicted with federal authority and would improperly limit how federal agents could do their jobs.

The backstory

The law banning facial coverings took effect Jan. 1 and had already sparked confusion and backlash in Los Angeles after Los Angeles Police Department Chief Jim McDonnell said officers would not enforce the ban. McDonnell called the law bad policy and said enforcing it could put officers and the public at risk.

McDonnell’s statements drew sharp criticism from local elected officials, the authors of the laws, and immigration law attorneys and advocates.

The federal government sued California last year, arguing that SB 627 and a second law, SB 805, known as the No Vigilantes Act, unlawfully interfered with federal immigration enforcement. SB 627 sought, in part, to make it illegal for most officers, including federal agents, to conduct law enforcement operations while wearing masks. SB 805, in part, required agents to identify themselves.

About the ruling

Snyder ruled that the mask ban inconsistently applied to some law enforcement officers and not others, which is one of the reasons why the judge temporarily blocked it.

Federal attorneys had argued that agents should be allowed to wear masks for their safety against harassment and assault, such as doxxing. Snyder disagreed, writing that while federal agents and other public figures face security risks, masks were not essential for performing their duties.

“Security concerns exist for federal law enforcement officers with and without masks,” Snyder wrote. “If anything, the Court finds that the presence of masked and unidentifiable individuals, including law enforcement, is more likely to heighten the sense of insecurity for all.”

Reaction to the ruling

One of the law’s authors, Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, announced Monday afternoon that he would be introducing new legislation aimed at revising the original law to apply to state officers it previously exempted. He characterized the ruling as a win and vowed to continue efforts to unmask federal agents.

“Now that the Court has made clear that state officers must be included, I am immediately introducing new legislation to include state officers,” Wiener said in a prepared statement, adding: “We will unmask these thugs and hold them accountable. Full stop.”

What's next

Monday’s ruling still required enforcement of SB 627 and SB 805’s remaining provisions, including that officers identify themselves. It also protected the pathway for civilians to directly sue agents for misconduct.

This temporary order will remain in effect until the federal case is resolved. The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment. This story will update if it does.