Today's headlines:
Subscribe wherever you get your podcasts to get The L.A. Report delivered to you twice on weekdays, with special editions on Saturday and Sunday.
Topline:
Southern California is expected to dodge the brunt of Hurricane Polo, but the storm is expected to cause coastal erosion, flooding, dangerous rip currents and light rain.
The details: As of Friday morning, the storm was about 1,600 miles southwest of Los Angeles. It’s expected to stay fairly far to the south of Southern California and travel over Baja California and into western Mexico by early next week.
The effects: The most significant impacts on Southern California will be felt along the coast. The storm is likely to cause hazardous ocean conditions, including some potentially damaging coastal erosion and flooding. The Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach, anticipating coastal erosion, relocated sea turtle eggs laid on Orange County beaches by endangered olive ridley sea turtles. The storm is also likely to drive some dangerous rip currents. Make sure to check the latest forecast and beach conditions if you’re headed to the beach. Also it’s a good idea to stay near lifeguards and off of rocks and jetties.
The backstory: The potential effects of Hurricane Polo come just weeks after surf from Hurricane Marie slammed the Southern California coastline. Marie was hundreds of miles off the coast but damaged or destroyed dozens of homes along the beach and washed out coastal roads and infrastructure. Hurricane Polo could cause similar damage, but its position farther south means its effects likely won’t be as severe. The storms are being fueled in part by El Niño’s abnormally warm waters.
Topline:
Leading up to November, LAist looked at who is financing the campaigns behind the Orange County Board of Supervisors races and how much they're putting down. The latest deadline to submit campaign finance records was Thursday.
Why it matters: The Board of Supervisors is Orange County’s powerful governing body that controls a $10 billion budget and also sets laws and oversees more than 16,000 county employees. Technically, the board is nonpartisan. But in reality, county Republicans see the potential for seizing control of the board from its current three-member Democratic majority.
Big picture: Outside groups have spent more than $2 million on Board of Supervisors races. Some of the highest amounts came from workers’ unions and political donor groups during this campaign cycle.
Read on… for details on how much and who spent big on the races.
Millions of dollars from workers’ unions and special interest groups are flowing to the Orange County Board of Supervisors races this year.
The Board of Supervisors is O.C.’s powerful governing body, controlling a $10 billion budget for critical departments such as social services, public health and public works. The board also sets laws and oversees more than 16,000 county employees.
The five-member board is nonpartisan, but its members have drawn criticism and praise for their political party affiliations, especially during election season. This November, two seats are up for grabs, and county Republicans see the potential for seizing control of the board from its current three-member Democratic majority.
LAist looked at who is financing their campaigns and how much they're putting down. The latest deadline to submit campaign finance records was Thursday. Here’s what we know.
In District 4, which represents Brea, Buena Park, Fullerton, La Habra, Placentia and others, Connor Traut is running against Tim Shaw.
Shaw raised nearly $58,000 in the last year, according to recent filings. Traut raised over $200,000 — three times as much as his opponent.
For District 5, which represents Costa Mesa, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, San Clemente and others, incumbent Supervisor Katrina Foley is facing Republican Assemblywoman Diane Dixon.
In the last year, Foley raised nearly $480,000, just short of Dixon’s $514,000 in contributions.
Outside groups have spent more than $2 million on Board of Supervisors races. Some of the highest amounts came from workers’ unions and political donor groups during this campaign cycle.
The firefighters' union spent more than $575,000 on the board elections — about $380,000 in support of Traut and $195,000 in support of Foley. The union has endorsed both candidates, according to Traut and Foley’s websites.
The Orange County Employees Association, which represents more than 11,000 of the county’s rank-and-file employees, spent more than $330,000 in support of Foley and over $30,000 in opposition to Dixon. The union also spent nearly $76,000 in support of Traut.
The Lincoln Club of Orange County spent over $448,000 — about $333,000 in opposition of Foley and about $115,000 in support of her opponent, Dixon. The Lincoln Club is a major conservative donor group that has had deep influence in California politics for more than 60 years.
The Democratic Party of Orange County has spent about $135,000 in support of Traut and about $77,000 in support of Foley. Among the biggest donors to the local party are the Orange County Professional Firefighters Association at $160,000 and the Orange County Employees Association at $65,000.
Ballots for the Nov. 3 General Election go out early next month. LAist has a full voter guide here.
Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday signed into law four bills aimed at curbing a startling rise in DUI fatalities in recent years, including measures that make it easier to charge repeat drunk drivers with a felony and, if they kill someone, with murder.
What's next: While the bills do increase penalties for drunk driving, several road safety measures failed this session as the state grapples with a more than 50% increase in alcohol-related roadway deaths over the past decade. One measure that notably failed would have required first-time DUI offenders to install in-car breathalyzers. Most states have such a requirement, but California only mandates the devices for repeat offenders. In a signing statement accompanying one of the bills, Newsom referenced his office’s work on that failed bill saying that “the Legislature should return to that broader effort next year” and work on “comprehensive, long-term framework for DUI sanctions” that are clear and consistent
Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday signed into law four bills aimed at curbing a startling rise in DUI fatalities in recent years, including measures that make it easier to charge repeat drunk drivers with a felony and, if they kill someone, with murder.
The legislation follows a CalMatters series that revealed the state was unable — or unwilling — to get dangerous drivers off the road before it was too late. Many kept driving recklessly even after killing someone, and some even killed again.
The bills were the last ones standing from an initial package of 17 aimed at addressing traffic deaths. Most failed in the face of fierce opposition from progressive groups that argued increasing enforcement and penalties will disproportionately harm low-income and historically marginalized residents, and are not the best way to address traffic safety.
While some of the bills that passed were pared back during the legislative process, the new laws still notably increase potential penalties for repeat DUI offenders in a state that’s historically had some of the weakest DUI laws in the country.
“The fact that four bills got through to the finish line leaves me very hopeful that California is ready for change and sees the need to make the state safer,” said Jennifer Levi, whose 18-year-old son Braun was killed in May 2025 by a suspected drunk driver with a prior DUI arrest. “I have mixed emotions. My victory is the result of losing a child and I’d do anything in the world to have my son back alive with our family. But I cannot let this happen to other people.”
Levi became a fierce road safety advocate after her son’s death, working with Mothers Against Drunk Driving and pushing state leaders to act. She partnered with state Sen. Bob Archuleta, a Democrat from Norwalk on a bill to significantly increase criminal penalties for repeat drunk drivers. Archuleta’s own granddaughter was killed by a drunk driver. Levi said Newsom and his wife came to her home recently to mark the signing of the bill.
A photo, showing the smiling first couple along with Archuleta and Levi in her dining room, was included with the bill signing announcement.
The resulting law will make it easier to charge drunk drivers with murder if they have a prior DUI arrest – which had been difficult if the previous DUI charge had been pled down to a lesser crime. The law will also increase the criminal penalties for drivers who kill someone in a hit and run if they had a prior DUI at the time of the fatal crash.
“Having lost my granddaughter to a repeat drunk driver, this is personal. No family should have to endure what mine has, or what has happened to the Levi family,” said Archuleta, according to the statement announcing the bill signing. “Thank you to Governor Newsom for taking bold action to support families that have been devastated by drunk drivers. These are preventable tragedies. Nothing will ever bring my Samantha back or bring Braun back to the Levi family, but in signing SB 907 California is finally stepping up for victims.”
Other bills the governor signed included one from Assemblymember Nick Schultz, a Democrat from Burbank. That new law will allow prosecutors to charge a third DUI within 10 years as a felony. Previously, it wasn’t until a fourth DUI that law enforcement could seek the stiffer charges.
Newsom also signed into law two bills from Assemblymember Tom Lackey, a Republican from Palmdale who spent years working as a California Highway Patrol officer before joining the Legislature. One increases the points that most drivers convicted of killing someone while driving drunk get on their license from two to three. The bill initially would have increased the points for all vehicular manslaughter convictions and not just those involving intoxication, but it was watered down during the session. Lackey’s other successful bill requires the DMV to revoke a driver’s license for six years if they drive drunk and hurt someone after having four prior DUIs.
While the bills do increase penalties for drunk driving, several road safety measures failed this session as the state grapples with a more than 50% increase in alcohol-related roadway deaths over the past decade. One measure that notably failed would have required first-time DUI offenders to install in-car breathalyzers. Most states have such a requirement, but California only mandates the devices for repeat offenders.
In a signing statement accompanying one of the bills, Newsom referenced his office’s work on that failed bill saying that “the Legislature should return to that broader effort next year” and work on “comprehensive, long-term framework for DUI sanctions” that are clear and consistent.
Jennifer Levi says she’ll continue pushing the Legislature to act.
“I’m ready to keep fighting, there’s more work to be done,” she said.
This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.
Topline:
City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto’s office hasn’t said if it’s investigating the Lineage fire. Two candidates for city attorney say the office should have acted immediately.
Why it matters: Los Angeles fire investigators stopped short of identifying what caused the June fire at the Lineage warehouse in Boyle Heights. The news this week leaves the question of who will ultimately be held responsible for the costly cleanup and harm suffered by residents unresolved.
Residents affected: People affected by the fire want the city to help recover their costs and hold companies involved accountable for the damage done. They also want stronger protections in place against similar crises in the future.
Read on... for more on what the two candidates for city attorney say about investigating the fire.
This story first appeared on The LA Local.
Los Angeles fire investigators stopped short of identifying what caused the June fire at the Lineage warehouse in Boyle Heights. The news this week leaves the question of who will ultimately be held responsible for the costly cleanup and harm suffered by residents unresolved.
People affected by the fire want the city to help recover their costs and hold companies involved accountable for the damage done. They also want stronger protections in place against similar crises in the future.
Mayor Karen Bass and the City Council have repeatedly asked the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office to advise them on what legal options are available.
Three months after the fire sent toxic smoke into the air and left 88 million pounds of rotting food to be removed, it’s unclear what, if anything, the city attorney’s office has done in response to those requests.
A City Council motion shows that City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto was supposed to brief the council within 15 days in closed session about possible litigation. She has yet to do so, and when she does, it’s unlikely the public will be provided the report or a summary of its details.
Councilmember Ysabel Jurado ushered that motion through the City Council, asking the city attorney to report in closed session what legal options are available, including potential civil claims, cost-recovery strategies and action against Lineage Logistics or any other responsible party. Her spokesperson said the City Council has not received that report.
When asked about this, a spokesperson for Feldstein Soto told The LA Local, “We do not comment on pending investigations or litigation.” When we followed up, they stopped responding.
The city attorney’s powers are no secret, and both candidates for city attorney say the office should be more transparent. They have also vowed to take a more public approach to holding Lineage and other companies accountable for the fire if elected.
The Los Angeles city attorney is an independent elected official who does not report directly to the mayor. The mayor and City Council can ask the city attorney to investigate or pursue litigation, but the city attorney has the final say.
The office is responsible for prosecuting some misdemeanor crimes, providing legal advice to elected officials and city agencies, defending the city in civil litigation and reviewing possible policy changes when needed.
California’s unfair competition law gives the city attorney the authority to investigate businesses believed to have broken the law, deceived the public or engaged in unfair practices. The city attorney can proactively investigate those concerns. The law also allows the city attorney to pursue unfair competition cases on behalf of Californians.
Those vying to be the next city attorney say they will use that authority to pursue an investigation of the Lineage warehouse fire.
Marissa Roy, one of two candidates for city attorney, has worked in civil rights and corporate accountability law for both the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office and the California Department of Justice. She has worked on cases ranging from small-business wage theft to California’s $17 billion settlement with tech giant Meta.
John McKinney, who currently serves as a deputy district attorney, is running against Roy.
Roy said she would have publicly announced an investigation into the cause of the fire on day one, and plans to if elected. That investigation would center on who started the fire, if building conditions might have made the fire worse or more difficult to put out and if the companies involved deceived the public about what they knew about the fire and its hazards.
“The decision whether or not to investigate Lineage Logistics and associated companies and to begin this type of litigation lies with one elected official alone: the city attorney,” Roy told The LA Local.
McKinney also said he would publicly announce an investigation if elected, adding that the people living in this neighborhood should not have to fight for justice on their own.
“My office will work with investigators to examine every potential violation, including applicable fire, building, safety and hazardous-material laws,” he told The LA Local. “If the evidence supports criminal charges, we will pursue them.”
The law empowers the city attorney to pursue accountability from companies that have harmed the people of L.A. But it doesn’t end there. If the investigation finds a broader pattern of misconduct outside city limits, the city attorney can investigate that too.
“These kinds of actions are not just for the people of the city but for people all over the state,” said Ted Mermin, executive director of UC Berkeley’s Center for Consumer Law and Economic Justice.
Such cases, Mermin added, can lead to restitution for the direct losses people suffered, a court order for companies to make corrective actions to the way they do business and civil fines to pay for remediation and future enforcement efforts.
“The whole goal of that lawsuit would be to prevent any of the responsible companies from engaging in negligent behavior or unlawful behavior again, but then also to win back recovery that could be reinvested in communities,” Roy said.
If this suit is successful, any damages won from the suit could fund future greening projects, pollution cleanup and projects that build health resources for the communities that were harmed, Roy added.
McKinney similarly said that the goal of such a suit would be to aid the communities most harmed.
“We will also use every appropriate civil, environmental and public-nuisance remedy to compel a timely cleanup, recover public costs and ensure those responsible—not the community—pay for remediation and recovery,” McKinney added.
Who is responsible for the fire is still openly being debated. After the cleanup was finished, Lineage Logistics sued solar contractors, Altus Power and Pearce Services, which it claims are responsible for the fire. Those companies denied the allegations.
LAFD concluded its investigation on Tuesday and reported that the fire appeared to have started on the roof of the building near electrical equipment but did not determine what caused it.
The city attorney, however, can open a broader investigation into the conduct of businesses and their leadership before and after the fire. The Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office has pursued similar cases in the past.
In 2015, Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer sued Wells Fargo over allegations it incentivized bankers to fraudulently open accounts to boost its numbers. It resulted in a $185 million settlement with the city. The U.S. Attorney’s Office eventually found similar fraud by the bank around the country, leading to a $3 billion settlement and more consumer protections.
Feldstein Soto has pursued cases under unfair competition law in the past. She filed a suit against a group of companies alleged to have operated a short-term rental price-gouging operation about two months after the 2025 wildfires. The suit is ongoing.
Meanwhile, Angelenos affected have filed individual and class-action lawsuits against Lineage and related businesses in a piecemeal attempt to recover damages for the harm they experienced.
But no focused legal effort has been publicly launched by the city attorney in connection with the Lineage warehouse fire.
Roy said the city is not using all of its resources to lead amid the crisis that unfolded when the fire broke out.
“The full potential of the City Attorney’s Office is exactly in these situations where we can vigorously hold corporations accountable for endangering our communities,” Roy said. “That’s how we prevent this in the future, how we are able to make people whole, and are able to address the harm they’ve experienced.”
McKinney said the city attorney’s response to the fire has not been fast enough.
“When a company’s conduct puts people’s health, homes, businesses or quality of life at risk, the City Attorney must act decisively,” he said. “As a career prosecutor, I believe the City must follow the evidence wherever it leads, enforce the law without fear or favor, and pursue every available remedy against those legally responsible.”
Roy said that too often the most vulnerable Angelenos have been left to fend for themselves in moments of crisis. Corporate pollution, she said, isn’t just an environmental justice issue. “It’s a racial justice issue and it’s an economic justice issue.”
“These communities are communities that have been consistently ignored and underserved,” Roy added. “And it’s not fair to continue to expect them to take on some of the largest companies in the country.”
