After push from L.A., Newsom plans to weaken state duplex law in wildfire areas
The proposed order would let the city and county of Los Angeles and Malibu restrict construction that was allowed under Senate Bill 9, a 2021 law that lets property owners build up to four units on land previously reserved for single-family homes.
The order will apply to Pacific Palisades and parts of Malibu and Altadena — areas that burned in January's Palisades and Eaton fires that are designated as "very high fire hazard severity zones" by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Newsom spokesperson Tara Gallegos said.
The decision came after concerns about the potential of a significant population increase if there were widespread use of SB 9 developments in rebuilding areas, making future fire evacuations even more difficult, Gallegos said.
The governor's action follows pressure this week from elected officials in Los Angeles. On Monday, City Councilmember Traci Park, who represents Pacific Palisades, sent a letter to Newsom requesting he suspend SB 9, warning otherwise there could be "an unforeseen explosion of density" in a risky area.
"When SB 9 was adopted into state law, it was never intended to capitalize on a horrific disaster," Park wrote.
On Tuesday, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass released a statement supporting Park's request, citing similar concerns about SB 9 straining evacuation routes and local infrastructure in the Palisades.
"It could fundamentally alter the safety of the area," Bass said.
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Texas becomes battleground for Democratic presidential hopefuls
A slew of potential Democratic presidential candidates are taking front-line positions in the battle over Texas and redistricting, a fight with huge implications for the midterm elections that is giving ambitious politicians a chance to show their loyalty to the party base. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D), who could both be heavyweights in a 2028 primary field, are both threatening to push through new congressional lines in response to Texas. Pritzker is also playing host to some of the Texas state Democrats who fled the state. Former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, another potential presidential candidate, lacks the kind of office that would allow him to set up a redistricting fight. But he's making sure he's seen on the issue and hosted a live conversation on Instagram on Monday with a Democratic representative from Texas. The Texas redistricting battle comes as Democrats have been itching for an opportunity to show voters they can put up a fight. For 2028 hopefuls, it's a chance to stand out with the Democratic grassroots. 'This is an issue that may not necessarily animate the electorate, but it ignites the base and the donor community,' said former Rep. Steve Israel (N.Y.), who led the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee from 2011 to 2015. 'Democrats like Newsom, Pritzker … among others, are at least showing that rolling over isn't a strategy.' 'You have to fight fire with fire,' Israel added. Political observers say the motivation is twofold for Democrats. The party as a whole wants to show voters they are finding their footing on the heels of a devastating loss of the White House and both houses of Congress in 2024. And possible 2028 contenders want to display their leadership potential. An AP-NORC poll released last week revealed that 25 percent of surveyed Democrats view their party as 'weak' and 'ineffective,' among other negative traits that constitute the party's record-low approval ratings. As a result, strategists say the party should amp up its resistance efforts. Newsom is following suit by countering Texas and calling for a special election in November to redraw the maps in California. Other Democratic governors have thrown their support behind them and signaled they'll look at their own maps. On Monday, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D), who is up for reelection next year but is not expected to run for president in 2028, said she would follow Newsom's approach. 'All is fair in love and war,' Hochul said. Strategists say they expect other Democrats to take a similar approach. 'The one thing Democrats are aligned on right now is you got to fight and you got to get caught trying,' said Democratic strategist Joel Payne. While Payne called the redistricting battle 'a process fight' with a 'limited shelf life,' he said Democrats can play hardball on the issue to make the point that their party can put up a fight. The issue gives potential 2028 candidates an opportunity to create a brand with voters. 'It's not a defining issue, but it's a defining characteristic of a candidate,' said Republican strategist Susan Del Percio, who does not support Trump. Still, Del Percio cautioned that it's a gamble for would-be candidates like Newsom and Pritzker. 'The problem is, of course, can they get it done?' said Del Percio. 'Because if they can't, then it's something that they didn't get done that they said they were going to fight for.' 'If they fancy themselves contenders … they have to deliver something, even if it's just taking it to court,' Del Percio added. 'They've got to go at it full throttle. They also then have to be willing to say, 'You know what, we're willing to play dirty too.' I don't think that hurts a candidate in this day and age.' Democratic strategist Basil Smikle, who served as executive director of the New York State Democratic Party, said the redistricting fight is 'an important moment for Democrats.' 'I think for over a decade, Democrats lived by the 'If they go low, we go high' mantra. … You play by the rules, sort of take the high road, and then eventually everybody will kind of see things their way,' said Smikle. 'But we're well past that point.' He said that for working-class voters, 'any moment of hesitation in stepping up to that fight will cause a voter to say, 'I don't think this person is there for me, is going to be fighting for me, is going to stand up for me.'' 'That's an opening Democrats, particularly at this moment, can't afford to provide,' Smikle added. At the same time, strategists caution that as soon as Democrats — including those who are weighing bids in 2028 — start to play dirty, they could lose a talking point that has been central to campaigns and rhetoric since President Trump first took office in 2016. 'If you're saying you have a core value, and one of them, for example, is democracy, which we heard Democrats talking about an awful lot over the last eight years … then you lose that,' Del Percio said. ''We're going to play and fight dirty like Republicans,' which means you can't complain when the Republicans fight dirty.' 'And that's a big decision to make. That's putting a lot on the table for them,' she added. But some political observers say that the issue of redistricting is too far removed from voters' everyday lives for it to push them in either direction. 'Redistricting is important to all the political geeks, be they in media, be they in academia, be they in actual politics itself,' said Jon Taylor, a professor of political science at the University of Texas at San Antonio. 'But the average voter probably couldn't care less … other than noticing their member of Congress may have changed.' Jared Gans and Julia Mueller contributed. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Los Angeles Times
3 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: Edison's shareholders, not its customers, should be replenishing wildfire fund
To the editor: Let me get this straight: Southern California Edison is opposed to a plan that would reduce the profits its shareholders receive in order to replenish a fund that exists to pay for the fire damage Edison's equipment may have had a hand in causing ('Newsom's plan to raise $18 billion for state wildfire fund faces tough opposition,' July 31)? This from a utility whose negligence and mismanagement caused the Thomas and Woolsey disasters and possibly the Eaton fire. I don't know which is worse: Edison's unabashed greed or Gov. Gavin Newsom's idea that customers should pay for Edison's past and potential misdeeds. The entire proposal should be scrapped. Bill Waxman, Simi Valley .. To the editor: Help me understand economics and politics: Southern California Edison profits for 2024 came in at $1.69 billion, an increase of 9.8% from 2023. The total compensation for Steven D. Powell, CEO of SCE, was $3,950,818 in 2024. The total comp for Pedro J. Pizarro, CEO of Edison International, was $13,809,571 for 2024. But they want customers of SCE to help pay for wildfire damage? All through a minimum increase some of us need to help feed our families. Instead, why doesn't the governor concentrate more on rooftop solar, which would lower those consumers' monthly costs and help prevent wildfires? Kenneth Brown, Pasadena .. To the editor: Newsom's plan to pay for fire damage is shortsighted because it doesn't address the root causes of the Eaton and other fires. Had we not dumped tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, we wouldn't be so frequently stuck with billions of dollars in damage. Looking forward, making electricity more expensive discourages investment in heat pumps, electric vehicles and other clean technologies. The big polluters are all of us with gas cars. But the governor is right in that California needs new revenue to pay for past and future damage. A better solution is to make polluters pay for the damage they cause, which is right in the name of Senate Bill 684/Assembly Bill 1243, the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act of 2025, authored by Sen. Caroline Menjivar (D-Panorama City) and Assemblymember Dawn Addis (D-Morro Bay). Of course, profitable fossil fuel companies will object, but lawmakers with guts should be told to care about those of us who breathe this air — and our grandchildren, who will suffer more if we stay on our same polluting path. John Schaefer, Santa Rosa
Los Angeles Times
4 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: Is duplex backlash in Pacific Palisades fire prevention or NIMBYism?
To the editor: I am dismayed that the Pacific Palisades and areas of Altadena and Malibu are being allowed exemptions from Senate Bill 9 ('After outcry, L.A. restricts duplexes in Pacific Palisades,' July 30). I have lived in the Palisades and I understand the residents wanting to retain the exclusivity of the area, but Los Angeles is bigger than the Palisades. Right now, I live in an area of Westwood in which some streets (mine included) are single-family zoned and some, including half a block north of me, are zoned for multiple units (up to 14, I believe). Other than there being an occasional parking shortage that largely affects me only when I put out the trash cans, the extra neighbors are not a problem. The rationale that extra living spaces will make evacuation more difficult seems like a justification for NIMBYism. Los Angeles needs more housing; why not in the Palisades? Andrew E. Rubin, Los Angeles .. To the editor: The pause to consider building rules in the Pacific Palisades is sensible. This is an entire community that is being rebuilt under regulations designed to manage incremental changes in mature suburban neighborhoods. People are under pressure to rebuild their lives with strained resources and punishing time constraints. Already, a tendency toward flat-roofed boxes seems to be replacing the wonderfully eclectic architecture that developed over the last 75 years. The physical nature of the community will, of course, be changed by this tragedy, but I hope it won't be too diminished. John Sherwood, Topanga .. To the editor: We need to restrict density in all of our very high fire-risk zones. Numerous esteemed and credentialed fire ecologists agree that density is one of the greatest risks and predictors of structure loss during an extreme fire. Trying to force density into these high fire zones is dangerous, irresponsible and furthermore unnecessary. Los Angeles developed, as required by the state, a Housing Element that identifies areas to add plentiful affordable housing that are not in high fire-risk, single-family neighborhoods. Putting more housing and people in the path of future fires is insane and should be stopped, not just in the Palisades, but in every very high fire-risk zone across our city and state. Emily Loughran, Los Angeles
