18 Months Later Let's Follow the Money

We're back after a two-month hiatus. Between travel, Sacramento, and the landmark 18 months post Eaton Fire, there's a lot to catch up on. .Yes... we run long again.

18 Months Later

This week marked 18 months since the fire and the latest numbers paint a sobering picture. Drawing from reporting by CBS News and Los Angeles Times on research from United Policyholders and Department of Angels, we look at where recovery really stands:

• Nearly two-thirds of survivors remain displaced
• About 100 homes rebuilt and nearly 1,800 structures under construction
• Nearly 3,000 permits issued, including more than 1,200 ADUs
• Nearly half of survivors have lost—or expect to lose—their insurance within the next year
• Just 28% believe they'll fully recover
• Nearly half of burned lots have reportedly been sold to developers

We also revisit the rebuild itself, asking how many of those ADUs are intended for family use versus rentals, and unpack LA County's restrictive short term rental rules and tax requirements.

Who's Rebuilding Altadena and the Palisades?

We look at the County's affordable housing initiatives, nonprofit acquisition strategies, and what increasingly looks like a nonprofit-led model for redevelopment.

We also discuss what may be the biggest story no one is covering: a $250 million Private Activity Bond package in the Palisades for a newly created nonprofit called Uplifters to create affordable housing... with 65  $4 million dollar homes?  If that's happening there... when does it come to Altadena?

We revisit Shawna's Substack on rebuilding without an urban or economic development plan—and Steve's earlier Substack, The First Rumbles, which now feels increasingly prophetic.

Community, Representation & Power

The Eaton Fire Collaborative announced its Long Term Recovery Group (LTRG) Board appointments. Spoiler, neither Steve nor Shawna nor the Altadena fire survivors they campaigned for were elected, reinforcing concerns that recovery decisions continue to be driven by organizations rather than survivors.

We also discuss:

• PUSD tree removals and the governance questions raised
• Prang's tax promises and a local builder's cautionary tale
• The heartbreaking CBS story of Mark Rodriguez, who died by suicide amid rebuilding struggles, and why these losses deserve to be counted.

Legislation Watch

The biggest story of the past several weeks has been SB 1090. We recap the community outrage, the press conference, the trip to Sacramento, and Beautiful Altadena's position. We support SB 1090—with the amendment, with the urgency clause, and without the 180-day vesting language for outside developers – not as it is currently written. 

We also discuss SB 9, SB 1123, SB 1116, and AB 2005, how they intersect, what's coming, and why the fight over Altadena's future is just beginning. The broader lesson? Our community still lacks infrastructure, including meaningful communications structure.

Too many residents don't know what's being proposed or decided until it's already happening and too late. That's why Beautiful Altadena Alerts is coming soon.

What's Next

Shawna jokes that this chapter has been so demoralizing and depressing she now takes refuge in working on her dreaded inventory because even that's less soul crushing than this. (Be the dog, not the cone).

We close with the question that ties this entire episode together.  Follow the money. Disaster recovery funding can become cover for a multitude of sins. It can be used to quietly fund priorities that have little to do with survivors—from legal settlements to nonprofit windfalls—while communities continue to struggle to understand where recovery dollars are actually going. We'll continue following the money, tracking the legislation, and connecting the dots in next week's episode.

Small Biz Shout Out

This week's shout goes to the growing list of Altadena small businesses that are open and need our support (and I'm still talking about espresso tonics!). 

Stop by Altadena Watch, where Shant is back, and make a point of shopping local whenever you can. Every dollar spent locally helps rebuild the community we love.

Check out Austin Scott's newest mural at George's Convenience (formerly George's Liquor), where community painting days are underway. Rebuilding isn't just homes it's preserving the culture and spirit that make Altadena, Altadena.

Don't forget Beautiful Altadena Office Hours, happening every Wednesday from 11am–1pm at rotating Altadena coffee shops. Check the Beautiful Altadena Instagram, Facebook page, or group for the latest schedule and locations.

Transcript

Shawna 0:01

Well, here we are. Welcome back. In case you forgot what you subscribe to or why, this is After the Ashes, beautiful Altadina's opinionated but well-informed podcast on disaster recovery through a public policy lens. I'm your co-host, Shauna. We are recording this episode on Thursday, July 9th, and I'm here with my co-host, Steven Sachs.

Steve 0:26

Hey there. What's going on, Shauna?

Shawna 0:29

Nothing good.

Steve 0:30

Well, all right. Come on.

Shawna 0:33

It isn't, it hasn't been all bad. In fact, you know, we we should open by saying, gosh, um, dear listeners, thank you for sticking with us because we know we've been gone. We said when we at the outset when we started this podcast that we would record when we had things to talk about, and that that may or may not be all the time. Um, we have had a lot to talk about, but we have been gone. I couldn't believe it. We have not recorded since May. So we were looking at almost a two-month hiatus. Um, but that was, you know, not because there were not things to talk about. It was because Steve and I both had travel. Um, Steve had more trips for himself. Um, I, you know, had um my own trip, like for real trip. I spent some time in Portugal and Spain because I just needed a break from all this. Um, and I'm quickly feeling like I need a brother break. Like I should have just high tailed it back onto a plane. Um, and of course, you know, we've been in in Sacramento again, um, and we've got a lot to talk about. So I think uh instead of uh trying to chop this into a few episodes, um, brace yourself. I think we're gonna go ahead and run long on this one and just get everybody caught up of to what may have been missed the last um eight weeks. Um, and also, you know, we're we're rounding out this week into the official 18 months post-fire. You know, that was July 7. Sorry, yeah, July 7, 8 was 18 months post-fire. And um here we are.

Steve 1:58

Yeah. All right, Shauna. Welcome back.

Shawna 2:02

You want me to take it away?

Steve 2:03

Well, I mean, you you you helped put this thing together, so I'm just here as your you know, color commentary. You're the play-by-play.

Shawna 2:12

Steve, you're um I don't know what I don't know how to describe you today. Steven, I I I said to Steve seconds before we started this podcast, this email does not find me well. The last eight weeks have been rough, guys. Won't even lie. So let's start with um with in the news. Um we typically, you know, start the kick these off with a media roundup. We're gonna do a little bit of that, but also just it's gonna be a catch-up on the issues, too. So, you know, since we we just talked about the fact that we're in the 18-month mark, right? We're looking at 18 months since the fire. Um, there were some really sobering stats that have come out as a number of surveys and research uh has been done on looking at at where we land. And, you know, I saw these numbers from Department of Angels, and I thought, gosh, that's that can't be accurate. And then I saw that they were um the numbers were confirmed by um United Policyholders who was doing some of their own data, and then a third organization who I'm sorry, I cannot recall the name of, of course. But um the point being that you know, this is not one organization and one. Yeah, it was PBS, thank you. No, saying this. Oh, CBS, no, no, well, CBS reported it, but they were reporting the the some of the other data. So there's actually someone else who did who did some looking into this, but to give everybody kind of um a little overview of where we're at. Um, at the 18th month mark, two-thirds of Altanina fire survivors remain displaced. That's 66%. 1% of homes have been rebuilt, which is about 100 homes. Those are obviously not all survivor homes, which we know because developers have picked up at least half of lots for sale. We have 1,796 under construction. We have seen 2,981 permits for structures. And again, that's not just a single-family home, but structures, which could be multiple structures on one lot. So, for example, we've got, we know, 1,200 ADUs currently underway right now. Half have lost or will lose insurance in the next year. Only 28% feel they will ever recover from this. And as I said, um, at least 50% of lots have gone to developers so far and counting. Um, as we see a lot of families feeling like selling their lots um may be the only option they have to not look at complete being completely financially destitute. And as we've we heard in our last kind of at the at the 12-month mark, I'm sorry, I keep, I've been like my allergies have been terrible. I'm probably not alone. Um a lot of folks too are running out of AE. If they have not already, they are now. And you know, these stats didn't really go heavily into what's happening for renters, but we know anecdotally um that nearly all of our renters remain displaced. They're definitely part of that two-thirds number. Um, and we had um from all of the data points available 37 to 38 percent of Altadena residents were renters. So not an insignificant number. So, you know, and those folks have all been kind of left in the wind because there's no, there are no rentals for them to come back to. And even where there are, they are wildly cost prohibitive. Um, so you know, it kind of gets us into a lot of questions, right? Gosh.

Steve 5:40

Well, this is the moment that everybody's been waiting for. I mean, not in a good sense. It's not like, you know, we breeded with baited breath. This is the moment that everybody was fearing and everybody knew was coming. It's the the moment of reckoning, right? You know, the shock is over, the money is starting to dry up or shift. Um, you know, and the next six months is gonna be an absolutely critical time for the town of Altadena and what that composition is going to look like going forward. Yeah. And I think it's gonna open up the the kimono has to open up. So, I mean, as much as it's about Altadena, it's also about where our political system is and you know, seeing the things, the signs that we've been seeing throughout the last year and a bit, and that we've been commenting on, whether on the Substacks, through your Facebook, or here on these, these, these podcasts. I mean, it's pretty obvious those those receipts are coming due, and we've got the receipts. I mean, it started with you know the climate resilience district and you know, setting that up where it took some of the power out of the hands of the community, and from there the the pieces and parts. I mean, it even goes back to Gavin Newsom and the EO, the executive order, he gave the Palisades, not us. And essentially, you know, the county saying to developers, it's open business, it's open season in Altadina, do whatever the hell you want. Um, yeah. You know, like we are at a point where all of these bills are coming due, and all the warnings that everybody has heard and ignored. And I think you know, when we get into SB 1090, is probably the flashpoint to show the holy shit moment where people are going, oh, this is happening, and all the things I've heard are actually going to take place now.

Shawna 7:30

So all the things that we have been warning about are in fact happening and um and relatively quickly.

Steve 7:36

So you know, before we get into all of that, it's like all train wrecks, it goes very, very slow and then very, very fast.

Shawna 7:41

Yep. It is a train wreck. Um, so going back in, like we just kind of got a little overview of the state of the rebuild along with those um 18-month statistics. Um, and I will refer always people to the county dashboard that is updated daily. So if you want to see the latest, you can always find that data there. But um, you know, I mentioned that we know we've got 1200 ADUs under construction currently. Um, and that's kind of an interesting thing because you hear this, you know. Um, I know just again, anecdotally, what's what's being discussed in our groups and and in the broader community, that, you know, a lot of people, certainly not all, but a lot of folks who are building um who are Al Tedina fire survivors who are building ADUs are building them first so that they can move onto their property, right? We have a we have a lot of people doing that um because financially that's their only option. They've they've got it there out of ALE, they're in trouble. So even where, you know, I was talking to someone in our community who is, you know, they're uh they're a fan, they're a larger family. They've got multiple kids, dogs, you know, two adults, and they're going to be living in a tiny ADU really soon because that is their only choice while they wait to start the construction of their home, because like so many, they're waiting on litigation, they're waiting on insurance proceeds, and they've got to get past those hurdles to get into a house. But it takes us to the question of, you know, we keep hearing that um that ADUs are going to be used, and this is gonna tie into our next conversation for our next topic, but that ADUs are going to be used, you know, to preserve generational wealth, you know, as if they're going to be rented out. And um, you know, I and and many others continue to raise, you know, questions on that of like, is everyone, and I know you have too, like, is everyone in Altadina gonna be a landlord? Like, is that what we're saying? Because I don't think that's I personally I don't think that's real. I don't think, I think that that is the talking point that is used is like, oh, we need this, we need it, we need it.

Steve 9:30

A year, you know, over a year ago, where they had the one fire survivor who basically said that the only way they're gonna be able to rebuild is to become a landlord and be a you know, have a rental and do ADUs and SB9 and all the other Michigas. And you know, I mean, that's all well and good in theory, but talk to landlords, especially small landlords in Los Angeles County in Los in California. And, you know, there are a lot of risks associated with having not only being a landlord, but living on the front house and having uh people renting behind you, and maybe they may not be the ideal tenant. I mean, many are. This is nothing against renters, of course not. It's about the reality, though. Rent that you know aren't necessarily always in the that can be very difficult. And trying to evict someone from property that you aren't living at is not easy. I've talked to many people.

Shawna 10:26

It's nearly impossible.

Steve 10:27

Yeah, it's nearly impossible. Imagine having to live with somebody in your back house who's basically living there rent-free, and you know, you need to have that property to be able to make your mortgage payment, your property tax payments, and all the other things that are gonna go into it. I I think it's been facile in terms of how it's been offered. I think it's used as a talking point by certain political groups that this is the solution to, you know, the affordability question. You know, A, we're gonna add all this additional capacity, and B, all of a sudden, you know, this is gonna solve everybody's problem. I I don't, you know, I've always maintained, and people who have read my Substack know this, and I'm hopefully gonna help write something up for the legislators in the fall or during the summer. About, I think that this is as much a supply distortion problem from an affordability perspective as it is a you know actual affordability as a supply itself problem. You know, I know that there are people that disagree with that, especially in the building in the development industry. But I mean, you can't have the significant number of properties held off the market because of Prop 13 and not expect that that's gonna distort prices to the extent that it has. And, you know, here's another major issue. We're seeing a microcosm of what is going to happen in 15 years here in Los Angeles and Al Tedina now, where we had a significant number of property owners who were over to the age of 65.

SPEAKER_01 11:54

Yeah.

Steve 11:54

And how many are going to rebuild, how many are going to sell, and what does that do to the supply overall? And, you know, if you have a significant number of people or baby boomers that are gonna be selling in the next 15 years, plus you're gonna be adding all these affordable houses on the market, all this housing that we're gonna be building, all this density we're gonna be building, and we have a population that's not increasing here in California, what does that mean? Yeah, what does it mean? And here's the here's the other nasty thing that nobody's talking about with the rental market is you know, I don't think it's gonna affect single property owners, but it will affect those that are looking to add density, you know, in five to plus units. Most of the debt that they take on to be able to do those projects is at the fixed price of the market rate of the proper of the rents that can be gotten. So, what does that mean? You talk to a property owner and they got a three million dollar note on a on a on a building. The expectation is that the rent underneath in those units will meet the standard to be able to make the monthly payment. If the rents start decreasing, you're gonna have a bunch of foreclosures. And, you know, this is like the policy issues that we're dealing with are the 1090, and we can get into a lot of this. And S you know, the the uh the the fact they want to increase the uh it's uh AB 2005, which is increasing S B9 when it hasn't even been really implemented. We just got to jumping ahead. I'm gonna bring you in. Because these are major issues that we have to address. And I, you know, I just think that we're seeing some of these major policy decisions being made in a laboratory that is Al Tedena.

Shawna 13:39

Yeah, the battles are all going to play out here. We are the battlefield for what's going next.

Steve 13:43

We're the guinea pigs, is what we are.

Shawna 13:45

We are. We are. Well, I keep saying we're the canary in the coal mine, but yeah, guinea pig works too. And it's um it's nothing good that these guinea pigs are being subjected to. But um let's talk about some more of that. I mean, I bring this up with the ADUs because, you know, aside from the you know, myriad issues that you raise that become the downstream of this, you know, just on its face. To your point, we keep hearing is a talking point from certain organizations and and electeds that, like, you know, oh, this is we have to do this, we need this this ease, and we need to create all these new ADUs for people, you know, to have generational wealth. And I don't necessarily buy that line. I do think, because we know it's real, that we had a lot of Altadena um renters living off book in Altadena. We know that's real. Like we had a lot of folks who were living in, for example, you know, an unpermitted garage conversion for $500 a month, right? Or something like that. A lot of those familial situations. And there's no question that those folks need to be able to rebuild those, those, um, those situations on their lots and have the right to continue to do that. Um, but I just don't buy the talking point that, you know, all of these folks in Altadina are going to suddenly become uh landlords because I don't think it's real. And I don't, not to mention there's no parking, but we'll get to that in a minute.

Steve 15:03

But you know, we talked about the uh just beyond.

Shawna 15:07

I know it's it's insane. We have, you know, just looking at LA County short-term rental laws that I think a lot of people are not aware of. Like you can't even just have an Airbnb here. It's very limited how you can rent. It's very limited the number of nights per year you can have someone in for a short-term rental. Outside of that, it has to be a minimum 30-day rental. Um, and all of this, you know, goes into um a tax component, right? You've got to you gotta register with the tax collector, you have to pay a certain amount, I have to pay a registration fee and a certain amount of tax on your earnings. So I don't think that everyone is um really aware of what this is gonna mean.

Steve 15:46

I just got a notice from the county yesterday or the day before about if I'm a landlord, you know, I have to fill out all the stuff and file my taxes. I mean, I think most of these people have been living off the books that you know we have been, you know, that we're all trying to save are that's all gonna change. Like the county's gonna know if there's a massive ADU on your property, you're a target now.

Shawna 16:07

Yep. So I mean, all these it's a lot, it's a lot to consider. So, you know, as always, caveat emtor, buyer beware. Um, there's gonna be a lot to consider. Moving on, we've got um some other news that popped up kind of quietly a couple this week that LA County wants to put affordable housing groups first in line to buy apartment buildings. Um, that was a measure uh or or a motion rather brought, yeah, brought forth. That's what it is. Anyway, purchase something brought forth by Hilda Salise that I have no doubt our supervisor Barger will uh veto or no, they all they all voted in it was a unanimous decision.

Steve 16:48

No way. Yeah, well, Barger, like even if Barger wanted to veto it, it's gonna go four to one. What difference is it?

Shawna 16:53

I know it would, but I am surprised though. I'm surprised because that is not generally her her voting MO, and I don't think others in in that sphere were expecting that. I did not have see that. But I find it interesting, but also, you know, uh legally questionable. Can you can we do this? I mean, on its face, I'm not opposed. I'm not opposed. Yeah. But can can you even do this? And I say that because of the topic we're gonna get into next, and like, you know, understanding the legal challenge that anything like this is going to face from developers. So um, yeah, I just it's uh I think there's a constitutional challenge.

Steve 17:26

I don't think you can take the property without, you know, uh personally, I can't imagine that you can mandate how somebody sells it. You know, if I I again, I not my problem. That's for the lawyers to figure it out.

Shawna 17:41

Yep, that's kind of my attitude, too.

Steve 17:42

But it is gonna be a that I deal with, but I don't need that on top of it.

Shawna 17:46

You know, like I don't need that shit. We have enough to deal with. There's um also here's I so I'll say to everyone listening, Steve's about to go off the rails on this one. Uh, some other news that didn't make the news because it was very conveniently left out of the news, um, was that very recently a nonprofit by the name of Uplifters in the Palisades secured a $250 million PIB that is a private activity bond.

Steve 18:19

Well, they've applied, they've gotten the still get approved from the state.

Shawna 18:25

Fair enough, but the paperwork's been stamped, it's out there, there's receipts. That, folks, is $250 million in a bond, non-taxable bond that is for quote unquote affordable housing. And what may you wonder are they going to do with that on the Palisades? What affordable housing is there in the Palisades? Well, let us tell you. It will be approximately 60 homes. And for those who want to do that math, it's about 65.

Steve 18:54

It's 65.

Shawna 18:55

Okay, okay. We're still talking about four million dollar homes.

Steve 18:58

Yes.

Shawna 18:59

That fire survivors in the Palisades will be able to rent for a limited period of time, which is something like 12 to 18 months.

Steve 19:07

Yep.

Shawna 19:08

And following that period, they would have the option to purchase that home. And if they were not able to purchase the home, the nonprofit can sell the home for fair market value, and they then keep and retain that money.

Steve 19:23

So that's affordable.

Shawna 19:26

Affordable to whom? I'm like, I'm in the wrong fucking business, Steve. I don't know what's going on.

Steve 19:31

This is I okay. Look, again, I just think that this is something the media has missed. And I think there are reasons why the media has missed it. And I think that that's for the media to find out. They can do a little bit of digging and find the answer to this. It doesn't take a genius to do the math. But, you know, the way it was constructed was there's supposed to be a public meeting. The public meeting was held at the private law office of the lawyers representing the bond issuance with no public the public notification was in something called the Metropolitan Independent or News or something like that. I have no idea what this is. They picked some obscure publication to do it so that nobody would know. It wasn't anywhere that anybody would normally be able to get to. The the bottom line is it stinks to high evan.

Shawna 20:22

And yeah, it does.

Steve 20:24

Look, this is an organization that was set up a year ago. I mean, this is a 501c3. Fortunately, they're a 501c3, so give them that.

Shawna 20:31

It's not a fiscal sponsor for once, so we got that.

Steve 20:35

But they have never, they they were not in existence a year ago. Now they're gonna get the single largest private activity bond. So people gotta understand private activity bonds are we have tax exempt bonds in this country, and most states get a fixed amount that you can use for nonprofits, charities, et cetera. So hospitals, universities, nonprofits, homeless housing, all those things, they all fall under the private activity bonds. You know, when they're gonna go put a tax exempt bond out there, bondholders buy these bonds at a reduced rate because they don't pay tax on the interest. So the idea is that this is helping public good. Normally, you know, these are like $10 million offerings, maybe a $20 million offering, because we get a total cap for the state of $5 billion for all of California. That is all 40 million people that live here. Okay. So let's just say LA being 10% of the population in the city, you know, that would constitute, you know, let's say $500 million of that number, because that's 10% of the offerings, right? This one entity got half of what LA City's entire allocation would be. This is the single largest entity receiving a private activity bond in the history of California. And they didn't exist a year ago.

Shawna 21:54

I mean, this is like The Griff isn't even trying to hide. The grift is just grifting.

Steve 22:01

But then if it was going to be out in the open and there was nothing to hide, why take the measures they did to try to obscure the information? And why has it not been published? This is the largest single bond offering for rebuilding that we've had. Nobody's done something like this. And yet, nothing in the LA Times, nothing in the Daily News, nothing in the California Post, nothing in the media at all. Why? Because the state still hasn't signed off on it. Once the state signs off on it, because people can still go up there and screw this up, and that's the big issue. They've had to do these certain public things, but they could not come out and you know celebrate it yet because people are going to wait, wait a second. An organization didn't exist a year ago is getting the largest single private activity bond in the history of California for affordable housing for 65 units for $4 million apiece in the Palisades. I mean, sure, the Treasury technically can't stop it, but holy shit, this has got to be one of the biggest pieces. I mean, holy God, how did you pull this off? And whoever it is, my hat to you guys. Like, wow. Ian, here's the thing I still think, and I've told you this, Shauna. We here in Al Tadena don't have a settled land use issue yet. The Palisades, they know where they are because they have that executive order and they have that fire zoning, and they know that everything's gonna have to be single family. They cannot push through an 1123, 1116, or an SB9 into the Palisades. So single family, that's that's their that's their play. We were good, they were trying to get that sorted out here, but we still don't have the answer yet. And that's why SB 1090 is really funky. At least that's my opinion. Because if it if it's good for the Palisades, it's probably good for Altadena. We just don't know how they want to do it yet.

Shawna 24:00

Yeah, and you know this is coming, so I can't wait to see what non which nonprofit is going to get this here. And what are they gonna build? Is it gonna be $1.5 million homes? Is it gonna be million dollar homes? I don't know. I'm very curious to see.

Steve 24:13

It's gonna be SB1123 stuff. Or is it? I don't know. We'll we'll see. I I'd be willing to bet you here it's gonna be about density.

Shawna 24:24

You think so?

Steve 24:24

It's not gonna be single family.

Shawna 24:26

No, I know, probably not. So I will say this is actually a good dovetail before we get into the kind of our legislative overview and talking about SB 1090 and other things that have been happening and can kind of take it all the air out of the room the last few weeks. Um, you know, uh I wrote a piece for those who who read the Substack, I wrote something, you know, last month about the fact that Altadena is still rebuilding without a plan and that the greatest threat to recovery remains the lack of plan and density in particular density without a plan. Um, and I think that we're still waiting for that. I know that as we were looking back, you know, at this 18-month mark, you know, Steve, you and I were talking about your Substack from last September, the first rumbles when you did your first fictionalized account around some things happening.

Steve 25:16

That was still kind of fictional. It was one of the first that sort of opened up that that genre that I like to use.

Shawna 25:23

Yep. So, you know, I think I think that's kind of it's a good time to go back and revisit those for anyone who has time and inclination to go read. Um, because they both really set up kind of where we are and what we're dealing with. Um, other news, our um EFC's LTRG, God, we love an acronym around here. For anyone who does not know what this is, the EFC is the Eat and Fire Collaborative that now uh hosts the Eat and Fire Collaboratory. And um the LTRG is that body's long-term recovery group. And they um had their first round of board seats seated last year. That's that's a process that I, you know, was was still a little bit more active with EFC when that was happening. And um I think they did as good of a job as they could after some starts and stops putting that together. Um, the first round of board seats um were up for re-election, and there were three vacated seats that were open for election of new individuals. Um, they, knowing that they wanted to broaden the field, opened up the candidacy to a number of people, including um because EFC right now, with the people who get to run, the people who get to vote, they're all member organizations. So as you can imagine, you have a very heavy slant towards nonprofit entities and these fiscal sponsored entities. Um, it's it's not about individuals, but they opened this up deliberately to individuals so that there would be more fire survivor and community representation. Um, and a number of people were asked to run for those seats, you know, including Steve and myself and a handful of others who did uh run for those seats in hopes that some of us, one of us, would get that and there would be a little bit more community representation and not just nonprofit representation. There is some, and I should say there is some community representation, just not a lot. And um, a couple of those folks were rotating out or vacating their seats because they have other life things happening and could not do it all. But those um election results came out uh last week while a bunch of other chaos was was ensuing. And it was very interesting to see that none of those candidates who were the community candidates was either you know picked up a seat. All of the incumbents were re-elected, every single one of them. And then of those three new seats, they all went to nonprofit orgs. Not one of them not Altadina residents. Actually, that's not true. That is not entirely true because one was not nonprofit org, one was someone who was out of the Pasadena mayor's office.

Steve 28:06

Okay. But the point being, it's Well isn't the mayor's office in our long-term recovery group?

Shawna 28:13

Well, I guess Hastings Ranch, but I mean again, I don't think it's that those folks shouldn't be represented. The the issue is a balance of representation, and that that on despite best efforts, was not achieved in part because of who's voting, right? It becomes a bit of a club. Like the only people who get to vote are the member organizations. It's not like it's open to the community at large. So I think it just begs the question that as we continue to say that we have to put survivors first in the rebuild and of recovery, and that we have to really listen to survivor needs and what is happening in the survivor community and what folks actually want and how we we shape and drive whatever happens next. Um, you know, it is a difficult conversation to continue to have when at every turn where there could be an opportunity for more representation, it doesn't happen. And it's not necessarily through anyone's fault. I think it's the construct. And perhaps this will incline some folks to revisit the construct and how this works and that maybe it needs some some work. But these seats, you know, the board seats are two-year commitments. So we're looking at two years before those flip again.

Steve 29:34

Well, there's they cycle through. But anyway, the point of the case. Of course they'll cycle, but the point being, look, at the end of the day, the the next six months and the next year are gonna be absolutely critical to our rebuild. Yeah. And if you don't have representation on those seats and the people that are doing a lot of the work that's going on out there, you know, I know there's the nonprofits that are doing their part, but there's a lot of the community building and and things that are going on at the macro level that, you know, the EFC has itself a niche. And, you know, whether it's going to be real or not is going to be up to the people that are leading it now. And yeah, you know, we offered our we offered our chance to be a part of this and to be have a voice there. And if they don't want it, then so be it, Shauna. I mean, it hasn't stopped us before.

Shawna 30:20

Well, nothing stops us. I maintain it as a point.

Steve 30:23

At the end of the day, it's just one more organization and one more voice. Oh, I hear you.

Shawna 30:27

I hear you. It's one of those things that if I'm asked to step up for something and I think that I have the ability to actually meaning in a meaningful way do something positive, I will throw my hat in the ring to do it. And I did, which I know you did too. It's really just a matter of good faith and community support. But as you know, like I did not campaign for myself because I don't care if I got that seat. It's not I I'm always been more effective on my speaking about it, but you're you're well, I'm caring, I it's not about myself getting, I care about what the representation on that board looks like. And so that was my point that I did not campaign for me, I campaigned for you and for someone else, Daniel Harlow, who wrote our CSD, uh, who's one of the group that developed the CSD that is just so incredibly knowledgeable when it comes to land use and all of the things that are critically important at this inflection point that we find ourselves at 18 months. And so that was my personal disappointment was that people who had so much experience, decades of experience and knowledge, institutional knowledge, community knowledge of this community did not get in there. And those who were there, even if they are there on other merits that are real and legitimate, um, that is missing. And that makes me sad. So I always I'm it is life. It's life, but it this is, you know, these are big decisions, you know, and I think so. We'll see, we'll see what's gonna happen. You get the driver? You do, you do. Well, I hope that the folks that are on there um really do have the time to commit to do that job because a big part of it is gonna be educating themselves on a lot of history and a lot of policy and um understanding this community and helping it get where it needs to be. So we'll see about that. Um, because right now it's, you know, it's the community doing a lot of the heavy lifting for themselves, which is rough, but that is where we find ourselves. And, you know, on that note, you know, we're gonna go into the next kind of the news story. Um has been, and I'm sure anyone who's online has seen this, you know, about past PUSD, Passian Unified School District, which is Alberina school school district, and the tree removals, right? So they have been um saying that as part of their, you know, kind of cleanup that they have to remove all of these healthy trees. That's not a thing. They don't need to remove these healthy trees, but they're choosing to remove healthy trees, which is a lot of questions. But where this is really blown up is that when presented, when when prevent presented with community outrage, they've ignored that. When presented with arborists explaining you don't have to destroy or damage these trees and there's ways to keep them, they ignored that. So at that point, Pasadena City and LA County came in and said, Hey, we're actually issuing stop work orders and we're gonna cite you. Don't touch these trees. And they were, in so many words, told that they could kick rocks, like get off the campuses, you have no jurisdiction here, and we're ignoring the work orders, which they did, um, and removed these trees because their position is that they govern themselves, that they have their, they are independently governed, that the city of Pasadena and LA County are not the boss of them, and they don't have to follow their rules.

Steve 33:45

Only the state is. You know, that's why when a when a school district fails, the state takes it over.

Shawna 33:52

Yep. And it and it really made for, I know an interesting conversation that you and I had about, you know, who does govern who and where is governance headed, right? And we're we're talking about what is setting up with this new county CEO role that is going to be so much more powerful than the LA City mayor, that the LA City mayor position will effectively just be a figurehead. It's not going to be a role with any meaningful power.

Steve 34:18

But yes, I think that what you're saying, look, the the battle right now that you're seeing with Lhasa, the uh LA homeless services agency or admin or uh uh uh whatever it is, um they are basically they're getting the they were the county pulled 600 million out. And hang on. Yeah, so you know, when they did that, um that 600 million was a big funding chunk, and that was for a lot of the affordable housing. Plus, you have La Casa now, which is also doing the afford the homeless housing. So the only money left there was about 300 million for um the whatcha call it, it's called the continuum of care for homelessness. So that is like the cycle, the wraparound services. And there's a there's a lawsuit going on because the federal government said they're pulling it. And the likelihood is that that continuum of care is going to migrate over to the LA County Agency. But the fight between the city and the county is indicative of this struggle that's occurring. And what the reality is, is if the county wants to, the county can do whatever it wants in the city, because the city is actually a sub a subpolitical entity or a political subdivision of the county, which is a political subdivision of the state. So, you know, for again, we know this from the incorporation dynamic. We cannot get incorporation in Los Angeles County unless the county grants it to us, because the county technically is the incorporation and they have to incorporate a subdivision of the county. That's why Altadina is unincorporated. So every city and town in this county, depending on how this works, is essentially going to be if the county takes the the Lhasa situation and moves it all over to the county, homelessness is now entirely run by the county and county-related agencies. You know, you're starting to see a big challenge, you know, the education system. Look, LAUSD has a bigger budget than the city of Los Angeles, and that is so what is the city of LA doing? It's got its police department, its fire department. The county can do all that too.

Shawna 36:24

Like I mean, that's all the money. I which we we actually talked about this, I think, on our last episode.

Steve 36:30

And that Metro is a county agency, like the county is the 800-pound gorilla. That's why Lindsay Hodat did not run for mayor. That's why she wants to be county CEO. So that's where all the power is. It's where all the money is. It truly is. And and and you're seeing it. Well, we're getting glimpses of it through what's going on with us here. And we're seeing all these nuances in government, you know, government functions because of Altadena, because it's unincorporated, because it's county, because of PUSD, which is not even it's a Pasadena Unified School District, plus with the water companies and what they're doing up there. We're getting it's all right here. I mean, that's why everybody said this was going to be a disaster when the disaster hit, because the recovery is so complicated because of all these entities involved. And you know, but what you're really seeing is if the county decides it wants to throw its weight around, they win. It'll be very interesting to watch this homeless situation to see how that is played out and where the city and the county end up in all this, because that's gonna tell you the future direction of where the county fits. Because they're just grabbing as much revenue as possible.

Shawna 37:44

Yeah. But I mean, again, I think, you know, we we I was gonna say that we spoke about this. I think it was on the last episode we recorded, talking about or the episode prior, but it was definitely in May. Excuse me. Talking about I think I inhaled a bug. I'm talking about the fact that um sorry, I'm trying to I have to be able to breathe over here to speak. It's a it's a wonderful little side.

Steve 38:11

But it takes the ability to breathe.

Shawna 38:13

It's very helpful to not be, you know, like thinking contemplating an insect in your throat. So we talked about the fact that uh that that budget is such a behemoth and where the majority of it goes, which is LAPD, seconded by LA Fire Department. Like that that's where all the money is. That that's it. Like, in fact, I'm specifically talking about the fact that it had been literally more than a year that not that any of um our um roads in LA City, which many of us, you know, I don't care if you live in an unincorporated county, you're traversing LA roads probably daily, um, had been touched or any repairs done because instead, and this was raised by their city controller, who was amazing, Mejia, but this was it was raised because he was like, Yeah, in case you're wondering why the roads are like shit, it's because the LA City Council went ahead and voted to increase LAPD's compensation and their fund without figuring out where that money was coming from. So that didn't exist. So now LAPD is getting even more money and uh streets are not being touched. It's it's it's absolutely wild.

Steve 39:18

There's another element to that too, is that they're purposely not doing the streets because if they redo an entire street, they have to carve out bike lanes and they don't want to do that because of some initiative that the city voted on. And that is again it's just as much, it's as much that as anything else, if not more.

Shawna 39:34

The point is it is just all political chicanery. It's never about just actually doing what you are hired to do. And make no mistake, all these electeds were hired to do a job, they work for us, and it is, you know, at some point, like just do your fucking job. And on that note, we're gonna talk about, we're gonna go back a little bit to um our pal Prang, who Jeff Prang, who is the uh, I don't know if I've even told, I think I may have shared this with you, Steve. Um, and we've talked about Jeff Prang because he is our LA County tax assessor. And we've talked about him in the context of um property reassessments and reassessments and what people are going to be facing and what's going to be um uh given to those rebuilding, you know, as some sort of you know, variance versus what's going to happen in actuality. And the thing that we have raised repeatedly on this podcast and that you have raised um in many of your substacks was the fact that, you know, on one hand, we keep being told, don't worry, don't worry, don't worry, you know, especially for like for like rebuilds with just that 200 square foot addition, like you're not gonna have any kind of reassessment, you're not gonna have a change in property tax, you don't need to be concerned post-rebuild. But as we have raised, that doesn't exist in writing anywhere. Even though we keep being told that it doesn't exist in writing anywhere. And simultaneously, Prang has been trying to push through already once unsuccessfully. Um, did the second time fail, or has it, is it still just in process? We're looking at it right a second time, where he's trying to push legislation again to do what he says is already happening, which begs the question why does it require legislation if it's done? But this came up again because I was speaking a couple of weeks ago to a local builder in Altadina who's who's working on a number of rebuilds and they're a second generation builder and um, someone I've really enjoyed, one of the few I think is actually doing really great work and they're nice guys. But they raised, they they said, Shauna, do you do you know about this tax situation? And I'm like, what tax situation? And they went on to explain to me that when they started pulling permits and you know, going to the one-stop and getting information from planning um on taxation for their clients, planning was giving them a flyer that they had, and they presented this flyer that they, of course, presented to all of their clients as well that said clearly everything that continues to be stated that there would not be reassessment, like-for-like builds with only a 200 square foot addition would not be considered, you know, um, for a reassessment trigger and not to worry. So 18 months later, they go into the one-stop on behalf of some of their clients and you know, went to regional planning and said, Hey, we're hearing that there is going to be reassessment. So is this true or not? And, you know, they were like, Well, we don't know. You have to talk to the text tax assessor. Tax assessor is there in that department. The tax assessor, the representative who was there, literally sat there with the regional planning representative and this builder. And as the regional planning, as his he was presenting the flyer for regional planning that says, Hey, no reassessment, and asking regional planning, well, how can this not be correct if this is what you gave me? They they're deferring to the county assessor. And the county assessor rep is saying, Yeah, we don't care what regional planning tells you, we make those decisions. They don't. And it was a very sobering moment because it this person from who was the rep from the tax assessors, then went on to kind of you know, pencil out this very cryptic formulation for how this is going to work. And that, you know, in fact, there will be a partial reassessment for the like-for-like rebuilds. And that partial re-assessment, they used the example of one of their clients with a modest three-bedroom, two-bath, a very modest, it was a 1400 square foot place where they had done that 200 square feet. And that 200 square feet alone was going to result in almost $1,000 annually in additional tax for people who are expecting no change in tax. It was um it was an eye opener. And they were in particular really upset because, as you can imagine, they've been telling their clients, based on what they've been told at the one stop one stop and what they have in writing, that this would not happen and not to worry. And Worse, he said they had multiple clients who, despite being able to afford to rebuild significantly larger than the like for like 200 square foot larger, opted not to because of their concern around the tax reassessment and desire to maintain their current tax base. And that's not happening.

Steve 44:18

Well, again, I think it'll be very interesting to see how this all shakes out. But remember, that this is a tax grab for the county. So Yeah.

Shawna 44:28

Yep. So I'm gonna I'm gonna wrap this up. There was another story yesterday that hit, and I'm gonna raise it because we've we've talked about it on this podcast quite a bit, is the kind of the untold death toll. Um and and what we are seeing out there. And as we know, there have been so many excess deaths, people who've just who've had, you know, cardiac issues, um, respiratory issues and who've passed, people who had other health issues that have been exacerbated by the stress and have passed, and then of course, you know, suicides, of which there have been too many. And CBS LA actually just aired a story yesterday um about a gentleman named Mark Rodriguez, who they covered right after the fire. And he spoke about having lost his wife in the year years uh prior to the fire and having lost her ashes and urn and their wedding bands, and you know, like all of us, like so many precious, irreplaceable things that went with the fire. But he was somewhat, you know, still despite it being brutal, he was still somewhat um optimistic. He had fire insurance coverage, he had some insurance, he was intent to rebuild and quickly. And apparently, as his story was told, he went with a modular um prefab company to do a modest two-bedroom, one-bath house. It's all he felt he needed, and he wanted to just get back on his property. And, you know, he had been quoted an amount that was just over $300,000 to do that. And after making nearly $300,000 in payments across five weeks, where they were like, more money, more money, more money. They were trying to extract even more from him. And he was like, whoa, like this is like put on the brakes. This is not what I was agreeing to. This is not what I understood was going to happen. You know, keep the money if you want, but like, I want out. Just let me out of the contract. And they would not do that. And long story short, this man felt so pushed to the edge by the difficulties in rebuilding and the lack of support that he received that he ultimately committed suicide. Um, and his brother was doing this story with CBS because they had just sold his lot. And um, you know, as he put it, you know, there's blood on people's hands. There's blood on this lot. Um, and apparently the company, because he had not completed the payments, resold the modular home. The whole thing is so gross. And I wish I knew the name of the company. I'm gonna try and find that because sorry, they go on the icky list, you know, even if it's contractually what it said, you just don't treat fire survivors that way. You're dealing with people who are so deeply traumatized. And um, it just it was heartbreaking. Um, because you know, like we said, there's just this has taken such a toll that so many people are remain unaware of. Um, and it's a number that no one is properly tracking, and I have no doubt it stretches into the hundreds at this point between all of those various causes. Um and it's just it's terrible because I don't see it getting a lot better for people, not with the uh the sobering data that we were seeing come out at this stage. So on that, very cheery note. Um, I hope that those who need help are getting help. Um talk to a friend, a neighbor, a family member, a clergy member, like whatever it takes. I hope folks don't feel like they're alone because there no one is alone in this, um, even if it feels that way. We are part of like the most, the shittiest club that no one wants to be a uh member of. But I really hope that anyone who's feeling the despair that that that Mark did um knows that there is a community here to lean into and obviously mental health services and a number of other things. And um, I think is it 611 or 81? Is eight one is it eight one one for mental health, Steve? We've talked about it before. Yeah. You know, there are resources, but you also have this community as a resource. And I really hope that people lean into that because um, again, you know, everybody here understands what you're going through because we all are too, and will help you navigate things and and for example, get through a bad contract or you know, at least clarify a contract. So you know what you're dealing with. So, with that, um the big news as you keep hinting at is that we've been dealing with um the beast that is now SB or State Bill 1090 that was uh brought by Sasha Perez, our state senator, along with our assemblyman John Herabedian, who co-authored this with support from Catherine Barger, our county supervisor, and with a lot of community unity, which is unheard of and did not happen accidentally. Um so let's talk about what this is. And there's been a lot of coverage, right? So we'll wrap up our media roundup that took 45 minutes to do because we have so many stories to catch up on. Uh, and that's what's naughty. That's just the tip of the iceberg for the last eight weeks. But there was some good coverage in a few outlets. Um, LA Times covered all of this, and we'll talk about how this blew up and emerged and evolved and how we got here. But um there was some great coverage from LA Times. There was even better coverage actually from the SGV um Tribune. Thank you for that, Sam. Sam did a really great story, really in-depth. Um, there's some forthcoming coverage from LAist who expanded their story, and um um actually it should drop soon, if not late, if not at the end of this week, next week. Um, and then there was a Cal Matters LAist, a Cal Matters piece that LAist reran that was said, like, should Altadina get a pass from you know these housing bills? And um, needless to say, they didn't really go over real well for Cal Matters because it's a great gray to set this up. Nobody's asking for a pass. Altadena is asking for fair and equal treatment. That's it. We're asking for equity. That's it. As you alluded to earlier in the episode, we were, you know, uh we were kind of left out in the cold where the palisades were exempted from everything right out of the gate. SB9, 1123, and everything else that will come in perpetuity, they because there's no time limit on their EO on that executive order. Um, what they did was make all of the Palisades a high severity fire zone and based on that exempt them from housing density. End of story. Um Altadina, of course, is is much more nuanced. And I don't think that that kind of blanket approach would have been appropriate here. But at the same time, having some sort of protections to keep the onslaught of developers kind of at the gates long enough for people to at least rebuild be good at it during a time when so many, again, remain dependent upon SCE litigation and insurance payments that are delayed and dragging on to get anywhere to even start to begin the process. So, you know, a lot of people are going to be at year three and four before they can even begin the process, if they can make it that far. And so having, you know, well-funded and uh developers come in and do all this before they can, or worse, taking advantage of people because they're so desperate. And for some, you know, selling their lot is their only option right now, and they're selling those lots. And as we have discussed, which, you know, if someone needs to do, they should absolutely be able to do. But as we've discussed, Steve, especially since the failure of um AB797, which would have maintained property values. What's that? It would have served. Yes, exactly. It would have set a floor that is gone. You have people who are in in some cases being outright lied to. They're developers saying, Oh, I'm building a single family home, or oh, I'm building this is for me, I'm building for myself or for family. And no, they're not. They're a developer looking to do a split, either a four-way or a five-way, or with 1123 up to 10 units, where they were previously only one. So um it begs a lot of questions and raised a lot of concern. So, you know, again, if you listen to this podcast, you you've heard all of this before because we've been talking about this for a solid year at this point.

Steve 52:29

Yeah, but this one's different. I mean, look, the reality is this is, and I think the example was, you know, it to me, it's the the value, the underlying value of the land is critical to determining how these developers are getting in early right now. And, you know, absent true understanding of what your lot is worth, people are selling too cheap. They think it's, oh, my house, I have a 7,500 square foot lot, I had a single family home on that, it's worth a half a million dollars. No, it's got two houses on it. Even if a developer buying that or somebody else buying that can put a house and an ADU on it. Now, yeah, there, I think there was an example of a home that was a lot that was sold on Mendocino over by the golf course. That this is another thing is that people don't realize what their lot is zoned for. That was a single-family home, they sold for about a million six. Now, you can put one R$7,500 on it. So one residential unit per 7,500 square feet, the lot was like 37,000 square feet. So you can put five homes on that lot. Now, for one six, if those houses, those 7,500 square foot lots elsewhere are going for $500,000 apiece times five is two and a half million, that person lost out on $900,000 because they didn't understand the zoning and they didn't understand what that land was worth. You go start putting up 10 units on that, it's worth way more. And I go back to the piece that I, you know, there's a piece I did. We were talking about this is back to the whole affordability, you know, religion that they found up in Sacramento, and everybody thinks we just start putting more and more and more on the market, eventually supply will come in and take it all out. And it's not true because I've lived in cities like Vancouver or Toronto where there's a ton of supply on and the prices stayed high. There are two things that affect supply or the price of a home. Well, there's really one thing, it's the debt and the mortgage rate. That's the reality of it, and what the market rates can afford, what you can do in that particular market for salaries. The underlying land goes up according to what the value of the property on top of the land is. And this is the critical thing for people in Altadino to understand is that your land is worth a hell of a lot more than people are willing to offer you for it.

Shawna 54:46

Yeah.

Steve 54:48

And when when this window ends, when all this ALE expires over the next six months and all those homes get bought up by developers, the land values are going to skyrocket. And I've told people who I know that can wait it out to wait it out because the land is going to be worth way more in six months than it is today. That's the reality of it.

Shawna 55:08

There's there's a fear too, and it's it's dovetails into a different topic, but it, you know, there's a fear I know among some that once this SCE settlement happens and people, you know, choose not to rebuild, um, if for various reasons they still cannot, or they're just it's been too long and they just can't face it. Um we're gonna have a glut of properties, and that's gonna tank the market. So, you know, I think it's gonna be a fascinating thing to watch. It could go either way, it could be a little of both.

Steve 55:35

I I think that what'll end up happening is developer. Look, you heard on the call with the senator, they already told you the name of the institutions that are already lining up. The money is coming. The largest man, the largest money manager in the world is lining up to take over Altadena. However, they're gonna do it, whether doing it with nonprofits, for-profits, whatever developer, they don't care. They're just coming. But it is happening, they're gonna do this. And the this is the thing is my attitude is to Altadena if you're gonna sell, get the maximum amount of money for your property possible.

Shawna 56:14

Because that's what you hope for. It's a yeah, it's what you hope for.

Steve 56:17

That's what it's worth. Don't let them lowball you coming in and saying, you know, because you think that just they're gonna put one home up.

Shawna 56:24

I mean, no, it's a lie.

Steve 56:26

It's a lie if they are nonprofit, for-profit, whomever. Because look, yeah, the money managers are gonna put their money in through nonprofits too. They can put their money there as easily as they can put it through, you know, the for-profit developers. It's all the same. You know, everybody can wrap themselves in whatever flag they want. At the end of the day, this is a real estate play. It has been from the start, and it will be in the end. Now, does it mean that the the town deserves a breather of 36 months? Certainly.

Shawna 56:56

That's an understatement. And but that's nothing. That's nothing asked.

Steve 57:03

They can wait things out, they can do what they want, or they can go get their, if they want to get developments put in and they want to go maximize that development, then why doesn't the county this is my point, and this is what I told the legislators. Why hasn't the county done if the county were to set up a plan where you have density in certain areas and control the density as opposed to just being haphazard all over the place. You mean if you had a plan, a plan? That that would actually satisfy the requirements of SB9 and SB1123, and you can get a waiver from the state. I think those are things that could happen.

Shawna 57:37

Well, you're getting you're getting you're getting a little bit ahead of and but these are all excellent points. I mean, I've talked about this before. There was an opportunity SB9, um, which allows, you know, for anyone who doesn't know, SB9 allows eligible single family property owners to split their lots and build up to four units total, which is also possible with our existing CSD prior to SB9, if you were to uh apply for a CUP conditional use permit, right? So all this is this is nothing like, you know, earth shattering. It's been happening since prior to the fire. Um, but at the time that this came up prior to the fire, it became the rule of the land for us, SB9, because to your point, there was an opportunity for um towns and cities to exempt out of this by filing for an exemption with their own density plan. You had to just plan and provide that plan for how you plan to achieve that density. And not surprisingly, Pasadena did that. Everyone around Alcedina did it. Sierra Madre did it, La Cagnata did it. Again, not surprisingly, these are all cities, not unincorporated towns, but it happened. Our county did not do this for us. So we have been subjected to and kind of battling with um this uncomfortable relationship with SB9 and the create problems it's created, and having it completely overtake our CSD or our community standards district that was, you know, ratified by the county and took years to create and to create agreement on. Yep. So, you know, this it it is important history to understand and to consider in the landscape of where we are. So, how we found ourselves right now where we are with 1090 is the simple fact that this now came, you know, these products or these projects rather under 1123 were no longer hypothetical or theoretical, but in fact happening as one wood or one developer in particular um has snatched up 12, I think maybe 13 at this point, lots specifically for these 10-unit splits. And the majority, if not all of those, were east of Lake. And some of those neighbors who were actively, you know, rebuilding homes or planning to were shocked because, you know, they didn't realize that this was going to come here in this form. And I think a lot of people were shocked because, you know, again, we're we've kind of had our hands full the last 18 months. Um and this was like, oh my gosh, it's already happening. So it was very much, you know, like the sky is falling, and you had 400 and odd people show up to a town council meeting last month. Um, like, what are you gonna do about it? Everyone knew that that was gonna happen. Bargain and Perez were prepared and we're like, hey, we're gonna, we're going to put forth this legislation, this urgent legislation. It's a gut and amend bill, and we can get into that another time, what that means. Folks can Google it, but it's a bit of a Frankenstein. But it was like, let's get it together and push it forward right now before we go to summer recess. So this got pushed through um after getting some community unity. And that community unity was required because understandably, our true um affordable housing developers are true affordable housing uh advocates, our community land trusts, um, and those who are very much protective of you know generational families in our community who need to be able to build as they would choose on their lot under the current construct, um, which is not a 10-lot split. There's literally no families or individual homeowners or fire survivors doing that. Zero. This is all developers, outside developers. Um, you know, we don't want to hamstring folks from doing what they should be able to do. So very quickly, it was discussed and agreed as, you know, various groups kind of found ways to bridge and come together on this. And that's its own story for another time of how that came to be. But it happened, and everyone agreed that this is how we need to move forward and that, you know, the SB9 splits that allow four four-way splits that either we don't touch SB9 or, you know, we just know that our CSD um needs to be amended if we're going to withhold if we're gonna hold SB9 along with every other housing bill for a period of time. And right now, what's being discussed, what was hoped was five years, what's being discussed is only three years. It's nothing. I think in three years, people will still barely even be getting started. But at least it gives a temporary repeat reprieve from some of this. But um, the goal was to, you know, to do this in a way that's not gonna impact bungalow court, it's not gonna impact any of the housing stock diversity Altadena has always enjoyed and that has always been a fabric of our community, or the density that is responsible, gentle density that comes with a plan that everybody welcomes. We have existing transit corridors, we have precedence for these projects, we have a willingness to have these projects. Like Altadena is largely a Yimby town. Like, yes, in my backyard, we're not a NIMBY town, we're a Yimbi town. So it was like, hey, why are we not looking at? And this again, it takes us back to the fact that we have no plan. Why aren't we looking at Lake, Lincoln, Fair Oaks, segments of Allen, segments of El Molino, places where multifamily housing, apartment buildings already exist and um and mixed use and doing something with that? We have the new Agave building that just went up um that is transitional housing on Lake. We have prior to that, I think it's is it Mirador, Matador, the building that went up on Lake that is specifically um senior um lower income housing or affordable housing. And if the escrow closes, from what I hear, the Webster's complex finally sold. And that also went to an affordable housing developer. No one is opposed to that. Literally no one. What is being met with opposition is this, you know, again, this very haphazard Wild West approach to development that is going to put people in a situation where you have, like, I'll give the extra the um example of Punahu Street or Punahao. I never know. People seem split on how they pronounce it. It's like Altadina, Altadina. I'm Altadina.

Steve 1:03:43

But it's like Tannoble and Tannebal.

Shawna 1:03:45

I know. Well, Tanoble seems like it should definitely be Tanoble, but what do I know? But at least to the ear, it's not a good thing.

SPEAKER_01 1:03:52

Depends on how long you've been here.

Shawna 1:03:53

Exactly. I have no doubt um someone would tell me I'm on the wrong side of that one. But for our sake of our conversation, let's say Puna Who, because a lot of people say Puna Who. Um, there are enough projects on that street that with like a five-way split, a four-way split, that you're talking about a street that if you're familiar with it, it is a very narrow street. It's difficult if cars are parked on both sides of the street to pass. It's already like a one-way lane of traffic. It's very difficult for emergency vehicles to get to that street. You know, if one ever came, it wouldn't be necessarily be able to easily access the street. And you're talking about adding dozens of cars with nowhere to go. So ultimately, a press conference was staged, and I'll share some press links and our show notes for people. Um, as a group of leaders and organizations, including myself, came together. And, you know, as you know, Steve, you participated. We were part of a panel to educate the community on all of these issues that the town council convened, which was fantastic. And um I've been very appreciated, very appreciative of how the town council has jumped in to step up and be supportive on this and um bring community together around this, along with others who are trying to do the same, myself included. Um so it has just been, you know, it's been a very hard, fast process. We were in Sacramento last week for these hearings. Um and folks, it sounds like, you know, hey, we're getting what we want, right? We got this bill, 1090's happening, isn't it great? We had overwhelming community output. People made thousands of calls that sent thousands of letters. We were impossible, we made ourselves impossible to ignore. And again, it sounds like we had a victory because both of these, this bill passed both committees um in Sacramento last week, the um housing committee and then the uh government committee, uh unanimously. So clearly something went right. But at the same time, you have to read the legislation and understand what happened that the full amendment for our affordable housing advocates and our CLTs, that language is not. Finalized, I trust that it will get there. But what came out that was problematic and why I chose ultimately to stand down at Senator Perez's press conference that I was in attendance for and was supposed to stand with our community leaders for, um, was the fact that in the legislation that they pushed through, there has been inserted a 180-day vesting clause language. And what that means, that vesting period, is that even if we got the urgency clause, and an urgency clause would mean that when SB 1090 goes through, which would be in August if it does when it gets signed in, that would be the next hurdle.

Steve 1:06:36

October.

Shawna 1:06:36

That say thank you, October. Well, August is the next hurdle.

Steve 1:06:39

August, October, it would it automatically starts when the governor signs it. Governor signs bills.

Shawna 1:06:46

If you have the urgency clause.

Steve 1:06:48

Yeah, the beginning of October.

Shawna 1:06:50

Correct. But what this would do, this this 180-day vesting language, is give developers a 180-day window separate of that, or even with an urgency clause, to get projects vested, to get kind of get them in under the wire, and they would be allowed to continue and move forward. And as I said in, you know, in Sacramento, um, to anyone who would listen, that is uh it's a death knell for us. I mean, it that is beyond problematic. It sets up a situation that will be even worse than the current scenario because you will have effectively a fire sale on the town as every developer rushes in to try and grandfather in these projects fast. And then it's we're gonna be left.

Steve 1:07:34

Again, assuming they can get the approval, they can't get approval from the county if there's no building around it. So it's tough.

Shawna 1:07:43

I mean, we come back to, and I'm gonna share this because I think it's important for listeners to have this context that it's about um, you know, ultimately, and I'm sorry, I almost got distracted by my own notes of the other bills coming. Um, what was I gonna say, Steve?

Steve 1:08:00

I don't know.

Shawna 1:08:01

There's way too much going on. Way too much going on, and we'll come back. But that, you know, we we ultimately we have an uphill battle to climb, right? It's um we're not there yet. And I think that the community thinks, hey, we did our job. The community is gonna have to really step up its and do its job.

Steve 1:08:17

And that's gonna be by any stress.

Shawna 1:08:19

And that, and it, and we're gonna have to really fight because not everybody who's working on this is working towards the same outcome. A lot of people are willing to just kind of lay down and go, well, this is the best we're gonna get. And I don't think that's real. And I'm but to change it is gonna require significant community pushback. And we're gonna have to figure out, you know, how that happens and how we organize that because it's it's not always an easy thing when so many of our community members um are displaced and we do not have unified communications channels and people don't know where to get info. And um it's really tough. It's a it's a tough situation. Um I don't know about this one, Steve. I don't I don't know what to feel about it. You and I have talked about this quite a bit over the last few weeks, but you know, to me, it's just a band-aid on a sinking ship right now because this also doesn't address um SB 1116, which is the Starter Home Revitalization Act that is coming right down the road. And um you've also got AB 2005 coming down the road, which will enhance SB9 by removing the owner occupancy requirement.

Steve 1:09:27

This is all this is all the this is the problem with California right now, is that we leg that they do politics through legislation. In other words, now everybody's on this affordable housing thing, and every elected wants to have a bill that got through so they can go claim that they did their part for affordable housing. Yeah. The big problem we have right now is in California, a lot of these, look, in the last year, you had 1123 pass, you had 79 SB79 pass, which is the one with the transit quarters that everybody's losing their minds about. But that was supposed to create density in transit quarters within a half a mile or whatever of the transit stop along high density transit areas. You also had the sequel reform that got through. Pause, guys. Seriously, take a breath and let some of this shit play out. Stop trying to add more to it right now because what it is is the developers basically have free reign, and all local zoning has gone out of the yeah, it doesn't matter anymore. The state, what's happening to the city and cali in the county of Los, but the county taking over the city, the state is now taking over the cities and the counties. And the state's basically legislating. We went from NIMBY and nothing happening to now everything can happen all the time with whatever you want to do, and nothing's gonna stop. Yeah, and it's like whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, guys, guys, guys, guys, slow down. Let the reforms that you've created actually start to do their job. And you know, right now, all it's doing is it's it's this they're all solving the same problem. It's all me too bills. If I was in Sacramento, that's what I'd be telling. But you're not solving the single biggest problem that exists, which is what is going to happen in 15 years when all the baby boomers sell. It's a supply distortion. Now you're adding supply to a distorted situation. We're gonna have so much property on the market, and you know how many bankruptcies we're gonna have, Shauna? Because everybody's debt is gonna be fixed to the prices that we're at right now. Yeah. Like this situation is like typical government, nothing and now everything. And it's like nothing, yeah.

Shawna 1:11:36

There's no controls because I mean this themselves. This gets us into this whole, you know, matter of um, you know, the the way that this legislation, how what the legislation was written for, right? It's like people need to understand this term urban infill, right? That the all of these bills were written for urban infill. And what does that mean? Or, you know, every community that is an established, built-up lot community has that lot that has sat undeveloped for years, decades in some cases, right? These bills were written for that. That, you know, when you've got that one-acre lot just sitting empty, let a developer come in and do a 10-unit housing. Great, fine. I don't again, I don't think anyone would be reasonable. Yeah, but we don't really thought it was gonna happen for a fire. But that's what I want to get to, Steve, is that what we are seeing now is that all of these housing bills, all of them, we're just tackling one in this legislation, not all of them were not written as urban planning doctrine. And that's how it's being used, because again, there is no plan for the rebuild. So now it is this haphazard increase in density without a plan for any of it. And I think it's important to understand this key piece, because this was written for urban infill, because of what was in mind when these these bills were developed, there's no off-street parking requirement for any of it. So my girlfriend Kara Vallo, who is Altadino west of Lake, who hosted the press conference that we that the community did on this. This was not one of the elected's press conference that was a separate press conference. And I was saying that I deliberately did not stand up. And instead, I sat in the back as media to ask a question because I wanted it on record about that 180-day vesting language, because it's so critical that someone speak up and speak out about this stuff. Um, if only for receipts, even if it nothing happens, if only for receipts, right? But, you know, the example that when we had our own community press conference that we all spoke at, all of our organizations and town council, and uh, you know, there's just there was Altina Heritage, um, who else? Um, the Altina Tenants Union, the Altina Community Land Trust, you know, myself is beautiful Altadina. Um, and Kara spoke as Altadina West of Lake because we were on her lot. Her lot is um a full acre. It's actually larger than an acre. And it is comprised, it's actually two now that I think about it, it's two acres, but most importantly, it's comprised of three parcels. If Kara were to sell her lot to a developer, that lot would now be able to be built with 30 units. So that lot that is housed her and her partner, Mark, you know, the two people, and prior to them, one woman was a horse property and she had horses there. Um, that would now be 30 units. So let's just conservatively say two cars a place, 60 new cars. Where? How? We didn't have water for the people who live here now. What the heck are we doing? Like we we need to talk about the billions of dollars that we've talked about this so much, all the money that is needed. And we had planned to jump into a conversation today about, you know, talking about the money and where is the money? Um, what's new, what's not, where is it, what's coming, what isn't, you know, because we are in this critical moment. And um, I think we will we'll save this, Steve, and we'll record a second episode um next week to talk about specifically the money, because you know, following the money is is critical. But, you know, this is where we find ourselves right now. We are at this point where, you know, we are literally fighting. We've said this before, like for the soul of the town, but we're fighting for what's left. There, there's not a lot left to salvage, but we're trying to fight for what is left to salvage and continuing to fight for the right for people to want to come home to come home. Because, as you know, we've said repeatedly, it cannot be easier for outside developers to come in and buy up our lots and prop up for-profit housing than it is for a fire survivor to come home and rebuild. And that is our reality right now. That's where we find ourselves right time. It's so I gotta say, for everybody listening, um, it this last month has been so demoralizing and depressing on so many levels that I was sharing with Steve that what I am doing for my mental health right now is working on my inventory. And for anyone who doesn't know what that means, all of us fire survivors, it doesn't matter if you're we're a total loss or you know, or you had a standing home like Steve's, like you lost content. Some people with standing homes lost all their contents. Obviously, those of us whose homes burned down lost every bit of content. You have to document for your insurance, and then whatever insurance doesn't cover that you weren't covered for, you got to document as well for litigation. And if you're a renter who is uninsured or anything, you got a document for FEMA. You have to create a document that includes in detail every single item that was in your home. Good luck with that. It is such an emotionally difficult, traumatic, traumatizing, re-victimizing experience for anyone to have to do this, but we all have to do it. And it's so bad that many people have just given up or have accepted they wouldn't do it. I had to enlist, you know, professional help. I mean, I it was a year that I was like, I can't even face it. Like, I was like, this will break me. This is this is the part of this experience that is gonna break me, is detailing every single item I lost, family, ashes, the just the heirlooms, like just it is so defeating. And what we have been dealing with on the legislative front and what we have been dealing with on the rebuild has been so soul crushing that I have been working on my inventory to escape that, Steve.

Steve 1:17:26

I was like look, I I I'm exhausted. I mean, oh my god. The machine is it's just it's it's overwhelming when they want it to be. They're very good at this. This is what they do. And it's brutal. I'm aware. That's the game.

Shawna 1:17:42

It's absolutely brutal. So, you know, we'll we will continue this. Um, I think next week we'll we'll have another episode just talking about money and our nonprofit ecosystem and what's going on on that front. But I'm gonna close us out today. Um, we are we're long but not too long. I want to close this out with a little uh small biz uh shout out. I'm gonna give it to Highlight Coffee because I don't think I ever got to talk about Frank Kim. Frank Kim is the one who owns um Highlight Coffee and his Lime Espresso Tonic. And if I'm talking about it for a second time, I apologize, but I went through the notes and I don't think I did. To you, I tell you about it. I don't think I talked to you.

Steve 1:18:19

This is the third time.

Shawna 1:18:20

No way. I don't believe you. I'm going to go through the notes. Now maybe I will have to. Maybe I copied and pasted it. But I don't think I ever got it in, even though I wanted to talk about it.

Steve 1:18:34

We always talk about it.

Shawna 1:18:35

I highly recommend people go have it. I also ran into, and I was telling Frank about this when I was in Spain. Um, and for anyone who's interested, I wrote a piece on Substack about what's happening in Portugal in particular with their wildfires and how they're addressing their new fire reality that was kind of interesting. But um, I came across like people were doing their own, obviously, like Europe is doing things that are different and sometimes ahead of us, but um, it was an espresso coffee tonic, but it was being done with milk. And I was like, it was just kind of wild that it was like milk plus that. It was very interesting. But um, I want to remind people that Shant at um Al Tedina Watch is back. Um, I also want to remind people um that Austin Um Scott, who is one of our local muralists who's been doing so many beautiful um murals around town, his latest mural at George's Liquor that got a glow up and it's now George's convenience store, which is next door to Unincorporated Coffee on the corner, and they have that amazing vintage um uh sign. I know I did mention that George's was back, but now George's is getting a gorgeous mural. There are some community painting days people should check out. I'm gonna remind people that we have BA office hours, Wednesdays, 11 to 1 at rotating locations. Find it in our group, find info on our Instagram stories. We share all the time. Um and I also want to say that, you know, as I keep talking about the fact that there's no functional communication systems for Altadena, that everyone's kind of siloed and in these disparate corners, and not everybody's on Instagram or Substack or in a Facebook group or on a mailing list or a listserv or you know, all these things. Um, I've been toying with this, this, I haven't even told you this, Steve, but I've been working on developing a BA alert system that would be either an email opt-in or an SMS text. And I think I might be ready to launch it next week. So let's see when we come back to record this episode if I've gotten it done.

Steve 1:20:23

All right. Well, another thing, another thing Shauna takes on.

Shawna 1:20:29

Because no one else is gonna do it.

Steve 1:20:31

I know, you're the mayor. All right, let's wrap up.

Shawna 1:20:34

I'm fucking tired, is what I am, Steve.

Steve 1:20:36

I know, I am too.

Shawna 1:20:38

So thanks everyone for listening. Um, we will, I think we'll see you next week.

Steve 1:20:43

Yeah, we'll try.

Shawna 1:20:45

We'll we're gonna do our best.

Steve 1:20:47

All right.

Shawna 1:20:47

And I'm sure we'll have news because we've got another community meeting next week on Monday night. So that's right. We'll have things to talk about.

Steve 1:20:53

I'm Steve from the uh Alta Policy Wonk on Substack. And I'm Roman. I'm Shauna from Beautiful.

Shawna 1:21:00

Yep. He's only Steve's. I Steve is only Steve as Alta Policy Wonk on Substack. I'm Shauna Dawson. I am beautiful Altadina. You can find us in our private Facebook groups, you can find us on Substack, you can find us on Instagram, you can find us on um this podcast, and probably something else I'm forgetting because it feels like we're everywhere now and we reach like a million people. Yeah, it's wild. Um, we'll see you soon. All right, bye now.