Fire truck data raises questions over Eaton fire response in Altadena

Fire truck data shows delayed response in west Altadena

Data obtained by The Times has revealed that only one Los Angeles County fire truck was present in west Altadena when the Eaton fire reached the area, where 18 of the 19 fatalities occurred.

According to The Times, 40 county fire trucks were instead concentrated around the Palisades fire, while 64 were deployed to the east side of Altadena and nearby areas.

L.A. County Fire Chief Anthony Marrone told The Times the lack of trucks in west Altadena was likely due to “human error” by decision-makers in the incident command.

Marrone said the command team, based at the Rose Bowl, failed to divide resources evenly between east and west Altadena as the fire developed.

The county has not conducted its own analysis of fire truck locations. Marrone said this work has been assigned to an external organisation.

Residents left without help as fire spread

Residents interviewed by The Times described a night of fighting flames alone while waiting for firefighters who never arrived.

Sofia Vidal, who lost her pet tortoise and her home, told The Times: “We were abandoned. I never heard a siren.”

Vidal added: “Am I grateful for firemen? Not at all. Did they fail me miserably? Absolutely.”

An Altadena-based public interest research firm interviewed over 1,200 residents and found that nearly one in five believed the fire department let the area burn on purpose.

The neighbourhood is a racially diverse part of unincorporated Los Angeles County, historically home to many Black families.

According to The Times, many residents believe their area received less fire protection than whiter, wealthier neighbourhoods near the Palisades.

Incident commanders focused on areas already burning

The Times analysis showed that most county fire trucks remained east of Lake Avenue, which divided east and west Altadena, even as 911 calls from west Altadena increased.

Former fire officials told The Times the unified incident command did not effectively track where the fire was spreading or reposition fire resources based on forecasted spread and 911 data.

One former incident commander said too many trucks were directed toward visible flames rather than areas at risk.

The official told The Times: “It takes leadership and situational awareness to direct that as an incident commander and say, ‘Hey guys, I don’t need you there. I need you to defend homes and evacuation in this other community.’”

County data showed only one patrol vehicle crossed into west Altadena in the first 12 hours of the fire.

Late evacuation orders and delayed fire truck movement

Evacuation orders were not issued for west Altadena until 3:25 a.m. on 8 January, according to The Times, over four hours after flames were reported in the area.

East Altadena received its first evacuation order the evening before, at 6:40 p.m.

Despite multiple 911 calls reporting fire in west Altadena, vehicle locator data showed no county fire trucks responded to the area until several hours later.

By the time evacuation was ordered, The Times reported 17 calls had come from homes west of Lake Avenue.

In many cases, no aid ever arrived. The Times identified multiple victims who died after calling 911, including Anthony Mitchell Sr., a disabled man, and his son.

Multiple blazes strained county resources

The Times reported that county fire crews were already deployed to assist the Los Angeles Fire Department with a blaze in Pacific Palisades earlier in the day.

By evening, over one-third of the county’s fire vehicles were in that area, 40 miles from the later Eaton fire in Altadena.

Chief Marrone told The Times he had 1,800 firefighters available and ordered 50 strike teams that evening, adding about 250 more vehicles.

The fire in Eaton Canyon began at 6:18 p.m., quickly spreading due to hurricane-force winds.

As the fire grew, county resources concentrated in east Altadena, with few vehicles diverted west.

Union head Dave Gillotte told The Times: “We did not have enough people to shift in masses from one area of Altadena to another.”

Questions over incident command responsibility

The unified command included the L.A. County Fire Department, U.S. Forest Service, Sheriff’s Department and other agencies.

Marrone told The Times he believed responsibility for west Altadena was shared and said: “I’m not going to allow L.A. County Fire or the men and women of my department to take this on the chin.”

Marrone added that the department did not track trucks from other agencies and that GPS data provided only a partial picture of the response.

The Times noted that many vehicles from outside agencies were not included in the data set.

Some residents, however, said they did not see fire trucks in their neighbourhoods until long after the damage was done.

Sylvie Andrews, who returned home at 11 a.m. on 8 January, told The Times: “It was fightable, and they were not fighting at all.”

Fire truck data raises questions over Eaton fire response in Altadena: Summary

Only one county fire truck was in west Altadena during the peak of the Eaton fire.

Vehicle locator data were obtained by The Times via a public records request.

The data show most trucks remained in east Altadena or at the Palisades fire.

Eighteen of the 19 fatalities occurred in west Altadena.

Residents reported no firefighter presence and delayed evacuation orders.

Chief Anthony Marrone cited “human error” in resource allocation.

Unified command was based at the Rose Bowl and included multiple agencies.

The county has hired McChrystal Group to review evacuation decisions.

The Fire Safety Research Institute will conduct an independent response review.

Some fire leaders defended the focus on areas with trapped residents.

Other officials questioned why resources weren’t redeployed to growing fires.

Many 911 calls from west Altadena were not answered by county trucks.

Residents are questioning whether their area received adequate protection.

The Times analysis does not include vehicles from all responding agencies.

Los Angeles fires: FEMA and Army Corps skip soil testing after wildfires

Testing gaps raise concern over toxic soil at post-wildfire sites

The Los Angeles Times has reported that federal and state disaster agencies did not conduct soil testing for toxic substances following the Eaton and Palisades fires in Los Angeles County.

According to the report, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Army Corps of Engineers only removed ash and six inches of topsoil but declined to test for contamination, leaving homeowners with the choice to fund testing themselves or rebuild without knowing the safety of their land.

To investigate the potential risk, The Los Angeles Times independently tested soil samples from 40 sites using methodology consistent with previous state-run wildfire testing efforts.

The Times reported that several tested properties showed elevated levels of lead, arsenic and mercury, including federal contractor-cleared sites that exceeded California’s health standards for residential soil.

Findings reveal elevated toxins on remediated and surviving properties

The Los Angeles Times reported that two of ten remediated homes in Altadena still had levels of lead above California benchmarks.

The investigation also found high metal concentrations in soil at three standing homes near the Eaton fire, which had not received any federal clean-up.

The newspaper stated that its findings were the first concrete evidence that current federal clean-up operations may leave behind harmful contamination in residential areas.

Data from prior wildfires suggest this is not an isolated incident. According to the state, roughly 20% of properties require deeper soil removal after the first excavation.

Government response and oversight questioned

FEMA has said its current policy is to fund removal of up to 6 inches of topsoil but not to perform testing unless there is an immediate hazard.

According to the Los Angeles Times, FEMA administrator Robert Fenton cited a 2019 Environmental Protection Agency letter in defence of the agency’s policy, though the letter did not address newer data showing contamination beyond the surface layer.

The California Office of Emergency Services and the city of Los Angeles have not committed to funding additional testing.

Only Los Angeles County has arranged for some sampling, which it said was for general understanding rather than informing individual homeowners.

Rachel Morello-Frosch, environmental health scientist at UC Berkeley, told the Times: “The decision not to test and not to gather evidence of potential high-level exposures… perpetuates inequities in post-recovery.”

Property owners face rebuilding challenges without clarity on contamination

The Times reported that most affected residents have no clear guidance or support for ensuring their property is free from toxins.

Homeowner Lupe Sanchez of Altadena said soil tests showed lead levels more than three times the state’s safety threshold on her lot, even after federal clean-up.

“I’m trying to negotiate with my insurance company,” Sanchez told the Times. “Nothing’s being taken care of.”

Construction firms like Dolan Design & Build have begun rebuilding on properties without confirmed clean soil, and told the Times that testing all affected sites would cause delays.

Meanwhile, academic researchers and local experts are developing independent recommendations for residents on how to mitigate risk, such as adding clean topsoil or planting grass to reduce dust.

Los Angeles fires: FEMA and Army Corps skip soil testing after wildfires: Summary

The Los Angeles Times has reported that FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers did not test soil for toxic substances after the Eaton and Palisades fires in Los Angeles County.

Instead, the agencies removed fire debris and six inches of topsoil without conducting further contamination analysis.

The Times independently tested soil at 40 locations and found elevated levels of arsenic, lead and mercury on both remediated and surviving properties.

Two cleared properties in Altadena had lead levels above California safety standards.

Three surviving homes near the Eaton fire also showed high metal content.

FEMA stated it is not responsible for meeting state health standards and only funds removal where there is an immediate threat.

The California state government and city of Los Angeles have not stepped in to cover testing costs.

Los Angeles County arranged some sampling but said it would not inform homeowners individually.

Experts say the failure to test perpetuates environmental health risks and inequality.

Homeowners face the burden of paying for soil testing or rebuilding on potentially contaminated land.

Local researchers advise measures such as adding clean soil or using mulch to reduce exposure.

Construction is proceeding without mandated soil tests, leaving some residents uncertain about safety.

FEMA made an exception for deeper testing in Hawaii in 2023, but not in Los Angeles.

Environmental and fire experts say this situation has national implications for disaster recovery policy.

LA wildfires: LADWP equipment under investigation as Project Recovery proposes rebuild strategy

Investigations ongoing into LADWP role in Palisades Fire

A power line operated by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) was active when the Palisades Fire began in January 2025, but authorities have not found evidence linking the utility’s equipment to the blaze according to new reports.

As reported by Reuters, the fire, which started on 7 January, has become one of the most destructive wildfires in recent US history.

The transmission line near the hills where the fire began has drawn attention due to a complaint filed last week alleging it contributed to subsequent spot fires.

The complaint states that the LADWP system may have sparked additional fires at around 10:30pm  on the same day, nearly 12 hours after the initial blaze.

LADWP said it had manually shut off the power line at 2:30pm, prior to the alleged spot fires.

Federal authorities have not linked LADWP to fire ignition

The US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is leading the investigation into the fire’s cause.

LADWP spokesperson Ellen Cheng said there is no indication that its facilities were responsible.

Cheng said: “Neither the ATF nor any other investigating authority has indicated that LADWP facilities were involved in the ignition of the Palisades Fire.”

She added: “The ATF examined LADWP’s overhead facilities in the area and did not ask LADWP to preserve any of them.”

LADWP is also facing legal challenges related to how it managed water supplies during firefighting efforts.

These lawsuits are ongoing.

Multiple wildfires began within hours on 7 January

The Palisades Fire was one of several fires that broke out on 7 January across Southern California.

These included the Eaton Fire, for which Southern California Edison is facing lawsuits over claims its equipment caused the blaze.

Reuters reported that the fires evolved into the largest group of wildfires in recent state history, with major damage reported in areas such as Pacific Palisades, Malibu and Altadena.

Investigations into the origin and contributing factors behind these fires are continuing.

Academics release Project Recovery to support fire-hit areas

As reported by the LA Times, a new 172-page report titled “Project Recovery” has been published to assist with rebuilding efforts in Los Angeles County following the January wildfires.

The report was produced by academics from the University of Southern California and University of California Los Angeles, along with the Urban Land Institute’s Los Angeles chapter.

It identifies issues and offers strategic solutions to speed up recovery.

Lew Horne, who chaired the project, said: “We want to make sure that we’re moving as quickly as possible to try to get people back into their homes.”

Report proposes changes to construction approvals and permitting

The authors recommend simplifying the construction permitting process through a self-certification system.

Under this approach, qualified professionals would certify building plans as compliant, allowing applications to proceed faster.

The report also advises consolidating departmental reviews under a single project permit coordinator to avoid delays caused by sequential checks from separate city departments.

Horne said the process could be reduced: “We think that you could take a one-year entitlement program and knock it down to 30 days.”

Call for standardised debris removal and soil clearance checks

Project Recovery identifies inconsistencies in how debris is being removed.

According to the report, different standards are being applied depending on whether contractors are hired privately or through the Army Corps of Engineers.

The authors recommend a uniform debris removal protocol.

They also propose linking a certificate of soil clearance to the building permit file for each site as a record that environmental standards have been met.

These measures are intended to ensure both safety and administrative transparency during rebuilding.

Proposal for on-site logistics centres in fire zones

To manage rebuilding demands, the report suggests establishing on-site logistics centres in wildfire-affected areas.

These hubs would coordinate permit processing, workforce accommodation and material delivery.

Each centre would be capable of managing up to 2,000 residences and support construction teams of up to 40,000 workers.

The centres would also include offices for inspection teams and tools for scheduling site visits.

Infrastructure and utility restoration would be coordinated through the same centres to support efficient reconstruction.

Recommendations to stabilise property insurance in fire-prone areas

The report addresses the insurance challenges faced by homeowners who lost property in the fires.

Economist Stuart Gabriel from UCLA said: “These wildfire disasters are a very thick coat of icing on an insurance crisis cake.”

Among the recommendations: insurers should consider home hardening measures and fire mitigation when setting premiums.

The report also calls for a public-private reinsurance scheme to support the availability of coverage in high-risk areas.

Additional proposals include factoring in forest management practices during underwriting and expanding funding for controlled burns and fuel reduction.

Community-led rebuilding and coordination proposed

The report suggests creating local rebuilding authorities with independent oversight but operational control.

These bodies would coordinate planning, inspections and financial support.

A financial aid fund is recommended to help property owners close gaps in reconstruction costs.

A proposed consortium of builders would offer complete rebuild solutions to residents who prefer not to manage the process themselves.

USC economist Richard Green said community input is essential: “If they feel like it’s being imposed upon them, that would not go anywhere.”

LA wildfires: LADWP equipment under investigation as Project Recovery proposes rebuild strategy: Summary

A power line owned by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power was operational when the Palisades Fire began on 7 January.

A new complaint claims it contributed to secondary fires.

LADWP said the line was shut down before those fires started.

Federal investigators have not linked LADWP’s infrastructure to the blaze.

LADWP also faces legal action over water management during firefighting.

Southern California Edison is being sued in connection with the Eaton Fire.

A new report titled “Project Recovery” has been released by academics and urban planning experts.

It includes recommendations for rebuilding Los Angeles County neighbourhoods affected by the January wildfires.

Suggestions include permit self-certification, on-site logistics centres, and standardised debris removal protocols.

The report calls for stabilisation of the insurance market and the creation of local rebuilding authorities.

The findings have been submitted to city and county staff.