[Rendering courtesy Pasadena Unified]

The district’s project page says construction could start as soon as late 2026 with homes ready as early as late 2028; the board’s Sept. 10 actions followed a $24.5 million round of cuts

Pasadena Unified will hold an open house Sept. 22 on the 110-unit employee housing planned for the Roosevelt campus, the district said Friday, days after its board certified 2025-26 finances and sought a classroom-spending waiver. 

The drop-in session runs 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. Tuesday, Sept. 22, in the Arroyo Room at Brookside Golf Club, 1133 Rosemont Ave., with project team members answering questions and no formal presentation, according to the district’s Sept. 11 update. The district’s project page says construction could begin as soon as the fourth quarter of 2026, take about 24 months and deliver homes as early as the fourth quarter of 2028. 

The project on the roughly five-acre former Roosevelt Elementary site at 315 N. Pasadena Ave. would provide approximately 110 rental units for teachers and staff in a mix of apartments and townhomes, all at below-market rents, with half reserved as affordable housing for income-qualifying employees, the project page says. About 30% would be one-bedroom units, 40% two-bedroom and 30% three- and four-bedroom. The district is using state housing streamlining laws while the city’s review continues.

“This is the PUSD’s first housing endeavor, and the Board believes that this is a necessity to recruit and retain quality employees and thereby improve the quality of education for PUSD students,” the project page says. 

The district issued a design-build solicitation in mid-May with a June deadline, estimating construction at $82 million to $85 million for 80 apartments and 30 townhomes in a Spanish Revival design, according to the solicitation, to be paid for with the Measure O and Measure R bonds. The City Council voted unanimously in June to deny landmark status for the old school building, and the project was set for a preliminary consultation before the city’s Design Commission in August on waivers for setbacks, height, open space and parking; the project must still return for consolidated design review and building permits.

Blanco said at a July 2025 open house that more than 120 district employees had lost their homes in the Eaton Fire.

The district’s first open house on the project, held in July 2025 in the same Arroyo Room, drew nearly 100 people.

The Sept. 22 session follows a Sept. 10 special meeting at which the Board of Education approved the district’s 2025-26 Unaudited Actuals Report and certified the figures for filing with the Los Angeles County Office of Education. The district said Friday that it begins the year in a stronger fiscal position after $30 million in reductions and savings, with deficit spending significantly reduced and the required 3% reserves maintained for the next three years, and that fire insurance proceeds are one-time funds dedicated to Eaton Fire recovery. 

The unaudited figures show general fund revenues of $315 million and expenditures of $342.2 million, with $164.7 million in insurance revenue recorded separately and the fund balance rising from $148 million to $284 million. Expenditures came in $52.1 million below the district’s estimates; excluding fire-related revenue and spending, the unrestricted general fund ended the year at $37.7 million, down $3.6 million. 

The board also approved a request for a waiver from a state classroom-compensation requirement, an exemption the district said is based on total expenditures that ran higher because of fire recovery, since the state formula has no mechanism to exclude those costs. State law requires unified districts to spend at least 55% of their current expense of education on classroom teacher and aide salaries; the district’s unaudited 2025-26 figure was 50.52%, a shortfall of $11.4 million on a current expense of $254.5 million, according to the board report. The district paid $15.9 million in fire-related expenditures and $3 million from one-time state funds during the year; without those costs, the figure would have been 54.57%. The application cites serious hardship, with Board President Tina Fredericks as the authorized official.

The board approved a Fiscal Stabilization Plan on Nov. 20, 2025, with more than $24.5 million in cuts aimed at heading off a potential county takeover; with grants and revenue generation, the plan reduces the 2026-27 budget by $30.5 million.

At the Sept. 10 meeting the board also set revised Gann appropriation limits, designated representatives to seek federal and state disaster assistance, and approved an agreement with the city for use of the Allendale Park baseball field. In closed session it took no reportable action on two pending cases, including the district’s own suit against the City of Pasadena, Case No. 26STCP02735.

The board’s next regular meeting is Thursday, Sept. 24, at 5 p.m. in the Elbie J. Hickambottom Board Room, Room 236, at 351 S. Hudson Ave. 

Superintendent Elizabeth Blanco opened Friday’s update by marking the 25th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, writing that students were reflecting on the day through learning activities. “In difficult times, the strength of our community is the Power of Us, helping us care for others, face challenges, and move forward together with understanding and hope,” she wrote. 

Tuesday, Sept. 22, 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. Arroyo Room, Brookside Golf Club, 1133 Rosemont Ave., Pasadena.

From left, 4th District Supervisor Janice Hahn, 1st District Supervisor Hilda L. Solis, 3rd District Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, 5th District Supervisor Kathryn Barger and 2nd District Supervisor Holly Mitchell. [David Franco / Board of Supervisors]

The Board’s Sept. 15 agenda also carries a $20 million malpractice settlement, a motion to name deputy gangs in the Sheriff’s Department and a plan to implement the Hug Act in juvenile facilities

Los Angeles County supervisors meet Tuesday, Sept. 15, with an Altadena sewer easement vacation and renewals of Eaton Fire emergency contracting authority on the posted agenda, and the county’s new recovery review set for discussion.

The 9:30 a.m. meeting in Board Hearing Room 381B at the Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration, 500 W. Temple St., is the Board’s first since its Sept. 8 session was cancelled, and the agenda posted Sept. 9 runs from a $20 million medical malpractice settlement to a motion to name deputy gangs inside the Sheriff’s Department.

Additions were posted on a supplemental agenda, which the Board’s Executive Office announced Friday, are taken up under a separate item.

The Altadena item, from the Department of Public Works, asks the Board to adopt a resolution vacating a sanitary sewer easement south of Loma Alta Drive and east of Dabney Street in the unincorporated community, after finding the easement is excess, no longer needed for public use and free of other public facilities. It is listed for adoption in Supervisorial District 5.

Two items ask the Board to find that the January 2025 windstorm and fire events, including the Eaton Fire, still constitute an emergency under Public Contract Code Section 22050 and to keep the Internal Services and Public Works directors’ delegated authority to award, extend and supplement contracts for response and recovery without competitive bids. Each requires four votes. The Board is also asked to continue its local emergency declarations, including the fire emergency proclaimed Jan. 7, 2025 and ratified Jan. 14, 2025.

The county said in a news release Friday that its second independent after-action review of the Eaton and Palisades fires, a McChrystal Group study of recovery and repopulation with 26 findings and 25 recommendations, is scheduled for discussion at the meeting. The supplemental agenda lists it as a report and presentation by the firm.

Supervisor Holly Mitchell’s motion on the Sheriff’s Department would ask the Sheriff, with County Counsel, the interim Inspector General and the Civilian Oversight Commission’s executive director, to develop within 120 days a framework for identifying and naming deputy gangs, cliques and secret subgroups, to publicly identify them without requiring criminal charges or convictions, and to build a public online reporting system. It would direct the Inspector General to inspect stations, custody facilities and specialized units and inventory any unofficial insignia within 90 days, and it asks for reports on bargaining obligations, liability and options if the department does not comply.

A motion by Supervisors Janice Hahn and Mitchell would implement Assembly Bill 1646, the Hug Act, by instructing the Chief Probation Officer to eliminate the requirement that contact visits at juvenile facilities receive prior approval, with the new policy in place by Jan. 1, 2027, to ramp up in-person contact visits through the rest of this calendar year, and to report back in 60 days and then in two six-month reports.

An 11 a.m. set matter brings a report on implementation of the new Department of Homeless Services and Housing, listed to receive and file, though Supervisor Hilda Solis has asked on the supplemental agenda that it be continued one week to Sept. 22.

Among administrative matters, County Counsel recommends a $20 million settlement of Tyler Amezquita Aispuro, et al. v. County of Los Angeles, a medical malpractice case over injury to a newborn during delivery at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center. A Probation Department contract with Securus for electronic monitoring, estimated at $35 million over five years beginning Nov. 1, 2026, returns after being continued from Aug. 4, Aug. 11 and Sept. 1. The Board is asked to approve 2027 medical, dental, life and disability rates for county-sponsored employee plans. The Chief Executive Officer asks that the State of Black Los Angeles County report be continued to Oct. 20, and the Chief Probation Officer asks that the Probation status report be continued to Oct. 20.

The appointments item includes several seats on the Measure ER Citizens’ Oversight Advisory Committee. In closed session, County Counsel asks that four existing cases be continued to Oct. 20 and that two anticipated-litigation matters be continued, one to Sept. 22 and one to Oct. 20; the Board also meets with its labor negotiators on talks with the Coalition of County Unions, SEIU Local 721 and other employee organizations.

Residents who want to address the Board can register at publiccomment.lacounty.gov beginning at 9 a.m. Tuesday and call (213) 444-2600, or submit written comment at publiccomment.bos.lacounty.gov. The meeting streams at bos.lacounty.gov and is televised Wednesday, Sept. 16, at 11 p.m. on KLCS.

Tuesday, Sept. 15, 9:30 a.m. Board Hearing Room 381B, Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration, 500 W. Temple St., Los Angeles. The meeting is open to the public. For more call (213) 974-1411 or visit bos.lacounty.gov.

H.R. 5366, signed Friday, applies to payments received in tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2025

Local residents who receive compensation for Eaton Fire losses, including qualifying payments from Southern California Edison, may exclude those amounts from their federal taxable income under a law President Donald Trump signed Friday.

The measure, H.R. 5366, is titled the Doug LaMalfa Federal Disaster Tax Relief Certainty Act. 

The exclusion is not unlimited. Under the law, a qualifying payment must be received by or on behalf of an individual, must compensate covered losses, expenses or damages resulting from a qualifying wildfire disaster, and is excluded only to the extent that insurance or another source did not already compensate the same loss. 

The new provision, added to the Internal Revenue Code by Section 3 of the act as Section 139M, applies to payments received in taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2025. The underlying fire must be a federally declared disaster resulting from a forest or range fire, declared after Dec. 31, 2014, and before Jan. 1, 2027. 

The Eaton Fire falls inside that window. FEMA records show the incident period for the Los Angeles County wildfires and straight-line winds began Jan. 7, 2025, and that the president issued California major-disaster declaration DR-4856 on Jan. 8, 2025. FEMA designated Los Angeles County, which includes Altadena, for Individual Assistance under that declaration. 

What the law covers 

Section 139M lists the categories of compensation that may be excluded from federal gross income: additional living expenses; qualifying lost wages, except wages paid by the employer that otherwise would have paid them; personal injury; death; and emotional distress. 

The law also contains an anti-double-benefit rule. A taxpayer may not claim a deduction or credit for an expenditure to the extent the related payment is excluded under Section 139M, and an excluded payment cannot increase the basis or adjusted basis of related property. 

A second part of the law changes how disaster casualty losses are deducted. Section 2 of the act amends Internal Revenue Code Sections 165(h) and 63(b), adding a special rule for “qualified net disaster losses.” A qualified disaster area under that section must be covered by a presidential major-disaster declaration issued under Section 401 of the Stafford Act, and the disaster’s incident period must have begun on or after Dec. 28, 2019, and before Jan. 1, 2027. 

According to House Report 119-605 and the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate, qualified disaster-related personal casualty losses are subject to a $500-per-casualty floor and are not reduced by the usual 10% of adjusted gross income threshold. The deduction is available to eligible taxpayers who do not itemize. Those casualty-loss changes apply to taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2024, and supersede specified earlier casualty-loss provisions for the same period.

The Federal Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2023 became Public Law 118-148 on Dec. 12, 2024, and excluded qualifying wildfire relief payments received in tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2019, and before Jan. 1, 2026. The Internal Revenue Service summarized that earlier window as payments received from Jan. 1, 2020, through Dec. 31, 2025, for qualifying fires declared federal disasters in 2015 or later. 

Public Law 119-21, enacted July 4, 2025, further extended special casualty-loss treatment, but those rules still carried timing limitations. H.R. 5366 replaced those post-2024 casualty provisions with the simpler incident-period test. 

Local application and open questions 

Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif., whose district includes Altadena and Pasadena, is a member of the House Ways and Means Committee and supported the measure. In a statement issued by her office after House passage, Chu said,”Survivors deserve the full amount of their settlements so they can rebuild their homes, restore their lives, and recover from the devastation they have endured.” 

Chu’s office said Sept. 12 that the law covers qualifying Eaton Fire settlement payments regardless of when they are received, subject to the statute’s post-2025 effective date and all eligibility language. 

Committee explanatory material uses the same “regardless of when received” phrasing. The operative effective-date clause in the enacted text, however, begins with payments received in taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2025. For otherwise qualifying payments received in those years, the enacted text sets no later receipt deadline. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who cosponsored the Senate companion bill, said in a September 2025 announcement about that original measure that relief would extend to payments through 2030; the Ways and Means substitute adopted in March 2026 removed the receipt-date limit. 

During House floor debate, Rep. Vince Fong, R-Calif., described the bill as excluding recovery payments “through 2032.” That figure does not match the enacted text, which is keyed to payments in tax years after 2025 and to disasters declared before 2027 rather than to a 2032 payment cutoff. 

Several questions remain unresolved for Altadena claimants. 

The statute’s use of the word “individual” leaves open how claims submitted by businesses, partnerships, corporations, estates or certain trusts will be treated. 

The enacted text does not specifically resolve the treatment of attorney fees, punitive damages, prejudgment interest, business-entity claims, trust characterization or mixed settlement allocations. Records allocating settlement components and documenting insurance or other reimbursements will be material. 

The act governs federal income tax. California conformity to the new provisions has not been established, and the federal exclusion does not itself establish California income-tax treatment.

Existing Internal Revenue Service guidance is also out of date. The IRS wildfire relief payments and casualty losses frequently asked questions, published Nov. 3, 2025, describes the earlier law’s Dec. 31, 2025, payment cutoff and predates the September 2026 enactment by more than 10 months. 

Legislative path 

Rep. W. Gregory Steube, R-Fla., introduced H.R. 5366 on Sept. 15, 2025, under the short title Federal Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2025. The three original cosponsors were Reps. Mike Thompson, D-Calif.; Doug LaMalfa, R-Calif.; and Jimmy Panetta, D-Calif. Congress.gov’s cosponsor record lists 14 current cosponsors. 

Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., the Ways and Means chairman, offered the substitute amendment in committee and later moved House passage under suspension of the rules. The substitute renamed the measure for LaMalfa, who died in January 2026 at age 65. 

The committee adopted the substitute by voice vote on March 25, 2026, and ordered the amended bill favorably reported 43-0. House Report 119-605 was filed April 9, 2026. 

The House passed the bill April 27, 2026, under suspension of the rules by voice vote. The 43-0 tally was the committee vote, not the floor vote. The Senate discharged the Finance Committee and passed the bill without amendment by unanimous consent on Aug. 7, 2026, with no individual roll-call vote. The Senate companion, S. 2744, introduced by Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., on Sept. 9, 2025, remained at the introduced stage; H.R. 5366 was the vehicle enacted. 

During House debate, Smith said the measure “appropriately extends an existing provision within the law that allows taxpayers to deduct personal casualty losses stemming from a natural disaster while also excluding wildfire disaster relief payments from taxable income.” 

Steube said the legislation “provides certainty to disaster victims by extending and codifying commonsense tax relief for Americans impacted by federally declared disasters.” Thompson said, “People who lost everything should not have to come to Washington, D.C., to fight for relief.” 

Panetta, describing the second principal component of the bill, said it “would exempt fire settlements from taxation to avoid devastating tax bills on wildfire victims.” 

Fong said,”After these disasters strike in our community, survivors shouldn’t have to worry about burdensome Federal taxes as they work to recover and rebuild.” 

Rep. Jill Tokuda, D-Hawaii, said during the same debate,”Doug believed recovery should not come with a tax bill, and the Doug LaMalfa Federal Disaster Tax Relief Certainty Act makes sure of that.”

After the Senate vote, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who requested the unanimous consent to discharge the Finance Committee and pass the bill, said that when a person loses a home in a wildfire,”the last thing you ought to be worried about is being hit by a massive tax bill.” 

Cost and claims data 

The Congressional Budget Office, incorporating the Joint Committee on Taxation’s revenue estimate, projected the measure would reduce federal revenues by $408 million over fiscal years 2026 through 2036 — $77 million attributable to the casualty-loss provisions and $331 million to the wildfire-payment exclusion. CBO estimated no direct-spending outlays and less than $500,000 in IRS administrative costs over fiscal 2026 through 2031, subject to appropriations. CBO noted uncertainty over how many taxpayers would claim the deductions or exclusions and in what amounts. 

That estimate, dated April 21, 2026, assumed enactment by April 30, 2026. Enactment occurred Sept. 11. The figures are projected federal revenue reductions, not projected payments to Eaton Fire survivors. 

The exclusion reaches qualifying payments received in 2026 and later, while Southern California Edison’s direct compensation program is operating and consolidated civil litigation over the fire moves toward trial.

Southern California Edison operates a voluntary Eaton Fire Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program. In a news release dated Aug. 28, 2026, the utility reported it had received more than 4,450 claims covering more than 13,600 individuals, trusts and legal entities; had extended more than 2,500 offers to nearly 6,300 claimants totaling more than $860 million; and had paid more than 3,100 claimants more than $460 million. The company said its program deadline was Nov. 30, 2026, and that participation before acceptance of an offer does not itself waive a claimant’s rights, though acceptance ultimately requires settlement conditions. 

Those claim, offer and payment figures are the company’s own reported program data. Independent confirmation would require audit or discovery. 

The company’s count of individuals, trusts and legal entities does not establish the population eligible for the federal exclusion, which applies to amounts received by or on behalf of an individual. 

SCE media relations can be reached at 626-302-2255 or news@sce.com. Chu’s Pasadena office is at 527 S. Lake Ave., Suite 250, and can be reached at 626-304-0110.

Organizers say four funding entities will work on site with an estimated 200 underinsured homeowners and that recovery funding has been allocated for more than 100 residences

A displaced Altadena church and its rebuilding partners are set to launch a centralized recovery platform Sunday and connect underinsured Eaton Fire homeowners with funding and legal help, less than three weeks before a disaster case-management program that survivor advocates say serves more than 1,500 people is scheduled to shut down.

LIFT International Church, an Altadena congregation displaced by the January 2025 Eaton Fire, is hosting the event, which organizers call “Come Back Home.”

The planned two-hour press conference and community gathering is scheduled for 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Sunday at Westminster Presbyterian Church, 1757 N. Lake Ave., near the Pasadena-Altadena boundary.

Organizers say the initiative targets the financial, administrative and technical barriers that continue to keep Eaton Fire households from rebuilding. Four funding entities are expected to work on site with at least 200 underinsured homeowners. Disaster-recovery funding has reportedly been allocated for more than 100 residences. More than 160 families previously supported by LIFT were invited, organizers said.

Organizers also say partner groups will launch a centralized platform linking survivors to state and municipal resources and grants that they now must track across multiple agencies and organizations.

Advertised services include gap-assistance grants, guidance on legal filing deadlines, consultations and pro bono referrals through the Altadena CDC’s ALLY platform, which is separate from the new centralized platform.

The event comes as the federally funded Disaster Case Management Program was scheduled to end Sept. 30. The state has said the closure is the result of FEMA not providing required funding. One local coalition said roughly 109 positions and more than 1,500 survivor case-management relationships are at risk.

Rebuilding in Altadena remains uneven. County data reported Sept. 8 showed that more than 2,300 of 5,858 Altadena parcels where homes were destroyed — about 40% — had no rebuilding application on file. The same data showed 1,535 single-family homes under construction and 140 residential parcels with a completed single-family home or accessory dwelling unit.

The press conference portion is expected to address recovery and advocacy. Joy Chen, executive director of Every Fire Survivor’s Network — formerly the Eaton Fire Survivors Network, which says it now serves more than 10,000 fire survivors and allies — is scheduled to discuss what survivor groups describe as legislative gains.

The gathering follows federal disaster-tax legislation signed Sept. 11. President Donald Trump signed H.R. 5366, the Doug LaMalfa Federal Disaster Tax Relief Certainty Act, which codifies and extends an exclusion from gross income for qualifying wildfire-relief payments and addresses disaster casualty-loss rules. How the law applies to any individual settlement is a question for tax advisers.

Several state measures have passed the Legislature but are not yet law. AB 1795, the Smoke Damage Recovery Act, passed and was awaiting the governor as of Sept. 1, according to a California Department of Insurance release. Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, D-Pasadena, said in an official release that SB 742, SB 877, SB 878, SB 1090, SB 1098 and other measures had reached Gov. Gavin Newsom by Sept. 1. The governor had until Sept. 30 to sign or veto them.

SB 492 did not pass. The measure, authored by Sen. Josh Becker, was introduced in February 2025 as a youth-housing bond act, and the Senate passed that earlier version 30-9 on Jan. 27. It was amended Aug. 29 into a wildfire package and ordered to third reading Aug. 30. The Assembly did not vote on the final text during a Sept. 1 voting window that followed the ordinary Aug. 31 passage deadline, and the bill died without reaching the governor.

Announced participants in Sunday’s gathering include Every Fire Survivor’s Network, Samaritan’s Purse, Hope Crisis Response Network, Mennonite Disaster Service, HPP Cares and San Gabriel Valley Habitat for Humanity.

Pastor Anthony McFarland, an announced co-host who lost his home in the fire, according to organizers, founded the church with Micheline McFarland in 2000, when it was known as Abundant Harvest Christian Center, LIFT says. The church says it opened a crisis center after the fire providing food, clothing, toiletries and counseling.

The cause of the fire has not been finally adjudicated.

[photo credit: Supervisor Kathryn Barger]

The McChrystal Group study covers the county’s recovery and repopulation work in Altadena from Jan. 7 through March 31, 2025, and carries 25 recommendations. It leaves the fire’s cause, its behavior and the initial suppression effort to other reviews

Los Angeles County on Friday, Sept. 11, released its second independent after-action review of the Eaton and Palisades fires, a McChrystal Group study of recovery and repopulation after the Altadena disaster, with 26 findings and 25 recommendations.

The review covers Jan. 7 through March 31, 2025, and the county says it focuses on short-term recovery and repopulation rather than the fire’s cause and ignition, its behavior or the initial suppression effort. The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to discuss the findings and recommendations at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday, Sept. 15, and the full report, a findings and recommendations document and a set of frequently asked questions are posted at lacounty.gov/aar.

The findings are grouped into six areas, according to the county’s announcement: communications; volunteer and donations management; recovery; repopulation; shelter, housing and people at higher risk; and public health and access and functional needs. The county describes the 25 recommendations as actionable steps to strengthen its systems, plans and readiness for future disasters.

The county has said the second study would examine coordination of services, debris removal, strategic communications, repopulation notification and procedures, and best practices for recovery and repopulation, on a projected nine-month timeline. The Board of Supervisors ordered it on March 18, 2025, approving a motion by Supervisor Lindsey Horvath and Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who was board chair at the time and whose district includes Altadena, to hire an outside expert for the work.

“Disaster readiness is rooted in learning from past emergencies and acting on those lessons,” Barger said when the motion passed.

The county gathered resident input for the review through a public survey that ran from March 11 to April 24 and was open to people who evacuated, lost property, used shelters, sought debris removal or recovery services, have access and functional needs, sought information about someone in county custody, were unhoused when the fires began or tried to volunteer or donate. The Eaton Fire burned 14,021 acres and destroyed 9,414 structures in Altadena and surrounding communities, including parts of Pasadena; the Palisades Fire burned 23,448 acres and destroyed 6,837 more. Eighteen of the 19 deaths confirmed in the Eaton Fire occurred west of Lake Avenue, in the part of Altadena that did not receive evacuation orders until after 3 a.m. on Jan. 8, 2025, according to the county’s first after-action review.

The firm’s first review, released Sept. 25, 2025, examined alert notification systems and evacuation policies. It found no “single point of failure” but a series of weaknesses it described as “outdated policies, inconsistent practices and communications vulnerabilities,” the county said; the McChrystal Group interviewed 147 participants and held six community listening sessions to produce it. The county said at the time that the January 2025 fires claimed 31 lives and destroyed 16,251 properties in Altadena and Pacific Palisades, along with parts of Los Angeles, Pasadena, Sierra Madre and Malibu.

“Survivors of the Eaton Fire deserve answers, and today’s report is an important step toward delivering them,” Barger said when the first review was released.

That review drew sharp criticism. Rep. Judy Chu, whose district includes Pasadena and the Eaton Fire area, called it “disturbing, raising more questions than it answers.” The group Altadena for Accountability called on the state attorney general to investigate the county’s response, and survivor Shawna Dawson Beer called the report “PR spin,” NBC Los Angeles reported. When supervisors took up the first review on Sept. 30, 2025, they voted to act on the county’s Office of Emergency Management, which the report said had a staff of 37 and no operating budget, compared with 43 in San Diego County and more than 200 in New York City, LAist reported.

The county’s contract with the McChrystal Group for the first report was about $1.9 million, according to County Counsel, which declined to release draft versions of the report, citing attorney-client and work-product privilege. Separately, a Fire Department-commissioned investigation by Citygate Associates, released May 18, examined evacuation decisions in West Altadena between 9 p.m. Jan. 7 and 6 a.m. Jan. 8, 2025, and concluded that Unified Command acted appropriately amid conditions that grounded aircraft. The county has posted two implementation updates on the first review’s recommendations, dated Dec. 15, 2025 and Aug. 3.

The Sept. 15 Board of Supervisors meeting can be streamed at bos.lacounty.gov.

Pasadena Assemblymember John Harabedian

Union president Dave Regan denies the assault allegation detailed in union-commissioned investigations; his union calls the reports a politically motivated attack on Proposition 40

Pasadena’s Assemblymember John Harabedian said Friday, Sept. 11, that the “substantiated allegations” that Dave Regan, the labor leader behind California’s billionaire tax, harassed and intimidated women are “abhorrent,” after the Associated Press reported on a union-commissioned investigation.

The statement puts the Democrat, a former Sierra Madre mayor whose 41st Assembly District includes Pasadena, on record against the president of the Service Employees International Union United Healthcare Workers West. It comes less than two months before Proposition 40 — the one-time, 5% tax on the state’s billionaires that Regan’s union is backing — goes before voters in November. Regan has denied the physical assault allegation, and his union has called the reports a “misinformation campaign,” the Associated Press and Politico reported.

The allegations against Regan are detailed in an investigative report commissioned by SEIU California and obtained Sept. 11 by the Associated Press. The report includes interviews with several current and former SEIU members and others who say Regan tried to intimidate union leaders into supporting the billionaires’ tax, the AP reported. The Los Angeles Times was first to report the allegations.

“The substantiated allegations against Dave Regan are abhorrent,” Harabedian said in the statement issued by his office. “It is clear that we have a new generation of labor leaders who do not tolerate workplace harassment. I’m thankful to the SEIU California State Council for responding against the harassment and doing so quickly. Labor leaders who purport to protect their own workers from harassment and retaliation need to live by those standards. Anyone who doesn’t shouldn’t be in leadership.”

SEIU California executive director Tia Orr told investigators that Regan told her in December that the union needed to support the tax measure by Jan. 1 or “I’m coming for you,” the AP reported, citing the report. Orr later told members that she felt unsafe.

The report also includes allegations that Regan physically assaulted an SEIU leader more than 15 years ago amid a political dispute and that more recently he engaged in harassing behavior toward other women who work for the organization, the AP reported. The report alleges Regan acted aggressively toward Courtni Pugh, the union’s former executive director, before she resigned in 2009; Pugh told investigators he yelled at her, kicked in her office door and backed her up against a bookcase.

SEIU California has filed charges against Regan with the SEIU International Union alleging a pattern of bullying, extortion and threats, the AP reported.

A law firm’s probe substantiated claims made in a February complaint that Regan sought to intimidate other labor leaders into endorsing the proposed wealth tax, and it found that a labor leader “reasonably” felt threatened, Politico reported after obtaining the report. The firm did not substantiate a second set of charges alleging that the allegations against Regan were an attempt to derail the tax and retaliate against him. The investigation took place between April and July 2026 and was conducted by the New York labor law firm Cohen, Weiss and Simon. The firm partially substantiated the allegations, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

Regan acknowledged using curse words with union leaders but denied the physical assault allegation, the AP reported. “I will own up to and take responsibility for anything that I’ve said and anything that I’ve done,” Regan said at a news conference. “But I absolutely am not going to stand by and … be expected to accept flat out lies.”

Regan’s union alleged that opponents of the measure worked to make the report, which was labeled as completed in June, public in order to hurt the initiative’s chances of passing, the AP reported. “Unrelated verbal interactions spanning nearly two decades are being stitched together and stripped of context to manufacture a false narrative about the union’s leadership,” the union said in a statement. The union called Pugh’s allegations a “trumped-up claim from 17 years ago” and noted that the political firm she works for has worked for groups opposing Proposition 40. Pugh, in a statement, called Regan’s response “offensive to the women and people who have had to endure his threatening behavior.”

SEIU California said it took action in response to the allegations to uphold values of respect, fairness and equity in the workplace, the AP reported. “We ask members every day to stand up to power and speak out against abuses. We are inspired by their courage, and our leaders, too, are saying, ‘Enough!'” the group said in a statement.

Proposition 40 would impose a one-time, 5% tax on billionaires living in the state to help backfill federal funding cuts to healthcare for low-income people, the AP reported. The proposal has caused a rift within the Democratic Party and among labor unions that are typically aligned, and while Regan’s union supports it, the larger SEIU California has not taken a position.

Regan’s union is a familiar name in Pasadena. As its president, he led the union in 2023 when health care workers at Kaiser Permanente, whose Southern California region is headquartered in Pasadena, went on strike over what the union called a short-staffing crisis. Harabedian, a former Sierra Madre councilmember and mayor, represents a district that also includes Sierra Madre, La Cañada Flintridge, Monrovia and Claremont.

The office’s September newsletter repeats that decline-in-value reviews are open through Nov. 30 and pushes its free Homeowner Alert against deed fraud

October property tax bills will rest on assessed values that may sit below market value, the Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office told Pasadena and Altadena owners Friday, drawing a records lesson from last year’s wildfires.

Under Proposition 13, a property’s assessed value is generally the lower of its factored base-year value, set when it last changed hands and raised by no more than 2 percent a year, or its market value as of Jan. 1, the office said in its monthly newsletter, which is why a long-held Pasadena home can carry an assessed value well under what it would sell for. The bills are mailed each October by the Treasurer and Tax Collector.

When a property is purchased, the office determines its market value as of the change in ownership, and in many cases the purchase price becomes the Proposition 13 base-year value, the newsletter says. Larger changes in assessed value typically come only with a change in ownership, new construction or a temporary decline-in-value assessment under Proposition 8, which lowers the assessed value when market value as of Jan. 1 has fallen below the factored base-year value and restores it, but no higher than that base-year figure, as the market recovers.

Owners who believe their property’s market value as of Jan. 1, 2026 was lower than its factored base-year value may request a Decline-in-Value Review, the office said. Applications are accepted each year from July 2 through Nov. 30 on Form RP-87, which can be completed and submitted online through the Assessor’s decline-in-value webpage. The reduction is temporary and reviewed annually, and a loss of home equity or a drop from the purchase price does not by itself qualify: the market value on Jan. 1 must be below the Proposition 13 value. The office announced the forms’ availability when the window opened July 2.

The newsletter says one of the important lessons of last year’s wildfires was the importance of keeping ownership records current. Some fire-affected residents had inherited homes but never updated title and Assessor records, it says, and when disaster struck, the outdated information made it more difficult to identify the owner and determine eligibility for certain forms of disaster relief. “Accurate property records matter,” the office wrote.

Assessor Jeff Prang made the same point to Pasadena officials after the Eaton Fire. “If your name is not on the deed, you don’t own the property,” he said, noting that occupants were given six months to correct deed issues, after which they could face up to eight years of back taxes, and that he was pursuing legislation with Sen. Sasha Pérez to extend the period. The Assessor’s office said in a November update that Senate Bill 293 by Pérez extends the deadline to resolve fire-related ownership documentation issues from six months to three years after a reassessment notice, and that Assembly Bill 245 extends the rebuilding window from five to eight years.

Owners can review the square footage, room count and other characteristics on file for their property through the Assessor’s online Property Search Tool, the newsletter says, and request corrections with a Property Data Change Request, form ASSR-129, which holders of an Assessor E-Service account may file online. The same tool shows whether the Homeowners’ Exemption, which reduces taxable value by $7,000 and saves about $70 a year, has been applied; the claim can be filed electronically through an E-Service account.

The office is also promoting its free Homeowner Alert, which emails a registered owner within 48 hours whenever a document such as a grant deed, loan, lien, foreclosure or transfer of title is recorded against the property with the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, a tool it describes as a way to catch fraudulent deeds and other unauthorized recordings quickly.

The guidance arrives after a year in which the Assessor’s Office wrote more than $9 billion in taxable value off the rolls for owners whose homes burned in Altadena and Pacific Palisades, processing 18,000 assessment adjustments in the first 90 days, even as the 2026 roll closed at a record $2.272 trillion, up $96 billion, or 4.42 percent, with the Proposition 13 inflation factor adding $43 billion at the full 2 percent. Fire-damaged properties qualify for Misfortune and Calamity reassessment when damage exceeds $10,000, filed on Form ADS-820, and Senate Bill 663 gives survivors 24 months from the date of damage to file; the office’s disaster relief unit can be reached at relief@assessor.lacounty.gov or (213) 974-8658. County officials warned Pasadena property owners this month about a fake “Form 1098-SR” property tax freeze circulating online. “No legitimate property tax program requires you to file a mysterious federal form you learned about through social media,” Prang said then. Proposition 19 lets eligible wildfire victims transfer their base-year value to a replacement home.

The office’s next Homeowners’ Resource Fair is Saturday, Sept. 19, from 9 a.m. to noon at the Southland Regional Association of Realtors, 7232 Balboa Blvd., Lake Balboa, with Prang and Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, covering property tax savings, Proposition 19, family transfers and inheritance, and veterans’ and other exemptions; it will be livestreamed on the Assessor’s Facebook page, and registration is at assessor.lacounty.gov/news-information/events. The Assessor’s help line is (213) 974-3211, or helpdesk@assessor.lacounty.gov.

Organizers say four funding entities will meet with underinsured Altadena homeowners whose rebuilds have not started

Lift International Church, the Altadena congregation that lost its building in the Eaton Fire, plans to gather funders, gap-assistance grants and legal help in Pasadena on Sunday for households whose rebuilds have not started.

Organizers said four funding entities are expected on site to work with at least 200 underinsured homeowners, and that more than 160 families supported by the church during the past 20 months have been invited.

Recent assessments put the number of parcels without rebuilding applications on file at approximately 2,222, organizers said. Los Angeles County figures reported Sept. 8 put the total higher, at more than 2,300 of the 5,858 Altadena parcels where homes were destroyed, or about 40%.

The initiative, called Come Back Home, is built to clear financial, administrative and technical obstacles to rebuilding, organizers said. Partners will also launch a centralized platform connecting survivors with state and municipal resources and grants, organizers said.

The event offers disaster recovery funding allocated for more than 100 residences, gap assistance grants, legal filing deadline advisories and consultations, pro bono referrals through the Altadena CDC’s ALLY platform, and recovery updates from the Altadena Coalition of Neighborhood Associations, organizers said. Partners include Samaritan’s Purse, Hope Crisis Response Network, Mennonite Disaster Service, HPP Cares and San Gabriel Valley Habitat for Humanity, according to the organizers.

A separate press conference will address coalition recovery and advocacy, organizers said. Joy Chen, executive director of Every Fire Survivor’s Network, is scheduled to highlight legislative achievements protecting wildfire survivors, including utility accountability, organizers said.

Coalition representatives will state a neutral position on Senate Bill 492, which died in the Assembly without a vote on Sept. 1, the final day of the legislative session.

Pastor Anthony McFarland, who lost his Altadena Drive home in the fire, will co-host, organizers said.

Sunday, Sept. 13, 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Westminster Presbyterian Church, 1757 N. Lake Ave., Pasadena. Complimentary refreshments will be served. For more call (626) 797-6056 or visit liftaltadena.org.

Velázquez says consolidation opponents have offered no alternative; board president rules remarks out of order

Trustee Yarma Velázquez used Thursday’s Pasadena Unified School District year-end financial presentation to say colleagues opposing school consolidation have proposed no alternative, before Board President Tina Fredericks ruled the remarks out of order.

Velázquez spoke again later in the meeting, during discussion of an action item, saying “criticism alone, it’s not a substitute of policy.” Fredericks said those remarks were “also out of order,” and another trustee objected to what she called “backhanded criticisms of people on this dais.”

“Over the last year, the members who have opposed consolidation in this board have not proposed a single policy for consideration or even a resolution that provides an alternative path to the financial conditions of this district,” Velázquez said during the presentation item. “Consolidation may be a tool, but it doesn’t have to be the only tool.”

Velázquez did not name the trustees she was referring to.

The exchanges came at a special meeting at which the Board of Education heard a staff presentation on the District’s unaudited actuals for Fiscal Year 2025-26 and then approved certifying the figures for filing with the Los Angeles County Office of Education, known as LACOE.

Fredericks interrupted Velázquez during her remarks on the presentation item, telling her she was out of order. Velázquez continued speaking.

After Velázquez finished, Fredericks said, “Presentations are clarifying questions and comments, not advocacy. That was out of order. … Action items can be advocacy, but for the vote of the item. This is a staff presentation.”

Fredericks said trustees may ask clarifying questions and comment on a presentation, “but there is no advocacy on these informational staff presentations.”

Velázquez’s remarks followed her own questions to staff about the year’s results. Excluding fire-related expenses, the District’s operating fund ran a deficit of $4.68 million for the year and, after $1.5 million in other financing uses, deficit spending totaled $6.2 million, the presenter said.

Earlier in the meeting, public speakers had urged the Board to restore positions and services cut last year. One parent of two elementary students in the District, asked what the Board would restore. “Let’s use that money to transform today by putting it back into the classroom,” she said.

Velázquez asked staff how much the District had overspent. Told it was $4.6 million, she said, “And so when the audience came and said, oh, you have all of these millions of dollars  — we don’t. We are in negative 4.6, right?”

“The operating result for last year is basically we spent $4.6 million more than we took in,” the staff member presenting the report replied.

Asked whether the District should expect to make big reductions again, the presenter said, “Based on the results, no. I wouldn’t say we have to explore big reductions.”

He said the District would submit the results to the Los Angeles County Office of Education, which would review them against the District’s fiscal stabilization plans. He said the results would not lead the county office to direct the District to explore expenditure reductions again.

“But we still need to explore expenditure reductions if we want to have a balanced budget,” Velázquez said.

“If you want a balanced budget, yes,” the presenter said.

Superintendent Elizabeth Blanco said she wanted “to make it clear to the public, although we’re ending up better than expected, we’re still deficit spending.”

Blanco said “our goal, I think for all of us is wanting to have fair compensation, living wages for our employees,” adding, “And in order to be able to do that, we have less students, so we should have less employees.” She said the District still wants to provide services to the students who need them most with its staff. She also said the District should not immediately start thinking about new spending “because we want to get our budget in line so we’re not getting letters from the county telling us that we’re deficit spending.”

The exchanges come ahead of recommendations on under-enrolled schools, which a resolution the Board approved in December 2025 calls for around October. Velázquez’s seat is on the Nov. 3 ballot. Fredericks and Trustee Scott Harden face a recall effort.

In August, Trustee Kimberly Kenne moved language on “alternatives to school consolidation” into the Board’s district transformation process, Pasadena Now reported.

In other action Thursday, the Board approved a request for an exemption from the state’s classroom expenditure requirement for Fiscal Year 2025-26, for submission to the Los Angeles County Office of Education.

The Board also approved Resolution No. 2904, setting the District’s revised 2025-26 and estimated 2026-27 Gann appropriation limits. It approved Resolution No. 2905, designating District representatives to seek federal and state disaster assistance and reimbursement. The presenter said the resolution updates the list of authorized signatories to include him.

The Board also approved a memorandum of understanding with the City of Pasadena for District use of the Allendale Park baseball field during designated school hours.

Before the open session, the Board met in closed session with legal counsel on two existing lawsuits: Case No. 26STCP01644, and Pasadena Unified School District v. The City of Pasadena, Case No. 26STCP02735. The Board announced no reportable action.

Pasadena Unified School District trustees voted Thursday to seek an exemption from California’s 55% classroom-pay minimum, which one trustee said the District also missed in two years without Eaton Fire costs.

The vote lets staff prepare the Fiscal Year 2025-26 waiver application. Chief Business Officer Arik Avanesyans said it cannot be filed with the Los Angeles County Office of Education until the 2025-26 audit issues a finding, expected in late November or early December.

A similar 2024-25 request remains unapproved, he said.

Including fire spending, the District reached 50.452% on the requirement, which counts classroom teacher and instructional aide salaries and benefits.

Avanesyans initially said removing fire costs would have brought the District to 55%.

Questioned by Trustee Kimberly Kenne, he agreed that removing fire costs alone would still fall short without also excluding about $3 million in other grant money. Kenne said this is the fourth request in four years and that two of those years had no fire costs.

Avanesyans told another trustee the waivers did not stem only from the fire, tracing them to COVID-19 revenue and spending.

He said the formula takes everything in Fund 01, the operating fund where the District chose to record fire revenue and spending.

“When that money came in, the decision was made to keep it in fund one and account for it in fund one,” he said, adding that a separate fund would have kept it completely out of the calculation. He did not say who at the District made the decision.

Trustee Scott Harden estimated compliance would cost about $1 million without fire costs. With them, he said, denial would force more than $11 million in unbudgeted 2026-27 spending.

“I wish I could vote no on this, but in good conscience, I’m concerned about doing that and its impact on our long-term stability,” Harden said.

Superintendent Dr. Elizabeth Blanco said her preferred strategy is paying classroom staff more, which the District cannot do while spending beyond its means.

“We do need to spend more money on their salaries and that will correct the problem,” she said. She said the calculation excludes supplies, books and agency aides.

Earlier, debating the unaudited actuals, Board President Tina Fredericks noted that “we haven’t given our teachers and staff raises for a couple years.”

Public speaker and United Teachers of Pasadena union official Jonathan Gardner opposed the waiver, citing past audit findings over figures that “shouldn’t actually have been subtracted to make that 55% happen.”

Fredericks said about 31% of unified districts statewide also fall short. Kenne, who backed the waiver, urged the District to “try and be maybe one of the 70%.”

The Board approved the waiver request by a show of hands; no tally was announced.