sb

On the campaign trail eight years ago, Gov. Gavin Newsom famously promised to support the construction of 3.5 million new homes in California by the end of this year. He’ll probably fall short by millions, but his latest move reaffirms the effort.

Newsom signed Senate Bill 79 into law Friday. The historic bill, which looks to add density to transit hubs across California, is one of the most ambitious state-imposed housing efforts in recent memory.

“All Californians deserve an affordable place to live — close to jobs, schools, and opportunity. Housing near transit means shorter commutes, lower costs, and more time with family. When we invest in housing, we’re investing in people — their chance to build a future, raise a family, and be part of a community,” Newsom said in a statement.

The sweeping bill — which takes effect July 1, 2026 — upzones areas across California, overriding local zoning laws to allow taller, denser projects near transit hubs such as subway stops, light rail stops and bus stops with dedicated lanes.

Developers will be permitted to build up to nine-story residential buildings adjacent to subway stops, seven stories within a quarter-mile of them and six stories within a half-mile. The bill will also allow residential buildings that reach five to eight stories near light rail and dedicated bus lanes, depending on how close a piece of property is to a particular station or bus stop.

It’s the second major housing reform Newsom has greenlighted this year. In June, he signed a landmark bill that streamlines housing construction and cuts through the regulatory red tape brought by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Newsom’s decision caps months of debate and weeks of pleas from residents, advocacy groups and cities imploring him to either sign or veto.

It’s a huge win for YIMBY groups and developers, who claim the quickest way to address California’s housing crisis is to build housing — especially near transit stops to encourage public transportation and cut down on car pollution.

“With his signature on SB 79, Governor Newsom cements his legacy as one of the most transformative pro-housing leaders in California history,” California YIMBY Chief Executive Brian Hanlon said in a statement. “Now we begin the work of making sure its provisions are fully and fairly implemented.”

It’s a blow for some cities, including Los Angeles, which claim that the bill brings a one-size-fits-all approach to a problem that needs local control. Mayor Karen Bass asked Newsom to veto the bill, and the L.A. City Council passed a motion opposing it.

Now, the chaotic scramble begins as cities, developers and residents try to figure out who is affected by the bill — and who is exempted.

Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) introduced the legislation in January, emphasizing the need for immediate action to address the housing crisis. But as the bill wound its way through the Legislature, a host of amendments, exemptions and carve-outs were added in order to secure enough votes to pass through the Assembly and Senate.

What was left was a wordy, at-times confusing bill. Wiener’s spokesperson Erik Mebust acknowledged that it’s “incredibly challenging to visualize.”

First, the bill’s scope was narrowed from all of California to only counties with at least 15 passenger rail stations, leaving only eight: Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Alameda, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Sacramento.

The biggest impact will probably be felt in Los Angeles, which has an estimated 150 transit stops covered by the bill, according to the city’s preliminary assessment.

Transit hubs are being targeted for taller, denser housing

Senate Bill 79 would override local zoning laws, allowing buildings of five to nine stories in areas close to many public transit stops in Los Angeles, according to the city’s preliminary analysis. Still, some properties would be eligible for exemptions or a multi-year delay.

Distance from transit hub

Los Angeles Dept. of City Planning

Sean Greene LOS ANGELES TIMES

Next, lawmakers added several deferral options, allowing cities to postpone implementation in selected areas until approximately 2030 — one year after they must submit their latest plan for spurring new housing construction and accommodating growth.

For the next five years, cities can exempt properties in high-risk fire areas, historic preservation zones and low-resource areas — an attempt to mitigate the bill’s effect on gentrification in low-income neighborhoods.

Transit stops and fire zones

Under Senate Bill 79, cities can seek a delay in upzoning for areas located in very high fire hazard severity zones. In northeast Los Angeles, these zones overlap with transit stops in multiple places.

Distance from transit hub

Los Angeles Dept. of City Planning, California Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection

Sean Greene LOS ANGELES TIMES

In addition, to eke out votes from lawmakers representing smaller cities, SB 79 zones shrank to a quarter-mile in cities with fewer than 35,000 residents, compared with a half-mile everywhere else.

Known as the “Beverly Hills carve-out,” the amendment shrinks the upzoning responsibility for certain small, affluent cities around Southern California including Beverly Hills and South Pasadena. As a result, the eligibility map gets weird.

For example, the law will only affect a quarter-mile area surrounding South Pasadena’s Metro A Line station, but a half-mile in its adjacent communities — Pasadena and L.A.’s Highland Park neighborhood. In L.A.’s Beverly Grove neighborhood, the law covers properties within a half-mile of the Metro D Line subway, but in Beverly Hills right next door, it only affects areas within a quarter-mile.

Before Newsom signed it into law, Los Angeles City Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky called it unfair.

“Beverly Hills gets off the hook, and Los Angeles is left holding the bag,” she said in a statement.

Other oddities abound. For example, a city can exempt a particular property that is half a mile from a transit station as the crow flies but has physical barriers — railroad tracks, freeways — that make it more than a mile away on foot.

Several online maps attempted to show which areas would be upzoned under SB 79, but no one has produced a parcel-specific overview. L.A. planning officials recently published a draft map showing the places that they believe would be upzoned under SB 79. But they cautioned that the online tool is for “exploratory purposes only” — and that a binding eligibility map will eventually be published by the Southern California Assn. of Governments.

Cities, developers and homeowners will have to wait for clarity until that map is published. In the meantime, YIMBY groups are hoping the bill spurs multi-family development in L.A., which has waned in recent years due to unprofitable economics and regulatory uncertainty.

“A lot of people don’t want California to change, but California is changing whether they want it to or not,” said Matt Lewis, spokesperson for California YIMBY, one of the bill’s sponsors. “The question is whether we allow those changes to be sustainable and affordable, or chaotic and costly.”

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill Monday that will create new transparency measures for large AI companies, including public disclosure of security protocols and reports of critical safety incidents.

Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) said Senate Bill 53 will create “commonsense guardrails” to ensure groundbreaking innovations don’t sacrifice safety and transparency amid the rapid growth of AI technologies. Newsom said the bill strikes the right balance of working with the artificial intellegence companies, while not “submitting to industry.”

“AI is the new frontier in innovation, and California is not only here for it – but stands strong as a national leader by enacting the first-in-the-national frontier AI safety legislation that builds public trust as this emerging technology rapidly evolves,” Newsom said in a statement.

The bill was introduced this year after Newsom vetoed a broader bill last year, which was also authored by Wiener. That bill, SB 1047, was supported by Elon Musk and prominent AI researchers, but opposed by Meta and OpenAI.

In his lengthy veto message last year, Newsom called SB 1047 “well-intentioned” but added that it was not the “best approach to protecting the public from real threats posed by the technology.” In punting the measure last year, Newsom announced that his administration would convene a working group of AI leaders and experts to develop more workable protections that became the basis for SB 53.

The new law will require companies to disclose their safety and security protocols and risk evaluations. It mandates reporting of critical incidents — such as cyberattacks or unsafe behavior by autonomous AI systems — to the state’s Office of Emergency Services.

Cal OES would begin publishing annual reports in 2027 that anonymize and aggregate critical safety incidents it receives. SB 53 also strengthens whistleblower protections for employees who report violations.

The Attorney General in California will be able to bring civil penalties of up to $1 million against companies who violate the new law.

“With a technology as transformative as AI, we have a responsibility to support that innovation while putting in place commonsense guardrails to understand and reduce risk,” Wiener said in a statement.

The bill was opposed by the California Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Progress, a tech industry association.

“This exhaustive approach compels developers to allocate significant time and resources toward preparing for hypothetical risks rather than addressing actual, demonstrable harms,” wrote the Chamber of Progress.

California lawmakers want Gov. Gavin Newsom to approve bills they passed that aim to make artificial intelligence chatbots safer. But as the governor weighs whether to sign the legislation into law, he faces a familiar hurdle: objections from tech companies that say new restrictions would hinder innovation.

Californian companies are world leaders in AI and have spent hundreds of billions of dollars to stay ahead in the race to create the most powerful chatbots. The rapid pace has alarmed parents and lawmakers worried that chatbots are harming the mental health of children by exposing them to self-harm content and other risks.

Parents who allege chatbots encouraged their teens to harm themselves before they died by suicide have sued tech companies such as OpenAI, Character Technologies and Google. They’ve also pushed for more guardrails.

Calls for more AI regulation have reverberated throughout the nation’s capital and various states. Even as the Trump administration’s “AI Action Plan” proposes to cut red tape to encourage AI development, lawmakers and regulators from both parties are tackling child safety concerns surrounding chatbots that answer questions or act as digital companions.

California lawmakers this month passed two AI chatbot safety bills that the tech industry lobbied against. Newsom has until mid-October to approve or reject them.

The high-stakes decision puts the governor in a tricky spot. Politicians and tech companies alike want to assure the public they’re protecting young people. At the same time, tech companies are trying to expand the use of chatbots in classrooms and have opposed new restrictions they say go too far.

Meanwhile, if Newsom runs for president in 2028, he might need more financial support from wealthy tech entrepreneurs. On Sept. 22, Newsom promoted the state’s partnerships with tech companies on AI efforts and touted how the tech industry has fueled California’s economy, calling the state the “epicenter of American innovation.”

He has vetoed AI safety legislation in the past, including a bill last year that divided Silicon Valley’s tech industry because the governor thought it gave the public a “false sense of security.” But he also signaled that he’s trying to strike a balance between addressing safety concerns and ensuring California tech companies continue to dominate in AI.

“We have a sense of responsibility and accountability to lead, so we support risk-taking, but not recklessness,” Newsom said at a discussion with former President Clinton at a Clinton Global Initiative event on Wednesday.

Two bills sent to the governor — Assembly Bill 1064 and Senate Bill 243 — aim to make AI chatbots safer but face stiff opposition from the tech industry. It’s unclear if the governor will sign both bills. His office declined to comment.

AB 1064 bars a person, business and other entity from making companion chatbots available to a California resident under the age of 18 unless the chatbot isn’t “foreseeably capable” of harmful conduct such as encouraging a child to engage in self-harm, violence or disordered eating.

SB 243 requires operators of companion chatbots to notify certain users that the virtual assistants aren’t human.

Under the bill, chatbot operators would have to have procedures to prevent the production of suicide or self-harm content and put in guardrails, such as referring users to a suicide hotline or crisis text line.

They would be required to notify minor users at least every three hours to take a break, and that the chatbot is not human. Operators would also be required to implement “reasonable measures” to prevent companion chatbots from generating sexually explicit content.

Tech lobbying group TechNet, whose members include OpenAI, Meta, Google and others, said in a statement that it “agrees with the intent of the bills” but remains opposed to them.

AB 1064 “imposes vague and unworkable restrictions that create sweeping legal risks, while cutting students off from valuable AI learning tools,” said Robert Boykin, TechNet’s executive director for California and the Southwest, in a statement. “SB 243 establishes clearer rules without blocking access, but we continue to have concerns with its approach.”

A spokesperson for Meta said the company has “concerns about the unintended consequences that measures like AB 1064 would have.” The tech company launched a new Super PAC to combat state AI regulation that the company thinks is too burdensome, and is pushing for more parental control over how kids use AI, Axios reported on Tuesday.

Opponents led by the Computer & Communications Industry Assn. lobbied aggressively against AB 1064, stating it would threaten innovation and disadvantage California companies that would face more lawsuits and have to decide if they wanted to continue operating in the state.

Advocacy groups, including Common Sense Media, a nonprofit that sponsored AB 1064 and recommends that minors shouldn’t use AI companions, are urging Newsom to sign the bill into law. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta also supports the bill.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation said SB 243 is too broad and would run into free-speech issues.

Several groups, including Common Sense Media and Tech Oversight California, removed their support for SB 243 after changes were made to the bill, which they said weakened protections. Some of the changes limited who receives certain notifications and included exemptions for certain chatbots in video games and virtual assistants used in smart speakers.

Lawmakers who introduced chatbot safety legislation want the governor to sign both bills, arguing that they can both “work in harmony.”

Sen. Steve Padilla (D-Chula Vista), who introduced SB 243, said that even with the changes he still thinks the new rules will make AI safer.

“We’ve got a technology that has great potential for good, is incredibly powerful, but is evolving incredibly rapidly, and we can’t miss a window to provide commonsense guardrails here to protect folks,” he said. “I’m happy with where the bill is at.”

Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), who co-wrote AB 1064, said her bill balances the benefits of AI while safeguarding against the dangers.

“We want to make sure that when kids are engaging with any chatbot that it is not creating an unhealthy emotional attachment, guiding them towards suicide, disordered eating, any of the things that we know are harmful for children,” she said.

During the legislative session, lawmakers heard from grieving parents who lost their children. AB 1064 highlights two high-profile lawsuits: one against San Francisco ChatGPT maker OpenAI and another against Character Technologies, the developer of chatbot platform Character.AI.

Character.AI is a platform where people can create and interact with digital characters that mimic real and fictional people. Last year, Florida mom Megan Garcia alleged in a federal lawsuit that Character.AI’s chatbots harmed the mental health of her son Sewell Setzer III and accused the company of failing to notify her or offer help when he expressed suicidal thoughts to virtual characters.

More families sued the company this year. A Character.AI spokesperson said they care very deeply about user safety and “encourage lawmakers to appropriately craft laws that promote user safety while also allowing sufficient space for innovation and free expression.”

In August, the California parents of Adam Raine sued OpenAI, alleging that ChatGPT provided the teen information about suicide methods, including the one the teen used to kill himself.

OpenAI said it’s strengthening safeguards and plans to release parental controls. Its chief executive, Sam Altman, wrote in a September blog post that the company believes minors need “significant protections” and the company prioritizes “safety ahead of privacy and freedom for teens.” The company declined to comment on the California AI chatbot bills.

To California lawmakers, the clock is ticking.

“We’re doing our best,” Bauer-Kahan said. “The fact that we’ve already seen kids lose their lives to AI tells me we’re not moving fast enough.”

As rebuilding ramps up in Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles leaders are restricting the building of duplexes on single-family-home lots.

The move follows an executive order issued Wednesday by Gov. Gavin Newsom that allows exemptions for the Palisades and other areas devastated by January’s Palisades and Eaton fires from Senate Bill 9. The landmark 2021 law, passed in response to the state’s housing shortage, lets property owners divide single-family-home lots and build up to four units.

In recent days, Palisades residents have raised alarms about SB 9, worrying that their historically single-family-home community would be transformed by the additional density allowed under the law and become more dangerous in the event of future fires. On Jan. 7, the chaotic evacuation amid the flames led residents to abandon their cars on Sunset Boulevard and escape on foot, forcing bulldozers to clear the road so that emergency responders could enter the area.

No outcry has erupted over the addition of accessory dwelling units in the Palisades, even though they could bring similar increases in building, and have been far more common in permit applications.

Some 4,700 single-family homes were destroyed or severely damaged in the Palisades fire, the majority of which were in the city of Los Angeles.

Newsom’s order applies to the Palisades and parts of Malibu and Altadena — areas that burned and that are designated as “very high fire hazard severity zones” by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. It mandates a weeklong pause on SB 9 projects to allow the city and county of Los Angeles and Malibu to develop restrictions.

In response, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, who alongside City Councilmember Traci Park had urged Newsom to act this week, issued an executive order blocking future SB 9 development in the Palisades.

“I thank Governor Newsom for working with my office to provide some sense of solace for a community working to rebuild,” Bass said in a statement accompanying the order.

Since the fire, the prospect of greater density, including increased affordable housing, has raised tension in the neighborhood. Some of the debates have been mired in misinformation and conspiracy theories falsely asserting that the wealthy community would be rezoned for mass building of low-income apartments.

But residents retain deep scars from January’s tumultuous evacuation and fear that such a situation would be even worse with a larger population, said Larry Vein, founder of wildfire recovery group Pali Strong. They also want the area to return to the predominately single-family-home neighborhood it was, he said.

“The community does not want higher density,” Vein said.

Officials’ push to restrict SB 9 construction stands in stark contrast to their efforts to allow more building on single-family-home lots through different means.

Newsom and Bass each issued earlier executive orders to streamline permitting reviews for accessory dwelling units on single-family-home properties in burn zones.

There are some practical distinctions between the two ways of adding homes. Generally, ADU law permits up to three units on a lot. SB 9 can allow four or potentially more if combined with ADU law. SB 9 units often can be larger than ADUs as well.

Yet the possibility of increased ADU construction has not attracted the same opposition in the community; instead, data indicate that it’s been popular.

The Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety does not specifically track permit requests for ADUs or SB 9 projects among home rebuilds, and could not immediately verify their numbers. However, department rebuilding data analyzed by The Times includes a description of each proposed development that is supposed to note if an additional unit is planned.

As of July 28, 500 homeowners had submitted permitting applications to rebuild in the Palisades, The Times’ analysis of department data found. Of those, 73 — nearly 15% — included at least one ADU, according to project descriptions. Per the descriptions, three intend to use SB 9, but that number is an undercount, said Devin Myrick, the department’s assistant deputy superintendent of building. Myrick said the department was still analyzing its data to come up with the actual number of SB 9 projects.

Property owners have cited ADU construction as a way to return to the Palisades more quickly, with some planning to build an ADU before tackling their primary home. For others, the opportunity for building any additional unit, under ADU law or SB 9, provides a financial benefit that could be used to cover gaps in the cost to rebuild.

Vein said Palisades residents are friendlier to ADUs because their construction may not necessarily lead to a larger population. Many people, he said, would use an ADU to work from home, as a guesthouse or allow members of multigenerational families to have their own space. By contrast, he said, SB 9 duplexes inevitably will add people.

“You’ve just doubled the density,” he said.

Some pro-development organizations are blasting the SB 9 restrictions. Matthew Lewis, a spokesperson for California YIMBY, which advocates for greater home building across the state, said that residents’ evacuation concerns are legitimate but that officials should focus on resolving that issue rather than limiting duplexes.

Lewis said the proliferation of ADUs in the area’s rebuild shows that it’s not actually the potential for increased building that’s motivating the opposition. Instead, he said community groups and L.A. politicians are using that argument to thwart a law they’ve long disliked because it expressly calls for changes to single-family-home neighborhoods.

“What we’re talking about is a powerful constituency making enough noise to cause a suspension of laws that were duly passed by the state Legislature,” Lewis said. “That’s very concerning.”

Bass believes her backing of ADUs and opposition to SB 9 in the Palisades do not conflict, mayoral spokesperson Zachary Seidl said. SB 9 was not anticipated to be used after a major wildfire, he said, while streamlining ADU permitting assists property owners with reconstruction.

“The mayor with both of these positions is supporting community members in the Palisades rebuild,” Seidl said.

Times staff writer Doug Smith contributed to this report.

Gov. Gavin Newsom plans to issue an executive order Wednesday allowing Los Angeles-area governments to limit development in wildfire-affected neighborhoods by exempting them from provisions of a landmark housing law, a spokesperson for his office said.

The proposed order would let the city and county of Los Angeles and Malibu restrict construction that was allowed under Senate Bill 9, a 2021 law that allows property owners build as many as four units on land previously reserved for single-family homes.

The order would apply to Pacific Palisades and parts of Malibu and Altadena — areas that burned in January’s Palisades and Eaton fires that are designated as “very high fire hazard severity zones” by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Newsom spokesperson Tara Gallegos said.

The decision came after concerns about the potential of a significant population increase if there were widespread use of SB 9 developments in rebuilding areas, making future fire evacuations even more difficult, Gallegos said.

The governor’s plan follows pressure this week from elected officials in Los Angeles. On Monday, City Councilmember Traci Park, who represents Pacific Palisades, sent a letter to Newsom requesting that he suspend SB 9, warning that otherwise there could be “an unforeseen explosion of density” in a risky area.

“When SB 9 was adopted into state law, it was never intended to capitalize on a horrific disaster,” Park wrote.

On Tuesday, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass released a statement supporting Park’s request, citing similar concerns about SB 9 straining evacuation routes and local infrastructure in the Palisades.

“It could fundamentally alter the safety of the area,” Bass said.

This week, reality TV show star Spencer Pratt posted multiple videos on social media savaging a proposed state bill on wildfire rebuilding. In one, Pratt told his 2 million TikTok followers that he consulted an artificial intelligence engine about Senate Bill 549. He said it told him the legislation would allow L.A. County to buy burned-out lots in Pacific Palisades and convert them to low-income housing, strip away local zoning decisions and push dense reconstruction. He urged people to oppose it.

“I don’t even think this is political,” Pratt said. “This is a common sense post.”

None of what Pratt said is in the bill. But over the last week, such misinformation-fueled furor has overwhelmed the conversation in Los Angeles, at the state Capitol and on social media about wildfire recovery. Posts have preyed on fears of neighborhood change, mistrust of government authorities and prejudice against low-income housing to assert, among other things, that the wildfires were set intentionally to raze the Palisades and replace the community with affordable housing.

The chatter has unmoored debate over a major rebuilding proposal from L.A. County leaders. Under the plan, a new local authority would be able to buy burned lots, rebuild homes and offer them back at discounted rates to the original owners. The idea is to give property owners struggling to rebuild another option to stay in their communities. There are no changes to any rules that require zoning amendments or approvals for individual housing developments.

State Sen. Benjamin Allen (D-Santa Monica), the author of SB 549, which creates the local authority, said he understands legitimate policy disagreements over the new powers granted in the bill.

But those discussions have been overshadowed, he said.

“It’s become this total meme among the right-wing blogosphere and, unfortunately, picked up by some lazy-ass journalists that don’t bother to read the bill that say this bill seeks to turn the entire Palisades into low-income housing,” Allen said.

Some of his own friends who lost homes in the Palisades, Allen said, have been texting him asking why he’s trying to force low-income housing into the neighborhood.

“People are saying I want to put a train line in there,” Allen said. “It’s insane.”

The frenzy, in part, is due to an issue of timing. Last month, a 20-member expert commission impaneled by L.A. County proposed the local authority as a key recommendation for rebuilding after January’s Palisades and Eaton fires destroyed 18,000 homes and other properties.

Commission leaders then approached Allen about writing a bill that would allow for its implementation. Allen wanted to do it, but deadlines for introducing new legislation had long passed.

Instead, Allen took SB 549, which had nothing to do with wildfire rebuilding but was still alive in the Legislature, and added the rebuilding authority language to it. This is a common legislative procedure used when putting forward ideas late in the year.

Allen decided as well to keep the original language in the bill, which called for significant spending on low-income housing in an unrelated financing program. Multiple news articles conflated the two portions of the bill, which added to the alarm.

The version of SB 549 with the wildfire rebuilding authority in it had its first hearing in a legislative committee on Wednesday. Allen spent much of the hearing acknowledging the confusion around it.

Misinformation over the rebuilding authority was fueled by a separate announcement California Gov. Gavin Newsom made this month.

State housing officials carved out $101 million from long-planned funding allocations for low-income housing and dedicated it to building new developments in Los Angeles.

The money will be used to subsidize low-income apartment buildings throughout the county with priority given to projects proposed in and around burn zones, that are willing to reserve a portion to fire survivors and are close to breaking ground.

The fires exacerbated the region’s housing crisis. Higher rents persist in nearby neighborhoods and low-income residents continue to struggle. Newsom cast the announcement as assisting them in regaining their footing.

“Thousands of families — from Pacific Palisades to Altadena to Malibu — are still displaced and we owe it to them to help,” Newsom said when unveiling the spending.

Like the proposed rebuilding authority, the funding does not change any zoning or other land-use rules. Any developer who receives the dollars would need separate governmental approval to begin construction.

Nevertheless, social media posters took the new money and the proposed new authority and saw a conspiracy.

“Burn it. Buy it. Rebuild it how they want,” said a July 15 post from X user @HustleBitch_, who has nearly 124,000 followers. “Still think this wasn’t planned?

Newsom called the situation another example of “opportunists exploit[ing] this tragedy to stoke fear — and pit communities against each other.”

“Let’s be clear: The state is not taking away anyone’s property, instituting some sort of mass rezoning or destroying the quality and character of destroyed neighborhoods. Period,” Newsom said in a statement to The Times. “Anyone claiming otherwise is either misinformed or deliberately lying. That’s not just wrong — it’s disgraceful.”

Not all of the debate about the rebuilding authority is based on false information.

Allen and local leaders acknowledged the need for more consensus over its role, especially given the sensitivities around recovery. Still unresolved were the authority’s governing structure, and whether it would encompass the Palisades or be limited to Altadena and other unincorporated areas.

Pratt lost his Palisades home in the fire and has sued the city, alleging it failed to maintain an adequate water supply and other infrastructure. In social media videos this week, Pratt said he and other residents didn’t trust the county with increased power over rebuilding when he believed leaders failed to protect the neighborhood in the first place.

“We’re a fire-stricken community, not a policy sandbox,” Pratt said. “We do not support the county becoming a dominant landowner in the Palisades.”

Representatives for Pratt could not be reached for comment.

By the end of Wednesday, Allen conceded defeat on SB 549. There were many legitimate hurdles to the bill passing before the Legislature adjourns in mid-September, he said. Notably, a representative for Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass told the legislative committee that she was opposed to the bill because the city had yet to be convinced of its efficacy.

But the misinformation surrounding the bill made it even harder to envision its success, he said. Allen decided to hold the bill and have it reconsidered when the Legislature convenes again in January.

“If we’re going to do this, I want the time to do it right,” he said.

Johnny had Ed. Conan had Andy. And Gov. Gavin Newsom? A single-use plastic water bottle.

In most of the YouTube video recordings of Newsom’s new podcast, “This is Gavin Newsom,” a single-use plastic water bottle lurks on a table nearby.

Sometimes, it is accompanied by a single-use coffee cup. Other times, it stands alone.

Typically, such product placement would raise nary an eyebrow. But in recent weeks, environmentalists, waste advocates, lawmakers and others have been battling with the governor and his administration over a landmark single-use plastic law that Newsom signed in 2022, but which he has since worked to defang — reducing the number of packaged single-use products the law was designed to target and potentially opening the door for polluting forms of recycling.

Anti-plastic advocates say it’s an abrupt and disappointing pivot from the governor, who in June 2022, decried plastic pollution and the plague of single-use plastic on the environment.

“It’s like that whole French Laundry thing all over again,” said one anti-plastic advocate, who didn’t want to be identified for fear of angering the governor. Newsom was infamously caught dining without a mask at the wine country restaurant during the COVID-19 lockdown.

Newsom’s efforts to scale back SB 54, the state’s single-use plastic recycling law, has dismayed environmentalists who have long considered Newsom one of their staunchest allies.

“Our kids deserve a future free of plastic waste and all its dangerous impacts … No more,” Newsom said in 2022, when he signed SB 54. “California won’t tolerate plastic waste that’s filling our waterways and making it harder to breathe. We’re holding polluters responsible and cutting plastics at the source.”

Asked about the presence of the plastic water bottle, Daniel Villaseñor, the governor’s deputy director of communications, had this response:

“Are you really writing a story this baseless or should we highlight this video for your editor?” Villaseñor said via email, attaching a video clip showing this reporter seated near a plastic water bottle at last year’s Los Angeles Times’ Climate Summit. (The bottles were placed near chairs for all the panelists; this particular one was never touched.)

More than a half-dozen environmentalists and waste advocates asked to comment for this story declined to speak on the record, citing concerns including possible retribution from the governor’s office and appearing to look like scolds as negotiations over implementing SB 54 continue.

Dianna Cohen, the co-founder and chief executive of Plastic Pollution Coalition, said that while she wouldn’t comment on the governor and his plastic sidekick, she noted that plastic pollution is an “urgent global crisis” that requires strong policies and regulations.

“Individuals — especially those in the public eye — can help shift culture by modeling these solutions. We must all work to embrace the values we want to see and co-create a healthier world,” she said in a statement.

On Thursday, Newsom dropped a new episode of “This is Gavin Newsom” with independent journalist Aaron Parnas. In the video, there wasn’t a plastic bottle in sight.