Criticism of Fire Investigation Report in Los Angeles County
The Los Angeles County supervisors expressed disappointment over the long-awaited $1.9 million investigation into a January wildfire, noting that it left many residents feeling their key concerns were unaddressed.
Catherine Berger, who represents the unincorporated area of Altadena, voiced this sentiment at Tuesday’s meeting, stating, “I’ve heard from numerous residents here today, and honestly, the report raises more questions than it answers, leading to quite a bit of anger.”
The Eton fire tragically claimed 19 lives, including one individual found in Western Altadena—an area that received evacuation warnings only hours after the fire posed a significant threat.
The report from the McChrystal Group pointed out several shortcomings, including a lack of clarity regarding which county departments were responsible for evacuation decisions. Responsibilities were split among the Emergency Management Bureau, the Sheriff’s Bureau, and the Fire Department, leaving ambiguity in an already chaotic situation. Additionally, it noted that evacuation warnings were not consistently sent to nearby residents.
The reaction from supervisors is noteworthy since one of them had commissioned the report in January, promising thorough investigation. While some county officials had initially embraced it as a framework for future improvements, swift pushback from the community quickly emerged.
Despite acknowledging the report’s limitations, supervisors committed to acting on its recommendations, which include clarifying evacuation responsibilities and increasing personnel at the Emergency Management Agency. A motion was unanimously approved to initiate implementation of these suggestions.
One significant issue identified was the lack of cooperation from various non-county agencies. Many California fire departments, including those from Pasadena and Los Angeles, did not provide necessary information, complicating the investigation further.
“This is unacceptable,” an official stated, demanding accountability from those departments that chose not to participate.
Erin Sutton from McChrystal Group admitted, “The information we received is primarily from the county, and it’s quite one-sided.”
Fire Chief Anthony Malone clarified that they couldn’t compel other agencies to share certain data that could have been crucial for a comprehensive analysis. The Times had previously utilized county vehicle data to highlight that fire trucks from many districts only responded after significant damage had occurred.
The Sheriff’s Department also has not released details about deputies’ locations during the incident, with Sheriff Robert Luna indicating that many deputies were involved in evacuations that night.
On the other hand, a spokesperson for the Pasadena Fire Department stated they provided written information during the review but chose not to participate further, arguing that the investigation focused primarily on Los Angeles County’s response. The state’s Department of Emergency Services noted that it had already conducted its own analysis.
Frustration with the report’s shortcomings was evident, particularly as survivors expressed feeling neglected. Lindsey Horvath, a local director who witnessed the devastating impact of the fires, mentioned that the report only briefly touched on the fatalities, missing out on critical survivor accounts. She felt they should have explored further the issue of rogue alerts calling for evacuations unnecessarily.
Director Holly Mitchell pointed out the racial disparities concerning the fire’s aftermath, calling attention to how Black residents bore more of the brunt in terms of home destruction, something the report overlooked.
Residents raised concerns about the differences in communication and resources available to them compared to other neighborhoods. “It’s vital to recognize—and address—that disconnect,” one local emphasized.
Representative Judy Chu highlighted in a letter that the investigation leaves many “unresolved questions” regarding evacuation failures, questioning why authorities deemed it acceptable to delay evacuation orders until 3:25 AM.
Residents gathered in West Altadena to voice their discontent, expressing frustration over what they perceived as a lack of timely communication from authorities. One resident questioned why families near fires had to wait until 3:25 AM for evacuation alerts. The question of responsibility hung heavy in the air.
Others argued that the report failed to adequately assess the conditions leading to devastating property damage in Western Altadena. The report’s assertion that the fire front did not cross into the area until later was contested by locals who claimed they experienced fires much earlier.
Experts acknowledged that satellite images used during the investigation may not have provided a clear enough view under the smoky conditions affecting the region.
Many of the residents’ concerns echoed through the meeting, with discussions about the embercast that ignited fires long before the official fire front crossed into their neighborhoods.
While Fire Chief Malone reiterated that firefighters were overwhelmed by the simultaneous wildfires that day, supervisors pressed for clarity on the delayed evacuation orders when flames were clearly advancing.
This complex situation underlines the ongoing need for more effective communication and coordinated action in emergency response scenarios. The implications of the report and the residents’ experiences underscore the urgent necessity for changes moving forward.
