In the weeks since federal investigators said the devastating Palisades fire was caused by a flare-up of a smaller fire, Los Angeles Fire Department leaders have insisted they did everything possible to extinguish the initial blaze.
But the Times obtained records that cast doubt on the agency’s statements about how thoroughly firefighters extinguished the Lachman Fire in the days before it reignited on January 1st.
In an interview last month, then-interim fire chief Ronnie Villanueva said firefighters returned to the burn area on Jan. 3 after receiving a report of smoke and conducted one more “cold trail.” In other words, they used their hands to feel the heat and dig out hot spots.
“We went back out there again. We dug everything out again. We put up ladders. We did everything we could. It’s cold trail again.” “We did it all.”
But firefighters arrived at the scene that day and immediately reported that they saw no smoke, according to dispatch records obtained by The Times. He then canceled a dispatch to another engine that was en route and ended the call within 34 minutes. The logs do not mention cold trailing. It is unclear whether the crew took any other actions during the call, as LAFD has not responded to questions about it.
The Times reached out to LAFD spokesman Capt. Eric Scott multiple times via email, text message and in person for comment, but the agency declined to explain the discrepancies. Villanueva did not respond to email requests for comment or an interview.
The discrepancies between the LAFD’s statements and its own records are likely to exacerbate the frustration and anger of Palisades Fire victims over contradictory and incomplete information about what was being done to protect their communities. As the one-year anniversary approaches, gaps remain in what the LAFD has told the public about what it did to prepare for and respond to the fire that killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of homes.
The Palisades Fire only makes a cursory reference to the Lachman Fire. Missing from the 70-page document released last month are reports of smoke in the area on Jan. 3 and the battalion chief’s decision to pull firefighters from the scene despite warnings the previous day that there were signs hot spots remained.
The head of the board that oversees the LAFD claims that the after-action report did not include information about firefighters’ warnings or the investigation into the Lachman fire.
“The post-mortem review that was submitted to the commission is exactly what we asked for,” Fire Commission Chair Genecia Hadley Hayes said during Tuesday’s commission meeting. She said the review was only supposed to cover the first 72 hours after the Palisades fire broke out.
“This is not an investigation,” she said. “What newspapers think they should publish should not be published.”
The after-action report detailed failures in the fire department’s response to the Palisades fire, including significant failures in deployment and communications, and made recommendations to prevent the problem from happening again.
Two former LAFD chief executives said the report should also have provided an investigation into what went wrong in mopping up the Lachman fire as part of a “lessons learned” section.
“A good after-action report documents what happened before the incident,” said Rick Crawford, a former Los Angeles Fire Department battalion chief who retired from the department last year and is now the Capitol’s emergency and crisis management coordinator. “The after-action report should have been dated back to December 31st.”
Patrick Butler, a former LAFD assistant chief who has worked on several response teams, including for the federal government, agrees.
“If you limit your response to an artificial timeline, you won’t be able to uncover all the things you can learn from it,” said Butler, the Redondo Beach Fire Department chief.
He noted that the report will help fire departments improve their training and operations.
“Excluding Mr. Lachman’s fire from the report appears to be concealing basic facts,” Butler added. “This is not a harmless oversight. The consequences could be significant and far-reaching.”
On Jan. 3, reports of smoke in the Lachman burn area came in just before noon, according to incident dispatch records. Firefighters from Fire Station 23, one of two fire stations in the Palisades, arrived on the scene about 10 minutes after they were dispatched.
After a few minutes, they reported “N/S”, meaning nothing was showing, according to the logs. Minutes later, an engine dispatch from Fire Station 69, Palisades’ other station, was canceled.
The last entry in the log was at 12:20 p.m., indicating LA County crews were working in the area.
The Los Angeles County Fire Department said in a statement that crews were on the scene for less than 30 minutes and were conducting “informal ‘lessons learned’ discussions regarding actions on the night of the fire.”
“During their stay, they did not rig or perform any work, and nothing of note was observed,” the statement said.
Los Angeles County crews left the scene around 12:40 p.m.
The Times previously reported that people left the Ruchman fire scars on January 2, despite complaining that the ground was still smoldering and the rocks were hot to the touch. The newspaper examined text messages sent between three firefighters and a third party in the weeks and months after the fire discussing the response to the fire.
LAFD personnel also aim to detect any remaining hotspots. Despite warnings of extreme winds as late as January 7, engines and firefighters were dispatched to the scene of the fire or anywhere in the Palisades.
At least one battalion chief assigned to LAFD’s risk management section reported receiving complaints about hot spots from crew members after the Luckman fire. However, the ministry did not release that information to the public.
At Tuesday’s Fire Commission meeting, he denounced what he called the media’s efforts against those battling the worst fire in the city’s history, apparently referencing the Times report.
“What has been extremely frustrating for me as fire chief and throughout this process is to watch our friends in the media smear our name and our work as firefighters fight the Palisades Fire, which was one of the most intense fires, a wind-driven monster,” Moore, a 30-year LAFD veteran, said on his second day on the job.
He added: “It’s bold for people to make comments and say there are text messages saying we’re not putting out the fire, we’re not putting out the fire. But I haven’t seen any text messages like that yet.”
Mr. Moore made these remarks even though he was accompanying an investigation into the Times’ reporting on the Los Angeles Fire Department’s response to the Luckman fire.
Mr Bass called on Mr Villanueva to investigate, saying: “A complete understanding is essential… to explain exactly what happened in January’s wildfires.”
Critics say it would be inappropriate for LAFD to investigate itself and are calling for an independent investigation.
Before the City Council approved his appointment as chief, Moore also called reports about the firefighter’s alert on Jan. 2 disturbing and called for an outside agency to conduct an investigation.
He said Tuesday he would review LAFD’s response to the Lachman Fire.
“We’re going to do what Mayor (Karen) Bass has asked us to do. We’re going to investigate the Lachman fire, we’re going to look at how it was handled, we’re going to learn from it and we’re going to be better,” he said.
A Bass spokesperson said Wednesday that the mayor has “made it clear to Chief Moore” that the investigation into the Luckman fire should be conducted by an independent agency.
LAFD did not respond to questions about who would conduct the investigation.
