In the weeks since federal investigators announced that the devastating Palisades fire was caused by a reignition of a smaller blaze, top Los Angeles Fire Department officials have insisted that they did everything they could to put out the earlier fire.<\/p>\n
But The Times has obtained records that call into question the agency\u2019s statements about how thoroughly firefighters mopped up the Jan. 1 Lachman fire in the days before it reignited.<\/p>\n
In an interview last month, then-Interim Fire Chief Ronnie Villanueva said that firefighters returned to the burn area on Jan. 3 \u2014 due to a report of smoke \u2014 and \u201ccold-trailed\u201d an additional time, meaning they used their hands to feel for heat and dug out hot spots.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe went back over there again. We dug it all out again. We put ladders on it. We did everything that we could do \u2014 cold-trail again,\u201d Villanueva told The Times on Oct. 8<\/a>. \u201cWe did all of that.\u201d<\/p>\n A dispatch log obtained by The Times, however, shows that firefighters arrived at the scene that day and quickly reported seeing no smoke. They then canceled the dispatch for another engine that was on the way, clearing the call within 34 minutes. The log does not mention cold trailing. It\u2019s unclear if crews took any other actions during the call, because the LAFD has not answered questions about it.<\/p>\n The Times has made multiple requests for comment to LAFD spokesperson Capt. Erik Scott by email, text and in person, but the agency has refused to explain the discrepancy. Villanueva also did not respond to an emailed request for comment and an interview request. <\/p>\n The conflict between the LAFD\u2019s statements and its own records is likely to intensify frustration and anger among Palisades fire victims over contradictory and incomplete information about what was done to protect their community. With the first anniversary approaching, gaps remain in what the LAFD has told the public about what it did to prepare for and respond to the fire, which killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of homes. <\/p>\n The LAFD\u2019s after-action report<\/a> on the Palisades fire makes only a cursory reference to the Lachman blaze. Missing from the 70-page document, released last month, are the report of smoke in the area on Jan. 3 and a battalion chief\u2019s decision to pull firefighters out of the scene the day before, even though they warned him that there were signs of remaining hot spots.<\/p>\n The head of the board that oversees the LAFD has maintained that information about the firefighter warnings \u2014 or any examination of the Lachman fire \u2014 did not belong in the after-action report. <\/p>\n \u201cThe after-action review that was presented to the commission is exactly what we asked for,\u201d Genethia Hudley Hayes, president of the Board of Fire Commissioners, said at the board\u2019s meeting on Tuesday. She said the review was only supposed to cover the first 72 hours after the Palisades fire erupted. <\/p>\n \u201cIt is not an investigation,\u201d she said. \u201cIt should not include things that the newspaper seems to feel like should be included.\u201d<\/p>\n The after-action report detailed missteps in fire officials\u2019 response to the Palisades fire, including major failures in deployment and communications, and made recommendations to prevent the issues from happening again. <\/p>\n Two former LAFD chief officers said the report also should have provided an examination of what might have gone wrong in the mop-up of the Lachman blaze, which investigators believe was deliberately set<\/a>, as part of its \u201clessons learned\u201d section.<\/p>\n \u201cA good after-action report documents what happened before the incident,\u201d said former LAFD Battalion Chief Rick Crawford, who retired from the agency last year and is now emergency and crisis management coordinator for the U.S. Capitol. \u201cThe after-action report should have gone back all the way to Dec. 31.\u201d<\/p>\n Patrick Butler, a former assistant chief for the LAFD who has worked on several after-action teams, including for the federal government, agreed. <\/p>\n \u201cIf you limit an after-action to an artificial timeline, you\u2019re not going to uncover everything you need to learn from,\u201d said Butler, who is the Redondo Beach fire chief.<\/p>\n He noted that the reports shape training and operational improvements for the Fire Department. <\/p>\n \u201cTo exclude the Lachman fire from the report gives the appearance of a coverup of foundational facts,\u201d Butler added. \u201cIt\u2019s not a harmless oversight. The consequences can be significant and far-reaching.\u201d<\/p>\n The Jan. 3 report of smoke at the Lachman burn area came in shortly before noon, according to a dispatch log of the incident. Firefighters from Fire Station 23 \u2014 one of two stations in the Palisades \u2014 arrived on the scene about 10 minutes after they were dispatched.<\/p>\n A couple of minutes later, they reported \u201cN\/S,\u201d or nothing showing, according to the log. A few minutes after that, they canceled the dispatch for an engine from Fire Station 69, the other Palisades station.<\/p>\n The last entry in the log was from 12:20 p.m., indicating that an L.A. County crew was working in the area.<\/p>\n The L.A. County Fire Department said in a statement that the crew was at the scene for less than 30 minutes conducting an \u201cinformal \u2018lessons learned\u2019 discussion of their actions from the night of the fire.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThey did not gear up or perform any work while there and they did not see anything of note,\u201d the statement said.<\/p>\n The L.A. County crew left the scene about 12:40 p.m.<\/p>\n The Times previously reported that firefighters were ordered to roll up their hoses<\/a> and leave the burn area of the Lachman fire on Jan. 2, even though they had complained that the ground was still smoldering and rocks remained hot to the touch. The paper reviewed text messages among three firefighters and a third party, sent in the weeks and months after the fire, in which they discussed the handling of the blaze.<\/p>\n LAFD officials also opted not to use thermal imaging technology<\/a> to detect lingering hot spots. Despite warnings of extreme winds leading up to Jan. 7, they failed to pre-deploy<\/a> any engines or firefighters to the burn area \u2014 or anywhere in the Palisades. <\/p>\n At least one battalion chief assigned to the LAFD\u2019s risk management section has known for months<\/a> that crews had complained about hot spots after the Lachman fire. But the department kept that information hidden from the public.<\/p>\n At the Tuesday fire commission meeting, newly appointed Fire Chief Jaime Moore<\/a> \u2014 in an apparent reference to The Times reporting \u2014 slammed what he called media efforts to \u201csmear\u201d firefighters<\/a> who battled the worst fire in city history.<\/p>\n \u201cSomething that\u2019s been very frustrating for me as fire chief, and through this process, is to watch my friends in the media smear our name and the work that our firefighters did to combat one of the most intense fires, the Palisades, the wind-driven monstrosity that it was,\u201d Moore, a 30-year LAFD veteran, said on his second day on the job.<\/p>\n He added: \u201cThe audacity for people to make comments and say that there\u2019s text messages out there that say that we did not put the fire out, that we did not extinguish the fire. Yet I have yet to see any of those text messages.\u201d<\/p>\n