Press release from the City of Eureka:

Construction is nearly complete on the City of Eureka’s First Slough Fish Passage, Floodplain Restoration and Coastal Habitat Connectivity Project. The nearly five-million-dollar project is fully funded by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) Fisheries Restoration Grant Program (FRGP).

Due to weather delaying paving, 14th Street between N and P Streets will remain closed until November 8, 2024. The City appreciates the public’s patience while traffic is diverted in this area.

The project consists of replacing the existing culverts at 14th Street and M Street. The project also includes habitat improvements near Cooper Gulch Park. Once the project is complete, salmonids will be able to migrate upstream under 14th Street and M Street, which are currently barriers to fish passage.

Questions can be directed to Project Manager, Brittany Powell at bpowell@eurekaca.gov or (707) 441-4127.

###

PREVIOUSLY:

• Eureka City Council Reviews Big Project to Restore Fish Passage Through Cooper Gulch, Approves $75K in Participatory Budgeting Funds, Talks Decriminalization of ‘Natural’ Psychedelics, and More!

###

Sixty years ago, I was a reporter for the Klamath Falls (Oregon) Herald and News and with my family lived in a small house on the Link River, which flows out of Upper Klamath Lake, draining a large portion of the Cascade mountain range.

Link River, just 1.5 miles long, is the beginning of the Klamath River, which meanders through 257 miles of sparsely populated, mountainous land in Southern Oregon and Northern California before flowing into the Pacific Ocean.

Although situated on the edge of downtown Klamath Falls, the Link River was, and probably still is, a little patch of semi-wilderness, teeming with wildlife such as huge pelicans which patrol its waters in search of food.

At the time, Upper Klamath Lake and the Klamath River were primarily seen locally as sources of water for expansion of the Klamath Basin’s agricultural industry, particularly alfalfa and potatoes.

One of my assignments was to cover the expansion of the basin’s irrigation system that Oregon’s two U.S. senators, Democrats Wayne Morse and Maurine Neuberger, were sponsoring in Washington.

Although Upper Klamath Lake was known for unusually huge rainbow trout, some two feet long, that attracted anglers in droves, little thought was given to the Chinook salmon that had once thrived in the Klamath River but were no longer seen so far upstream.

In the early 20th Century, the California Oregon Power Company, a locally owned utility that provided electricity to Southern Oregon and a slice of Northern California, had erected four hydropower dams on the Klamath that blocked upstream salmon spawning.

COPCO, as the utility was known, and its dams were eventually absorbed into Pacific Power and Light Co., which even later became Pacificorp and was acquired by billionaire Warren Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway holding company.

As the dams aged, their federal operating licenses expired and environmental groups and American Indian tribes living along the Klamath’s banks served notice that they would oppose re-licensing and demand that the dams be demolished to restore salmon runs.

Their cause drew political support in California and Oregon, and when Buffet’s pal, actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, became California’s governor two decades ago, he placed $250 million in a state water bond issue to finance about half the cost of removing the dams.

Why should California’s taxpayers help Buffet get rid of dams that probably could not be relicensed anyway?

The unofficial rationale advanced by Schwarzenegger aides was that restoring the Klamath’s salmon runs would make it easier, politically speaking, for California to divert water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta via canal or tunnel, which would probably reduce Sacramento River salmon runs.

Whatever underlying motives there might have been, California’s $250 million commitment made a two-state, public-private deal on dam removal possible in 2020, and after four years of deconstruction the removal project was completed a few weeks ago.

Meanwhile, however, there’s a running battle between water officials and farmers and ranchers in the Klamath Basin and along the river in California over diversions for irrigation that remains unresolved.

Although an initial planting of young salmon to restore the Klamath runs failed, two weeks ago officials announced that one salmon was observed swimming upriver past the dam sites and into Oregon’s Spencer Creek and later others in a California creek.

The Klamath River was once the West Coast’s third most productive salmon fishery, and if the runs are restored after a century, as the sightings indicate, it’s very good news, notwithstanding reservations about California’s financial role.

I wonder whether salmon will once again traverse Link River and wriggle their way over the rapids that gave Klamath Falls its name and into Upper Klamath Lake.

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

UPDATE, Nov. 4, 11:55 a.m.:

This morning, Measure F spokesperson Gail Rymer sent a follow-up email saying the city leaders quoted below are citing state law incorrectly. She goes on to say:

In the interest of objectivity and general backgrounding, I wanted to provide you with some facts on a couple of specific points.
City leaders, including City Manager Miles Slattery and Planning Director Cristin Kenyon, appear in your article to either misunderstand state law or are misrepresenting state law in order to dissuade voters from approving Measure F.

For example, Slattery’s statement regarding certain projects, such as the Linc Housing project, being “vested” merely because the City has issued some approvals for the projects is false, and conflicts with a nearly 40-year-old ruling by the California Supreme Court case that defines exactly when a development project becomes vested.

Under this ruling, called the “Avco Rule”, none of the “approved” projects are vested merely because the City has issued certain approvals. Senate Bill 330, referenced by Ms. Kenyon, may have some vesting effect for the Linc Housing and EaRTH Center projects, but not for any of the other lots for which no SB 330 applications have been submitted.

Lastly, all of the statutes cited by Mr. Slattery relating to proximity to a transit hub relate to parking requirements specific to a proposed eligible housing project; none relate to maintenance of an existing public parking lot. In this regard, probably the most accurate statement by Mr. Slattery is that, should the City insist on disregarding City voters, this issue will be decided by the courts.

At the end of the day, everyone in Eureka cares about housing and the future economic vitality of Eureka, both important components of this special community. We believe Measure F provides the best solution for both. 

###

In response to these statements from Rymer, Eureka Development Services Director Cristin Kenyon sent an email saying:

City Staff’s intent is to educate voters based on the facts as we understand them. Both the Linc Housing and Earth Center projects have submitted SB330 pre-applications, so it sounds like we are agreeing those projects are vested.

###

Original post:

###

Rock always beats scissors; paper always beats rock; and when it comes to regulating housing and transportation, state law will always beats local regulations.

That’s why Eureka City Manager Miles Slattery believes that even if voters pass Measure F next Tuesday, the initiative won’t achieve its main goal of preserving all the parking spaces on 21 city-owned lots downtown (and, in the process, stymieing a planned transit hub and several in-progress affordable housing developments).

“I’m sure a certain individual will sue us regardless,” Slattery said, referring to semi-local kazillionaire Rob Arkley, whose company Security National has poured more than $1.6 million into the Measure F campaign. “But, yes,” Slattery continued, “there are multiple reasons why those properties are already vested.”

He was referring specifically, in this case, to the three locations of Linc Housing’s Eureka Scattered Site Project — which will see apartment developments on parcels at 8th and G streets, 6th and M streets, and Myrtle and Sunny avenues — and by “vested” he means that the developer’s right to proceed as planned is secure.

Why? Several reasons, he said. For one, the Linc Housing project already has its discretionary permit approvals, and according to Eureka’s municipal code, “Projects with valid permits or approvals shall be completed in compliance with the standards in effect at the time of approval.”

The Linc Housing project was approved after the city council voted to “surplus” the underlying parking lot parcels, thereby removing the parking spaces from the city’s official inventory, according to Slattery.

“And then furthermore,” he said, “there’s a law called SB 330 … which does the same things as that.” That law, The Housing Crisis Act of 2019, prohibits local jurisdictions from enacting new laws that would lower the maximum amount of new housing allowed in their borders, or delay new housing via regulatory barriers.

###

Slattery said SB 330 would apply to EaRTH Center, a multi-story housing and transit development slated for the city-owned parking lots behind Lost Coast Brewery & Cafe.

In an email, Eureka Development Services Director Cristin Kenyon listed several other laws that she says would supercede Measure F. A provision of California’s Housing Accountability Act, for example, says the city must accept preliminary application for any housing development project, and when it does so, it locks in the developer’s right to develop under whatever regulations were in effect at the time of submittal.

And since the city’s current regulations don’t require parking at any of the Linc project sites, new parking requirements can’t be added later, Kenyon says.

Furthermore, she adds, California’s Density Bonus Law says the city must waive parking requirements for deed-restricted affordable housing projects if doing so would cut costs. 

###

But what about all the other parking lots listed in Measure F?

Slattery and Kenyon both point to Assembly Bill 2097, passed in 2022, which “prohibits a public agency from imposing or enforcing any minimum automobile parking requirements on a residential, commercial, or other development project if the project is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop.”

It just so happens that Eureka has designated a major transit stop at the future site of the EaRTH Center (H and Third streets). Back in January, the Humboldt County Association of Governments (HCAOG) updated its regional transportation plan, dubbed VROOM, to include seven major transit stops, three of which are in Eureka. (The other two are located at the Bayshore Mall and the corner of Harris and F streets.)

But it’s the one at the future EaRTH Center site that negates the parking lot restrictions in Measure F, according to Slattery.

“All 21 of the lots listed in Measure F are within a half a mile of that major transit hub,” he said.

Here’s a map showing the half-mile radius of that hub, with yellow pins identifying all 21 of the parking lots in in Measure F:

###

Not surprisingly, Measure F’s backers disagree with this analysis.

“Mr. Slattery is not correctly reading and interpreting Measure F or state law,” said a statement emailed by campaign spokesperson Gail Rymer. “There is a difference between preserving existing public parking and imposing new parking requirements for residential units.”

The campaign argues that Measure F does the former, not the latter, and the statement sent by Rymer adds that the measure “allows the City to comply with its own ordinances and state law in determining whether or not to require additional parking spaces for tenants of the proposed affordable housing units.”

Kenyon, however, said the spaces in those 21 lots should not be considered “existing public parking.” She noted that Eureka’s city council already voted to surplus those parcels, finding that they are “no longer necessary for agency use,” and voted to remove those sites from its assessment district.

“There is nothing in our current agreements with the affordable housing developers or in our General Plan or Zoning Code that requires any public parking to be retained on these parcels,” Kenyon said in an email. “Regardless of whether it’s earmarked for public or private parking, requiring retention of the spaces would be a new parking requirement.”

Slattery, meanwhile, says state law does not differentiate between “new” and “existing” parking. He pointed to Gov. Code 65863.2(a), which reads, “A public agency shall not impose or enforce any minimum automobile parking requirement on a residential, commercial, or other development project if the project is located within one-half mile of public transit.”

“Ms. Rymer’s statement that the City could force development projects to keep the existing parking is inconsistent with the plain language of the statute, and she cites no legal authority to support it,” Slattery wrote in an email.

Regardless, as he predicts, this disagreement seems likely to wind up in a court of law.

What about the Jacobs campus?

The other major provision of Measure F, besides creating an Off-Street Public Parking (OSPP) Overlay Designation on those 21 lots, involves the former Jacobs Middle School campus, a vacant 14-acre property at 674 Allard Avenue. It’s owned by Eureka City Schools.

Measure F would create another overlay designation authorizing a wide variety of residential and commercial uses there. The heavy-handed sales pitch of the Measure F campaign has been reliant on the prospect of putting affordable housing developments down there, at the south end of Eureka, rather than downtown.

This proposal was more plausible when a mystery developer was in escrow to acquire 8.1 acres of the Jacobs property. But when that deal collapsed in August, the school district went back to its previous high bidder, California’s Department of General Services (DGS), which is looking to acquire the property for a new regional headquarters for the California Highway Patrol.

Slattery said he recently attended a meeting with staff from Eureka City Schools and was told that DGS is working to finalize the details of an offer to be presented to the district’s board of trustees. If the deal is approved, the state would not be required to build any housing whatsoever at the Jacobs parcel because state agencies are not beholden to local zoning rules.

“And I would venture to say that other than [working out the] details, Jacobs is going to be a CHP property,” Slattery said, though he acknowledged that any sale depends on board approval.

Reached by phone, the district’s executive assistant in the Superintendent’s Office, Micalyn Harris, confirmed that talks between DGS and the district are ongoing. “The ball’s in their court,” she said, referring to the state agency. “When they provide the contract, we will take it to the board for consideration.”

Harris said she’s not sure if that will happen at the board’s Nov. 14 meeting or perhaps its Dec. 12 meeting. 

For the time being, Slattery said the city’s not going to let Measure F interfere with its plans.

“We’re going to construction with the Linc project [locations] — all three of them — in February of 2025, regardless of what happens,” he said. “Now, will he sue us and try to prevent that? I’m sure. Will he try to delay it? I’m sure. Whether F passes or not he’s going to try and do that.” (Slattery never mentioned Arkley by name.)

But the city manager said Measure F could still wreak havoc if it passes.

“From a practical standpoint and being able to build it might not matter, but it definitely screws us as far as our housing element,” Slattery said. “It automatically removes these [21] properties from our housing inventory.”

State regulators and local officials alike have warned this could cause Eureka’s housing element to fall out of compliance with state law, costing the city millions of dollars in grant funds, opening itself up to litigation from the attorney general’s office and potentially triggering the “builder’s remedy,” which would strip away all local control for regulating affordable housing developments.

Regardless of what voters decide with regard to Measure F, Eureka’s pitched battle between housing and parking is unlikely to end on Tuesday.

Sasquatch, mermaids, flags, globes, maps, and umbrellas all floated high above Cal Poly Humboldt’s campus on Oct. 19. These objects were not signs of the end times or simulacrum subjected upon a terrified student body by artistic aliens — Humboldt hired drone show company Skyworx for their Lumberjack Weekends celebration, which also brought the Beach Boys and E-40 to campus. The drone show lasted around nine minutes. 

Inquisitive minds here at the Outpost wanted to know what that little shindig ran our esteemed local center of learning, so courtesy of a public records request, we can inform you that the grand total was $29,407.50. 

The original cost was $32,675.00, but Humboldt got a slight discount for “missing drones,” according to the invoice. 

###

Press release from the District Attorney’s Office:

DA Stacey Eads has completed her review of the investigation regarding the November 26, 2023, Eureka Police Department (EPD) Officer-involved shooting of 31-year-old Matthew Robert Williams. A Humboldt County Critical Incident Response Team, with members from the Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office, Eureka Police Department, Arcata Police Department, Fortuna Police Department, Cal Poly Humboldt Police Department, Humboldt County Sheriff’s Department, and California Highway Patrol conducted the investigation. Additionally, the Humboldt County Coroner’s Office contributed to the investigation.

The following summarizes the facts derived from the investigation, as well as applicable law and legal conclusions of the District Attorney regarding this incident.

Factual Summary

On November 26, 2023, at approximately 09:35 in the morning, Eureka Police Officer Ryan Swanson was patrolling Old Town Eureka in a marked police vehicle when he observed a red, two door Honda Civic travelling eastbound on 2nd Street with expired registration. Officer Swanson activated the overhead lights on his patrol vehicle and made a traffic stop on the Honda. The driver pulled the Honda over to the right side of the road near the intersection of 2nd and M Streets. Just as the Honda came to a stop, with Officer Swanson’s patrol vehicle behind, a man, later identified as 31-year-old Matthew Robert Williams, jumps out from the passenger side door of the Honda and flees on foot in the direction of a trail alongside the Carson Mansion, which leads to the rear of the main Humboldt County Library. As soon as the Honda’s driver mentioned she was being pulled over, Williams said to the vehicle occupants “I gotta run” and when the Honda pulled over, according to an occupant Williams “ran like hell.”

Initially, Officer Swanson was the only officer at the location with the Honda. However, Eureka Police Officer Jeremy Sollom, having just completed his response to an unrelated police matter in the area, drove his marked patrol vehicle westbound on 2nd Street. Officer Sollom sees Officer Swanson making a traffic stop on the Honda and pulls his patrol vehicle behind Officer Swanson’s car. Just as Officer Sollom steps out of his car he hears Officer Swanson yell out that someone is running. Officer Swanson is heard on his body worn camera footage at timestamp 09:35:57 exclaim “Go, go! He’s fleeing!” Officer Sollom sees Williams dressed in a gray hooded sweatshirt running on a trail that leads to the back of the library. Officer Sollom gets back into his patrol car and drives over to access the area behind the library where he knows the trail used by Williams leads.

As Officer Sollom drives down 2nd Street, leading to where the trail travels behind the library, he sees Williams running directly towards him. At this point Officer Sollom has a brief opportunity to look at Williams’ face, however he does not recognize him. Williams quickly changes direction and runs towards the children’s playground located next to the library. Officer Sollom, dressed in officer attire adorned with Eureka Police Department patches, exits his patrol car and yells verbal commands at Williams to stop running, including “Police canine, get on the ground, get on the ground, my dog will bite you.” Williams continues to flee from Officer Sollom.

Officer Sollom pursues Williams to a metal fence, which Williams attempts to climb. However, before Williams gets over the fence, Officer Sollom grabs and pulls Williams off the fence and places him face down on the ground. As Officer Sollom works to gain control of Williams’ left arm, Williams physically resists continuously moving his right arm and hand to push himself to a standing position. Additionally, Williams moves his right arm and hand around his torso area, which is outside of Officer Sollom’s line of vision. In his continued effort to gain Williams’ compliance, Officer Sollom strikes Williams in the chest multiple times with his knee. During the struggle, Officer Sollom announced being in a “physical” interaction over the police radio.

As he had not yet overcome Williams’ resistance, Officer Sollom modifies his control technique by allowing Williams to stand to his feet so he can push Williams against the adjacent metal fence and overcome his physical resistance. Officer Sollom’s body worn camera, which took time to power on and activate from when Officer Sollom turned it on, begins to audio and video record at this point in the encounter, with footage timestamped at 09:37:12. Officer Sollom directs Williams to “get on the ground” and to “stop reaching.” Officer Sollom sees Eureka Police Department Officer Nicholas Jones running to his location.

Officer Jones runs up and sees a firearm in Williams’ right hand. Officer Jones yells out “Gun!” multiple times. Officer Sollom sees the pistol in Williams’ right hand. Officer Sollom’s body worn camera footage captures an image of a handgun in Williams’ right hand at timestamp 09:37:16. Officer Sollom appears very close to Williams as he continues to attempt to gain control of his movements. Next, Officer Sollom sees, and hears, Williams grab and cycle his firearm’s slide causing a live round to be ejected from the chamber of Wiliams’s firearm. Body worn footage depicts a handgun held in both of Williams’ hands at timestamp 09:37:18. The live round falls onto the ground, and another live round cycles into the chamber of Williams’ firearm. Williams then turns his body and reaches with the gun back towards Officer Sollom.

Simultaneously, Officer Jones, who has his duty pistol drawn, steps closer towards Williams. In a single frame, body worn camera footage timestamped at 09:37:19 depicts Williams with both hands on a firearm and Officer Jones with his duty pistol pointed at Williams.

Officer Sollom, who believes Williams is going to shoot him, turns back to his right and away from Williams. At timestamp 09:37:20, Officer Sollom’s body worn camera footage depicts him pivot and then draw his firearm from his holster.

Officer Jones fires a single gunshot at Williams, which is heard on the body worn camera footage at timestamp 09:37:20. Immediately after the shot is fired, Officer Jones falls backwards. As Officer Jones falls to the ground, he hears shots being fired, shots which he believes are being fired by Williams. Officer Jones fears for Officer Sollom’s life.

When Officer Sollom hears Officer Jones shoot at Williams, he believes Williams just tried to shoot him. At 09:37:21 Officer Sollom’s firearm is visibly placed in his right hand, and he points his handgun at Williams. Officer Sollom begins to discharge his firearm. Simultaneously, Officer Sollom begins to fall backwards.

Officer Sollom believed the initial rounds he shot did not strike Williams, and as he fell to the ground, he was unable to see Williams’ hands and handgun. Additionally, Officer Sollom felt a sharp pain moving up his right side after he hit the ground. In that moment, the source of his own pain, the cause of his and Officer Jones’ fall were unknown to Officer Sollom. He feared he and Officer Jones had been shot. Officer Sollom believed in that moment he must stop Williams from killing Officer Jones or himself. Officer Sollom fired a succession of shots for approximately 5 seconds with the last gunshot heard at body worn camera footage timestamp 09:37:26. Body worn camera footage timestamped at 09:37:26 depicts Officer Sollom push himself up off the ground following the last shot fired. Officer Jones, as seen on body worn camera footage at 09:37:27, proceeds to stand up as well.

Williams is observed lying in a supine position on the ground with his handgun on the ground to his right. Officer Sollom is depicted on body worn camera footage at timestamp 09:37:35, reaching down and grabbing Williams’ pistol and moving it away from Williams. Officers Sollom and Jones place Williams in handcuffs and begin to render medical aid to Williams.

At body worn camera footage timestamp 09:37:42, Officer Jones is heard advising his body worn camera was malfunctioning. (During the subsequent investigation, multiple attempts were made to retrieve data/video from Officer Jones’ body worn camera, however, they were unsuccessful. The device repeatedly displayed an error message. The body worn camera was forwarded to the device’s manufacturer, however, per the manufacturer the camera was prevented from capturing video during the relevant timeframe as it “experienced an internal processing error.”)

Eureka Police Officer Joseph Couch arrives on scene seconds following the shooting and promptly begins to assist the officers administering medical aid to Williams. Officer Sollom uses trauma shears to remove Williams’ sweatshirt, which reveals a tan, empty firearm holster worn on Williams’ chest between his sweatshirt and t-shirt. In order to perform CPR, the holster was removed. At 9:39:58, officers began administering CPR with Officer Couch giving Williams chest compressions and Officer Sollom giving breaths to Williams. At 9:43:00 Humboldt Bay Fire Department personnel took over life resuscitation efforts and utilized a defibrillator. Officer Couch also administered chest compressions again for just over 30 seconds. Soon thereafter, fire personnel pronounced Williams deceased at the scene.

While emergency personnel rendered assistance to Williams, Officer Couch located and photographed Williams’ firearm on the ground. Due to the close proximity of the firearm to emergency personnel and potential danger, Officer Couch moved Williams’ pistol and rendered it safe. When he removed the magazine from Williams’ firearm, he observed it contained live rounds. Additionally, when he locked the slide to the rear of the handgun a single live round fell out of the chamber of the pistol. Officer Couch placed the firearm, magazine and live round on a nearby rock.

The firearm Williams was armed with was a PMG P80 pistol. The pistol had a 17-round magazine and a TLR-8G Streamlight attached. There was no serial number on the pistol. Thirteen (13) rounds of live ammunition were removed from the P80 pistol and associated magazine, with one (1) round from the chamber and twelve (12) rounds in the magazine. Nine (9) of the rounds were Blazer 9mm Luger and four (4) of the rounds were Winchester 9mm Luger ammunition.

In addition to the live rounds found within the chamber and magazine of the pistol, a single live round of Blazer 9mm Luger ammunition was recovered from the scene beneath the metal fence. Additionally, Williams’ Samsung Galaxy smartphone, a torch-style lighter, and a plastic baggy containing 43.08 grams (GFW) of fentanyl, were located on the ground near the metal fencing where the physical struggle between Williams and Officer Sollom occurred. Inside the right front pocket of Williams’ pants, one key and key fab, a small plastic baggy containing a white crystalline substance, as well as $6,300 in cash were located.

At the time of the incident, Officer Sollom had seven (7) years of experience as a peace officer. He carried a Glock Model 45, 9mm handgun for which he was qualified and authorized to carry on duty by the Eureka Police Department. The magazine to his handgun was a standard issue Glock magazine with a Taran Tactical 2 round magazine extension, which allowed up to nineteen (19) live rounds to be held in the magazine. Following the shooting incident, Officer Sollom’s Glock held a single live round in the chamber and five (5) rounds in the magazine. Officer Sollom had two additional magazines with Taran Tactical 2 round magazine extensions in his duty vest magazine pouches, each containing eighteen (18) live rounds. The brand of the 9 mm caliber ammunition was Federal, Hollow Point, with a silver casing.

At the time of the incident, Officer Jones had approximately twenty-two (22) years of law enforcement experience. Prior to joining EPD, Officer Jones served as a correctional deputy with the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office, as well as a deputy probation officer with the Humboldt County Probation Department. In addition to his experience carrying a firearm throughout most of his law enforcement career, Officer Jones was a firearms instructor. The duty weapon he carried at the time of the incident was a Glock Model 47, 9mm, issued to him by the Eureka Police Department. Following the shooting incident, a single live round was in the chamber of Officer Jones’ Glock Model 47. The attached magazine had a capacity of seventeen (17) rounds, and after the shooting there were sixteen (16) live 9 mm rounds in the magazine. As with Officer Sollom, the brand of the 9 mm caliber ammunition was Federal, Hollow Point, with a silver casing.

Twelve (12) F.C. 9mm Luger casings, consistent with ammunition used by the involved officers, were recovered from the scene.

On December 2, 2023, an autopsy performed by Forensic Pathologist James N. Olson, MD, revealed Williams was struck by eleven (11) bullets. The cause of Williams’ death was determined to be multiple gunshot wounds to his head, thorax, abdomen and upper extremities. The manner of death was determined to be homicide.

A toxicology analysis of a sample of Williams’ blood was conducted by Central Valley Toxicology. The drug screen detected the presence of Fentanyl, at 90 ng/mL, and Methamphetamine, at 1.0 mg/L, in Williams’ blood.

The Law

Under California law, an officer is justified in using deadly force when they reasonably believe, based on the totality of the circumstances, that such force is necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person. Moreover, officers need not retreat or desist from their efforts due to resistance or threatened resistance.

Pursuant to Penal Code section 196, homicide committed by peace officers is justified when the peace officer’s use of force complies with Penal Code section 835a. Thus, the most pertinent law in this situation is Penal Code section 835a, which states the following:

(a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(1) That the authority to use physical force, conferred on peace officers by this section, is a serious responsibility that shall be exercised judiciously and with respect for human rights and dignity and for the sanctity of every human life. The Legislature further finds and declares that every person has a right to be free from excessive use of force by officers acting under color of law.

(2) As set forth below, it is the intent of the Legislature that peace officers use deadly force only, when necessary in defense of human life. In determining whether deadly force is necessary, officers shall evaluate each situation in light of the particular circumstances of each case and shall use other available resources and techniques if reasonably safe and feasible to an objectively reasonable officer.

(3) That the decision by a peace officer to use force shall be evaluated carefully and thoroughly, in a manner that reflects the gravity of that authority and the serious consequences of the use of force by peace officers, in order to ensure that officers use force consistent with law and agency policies.

(4) That the decision by a peace officer to use force shall be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation, based on the totality of the circumstances known to or perceived by the officer at the time, rather than with the benefit of hindsight, and that the totality of the circumstances shall account for occasions when officers may be forced to make quick judgments about using force.

(5) That individuals with physical, mental health, developmental, or intellectual disabilities are significantly more likely to experience greater levels of physical force during police interactions, as their disability may affect their ability to understand or comply with commands from peace officers. It is estimated that individuals with disabilities are involved in between one-third and one-half of all fatal encounters with law enforcement.

(b) Any peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense may use objectively reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape, or to overcome resistance.

(c)

(1) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), a peace officer is justified in using deadly force upon another person only when the officer reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that such force is necessary for either of the following reasons:

(A) To defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person.

(B) To apprehend a fleeing person for any felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless immediately apprehended. Where feasible, a peace officer shall, prior to the use of force, make reasonable efforts to identify themselves as a peace officer and to warn that deadly force may be used, unless the officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe the person is aware of those facts.

(2) A peace officer shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger that person poses to themselves, if an objectively reasonable officer would believe the person does not pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or to another person.

(d) A peace officer who makes or attempts to make an arrest need not retreat or desist from their efforts by reason of the resistance or threatened resistance of the person being arrested. A peace officer shall not be deemed an aggressor or lose the right to self-defense by the use of objectively reasonable force in compliance with subdivisions (b) and (c) to effect the arrest or to prevent escape or to overcome resistance. For the purposes of this subdivision, “retreat” does not mean tactical repositioning or other de-escalation tactics.

(e) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) “Deadly force” means any use of force that creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury, including, but not limited to, the discharge of a firearm.

(2) A threat of death or serious bodily injury is “imminent” when, based on the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable officer in the same situation would believe that a person has the present ability, opportunity, and apparent intent to immediately cause death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or another person. An imminent harm is not merely a fear of future harm, no matter how great the fear and no matter how great the likelihood of the harm, but is one that, from appearances, must be instantly confronted and addressed.

(3) “Totality of the circumstances” means all facts known to the peace officer at the time, including the conduct of the officer and the subject leading up to the use of deadly force.

Legal Analysis

On November 26, 2023, when Officers Jones and Sollom discharged their firearms at Williams they justifiably used deadly force. The use of deadly force was legally justified because the officers were confronted by a situation where they reasonably believed the use of deadly force was necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, a threat posed by Williams, armed with a loaded firearm, to the officers.

From the first moment of Williams’ encounter with law enforcement, Williams fled, thereby demonstrating his refusal to comply with lawful orders of peace officers. When the Honda was pulled over, Williams, said “I gotta run”, and as the civilian witness described, he “ran like hell.” Then, when Officer Sollom attempted to apprehend him, Williams physically struggled and resisted, repeatedly failing to comply with any orders. Moreover, Williams continuously reached with his hand despite repeated orders to stop reaching. Officer Sollom had probable cause to arrest Williams for a violation of Penal Code section 148(a), resisting, delaying or obstructing a peace officer. Likewise, based upon the escalating use of physical force and violence by Williams in his resistance and deterrence of Officer Sollom, a peace officer lawfully engaged in the performance of his duties, probable cause to arrest for Penal Code section 69, a felony, was present.

Officer Sollom modified his physical control techniques to overcome Williams’ resistance by allowing Williams to stand. Close in time, however, rather than comply, Williams reached up into his sweatshirt with his right hand and drew his concealed firearm from his chest holster. He then loaded a live round into the chamber and directed the gun towards Officer Sollom. Clearly, Williams presented an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officers.

The dire situation unfolded very rapidly. Under the totality of the circumstances, Officers Sollom and Jones reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to defend themselves against Williams who demonstrated the present ability, opportunity, and apparent intent to immediately cause death or serious bodily injury to the peace officers. Therefore, the officers were legally justified in using deadly force to defend themselves against the imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury Williams posed to the officers.

Conclusion

The District Attorney has concluded the shooting was legally justified, in that the officers’ actions complied with California Penal Code Section 835a. The District Attorney has notified Mr. Williams’ family of her decision.

Taavi Taijala, Eureka’s second-biggest donor

If you’ve read the Outpost for any length of time, looked at local Facebook groups, or merely participated in living in Humboldt at all, you know who Rob and Cherie Arkley are. The millionaire family is, by far, Eureka’s most prolific political donors. In the 2024 election cycle, they donated a sum of $134,370 to federal campaigns and parties, spending almost triple the amount of money second-highest donor in Eureka did. 

But hold up! Who’s this fella who managed to drop enough money to be second to the Arkleys? 

He’s Taavi Taijala, a software engineer for Google. He’s donated 32 times this election cycle alone for the sum of $54,215 to just one organization, the left-leaning Movement Voter PAC. His wife Joann donated another $9,000 for a grand total of over $63,000, all to the Movement Voter PAC. 

The reason Taijala donated that much is pretty simple: He wants Kamala Harris to win the presidential race, even if it costs him more than a year’s median salary in Humboldt County.

“The [PAC] posted a long entry on their website back in December,” Taijala told the Outpost earlier this week. “The part that stuck with me was: ‘Find your no regret number. Donate the amount of money where if the election goes the wrong way, you won’t regret not having donated.’”

Taijala, 35, was born in Humboldt and graduated from Humboldt State University in 2014 with degrees in mathematics and French. He got an M.S. in computer science from the University of Minnesota in 2017 and attempted a Ph.D at UM, but stopped because it was too research-focused. He moved back to Eureka soon after.

Taijala first decided he needed to start donating after Trump won the 2016 election. 

“I guess it became clear in 2016 that political norms were more degraded than I thought they were,” Taijala said. “Over the past 20 years or so, things have been getting more polarized than they used to be. 2016 with Trump was kind of like ‘Whoa.’ Nothing is off the table, and you can’t expect any of the rules to be followed or any of the norms to be upheld. That was probably a wake-up call for lots of people.”

Taijala first heard about the Movement Voter PAC when he was working on his master’s degree in Minnesota. It’s a progressive organization that donates its earnings to local organizations who focus on getting minority groups, such as people of color, LGBTQ people or immigrants, to vote in close elections. It focuses on federal battleground states and raised over $42.3 million total during this election cycle. Taijala chose to donate his money there because they invest in local groups that stick around after elections, instead of politicians that promise a lot during their campaigns and don’t deliver. Taijala also said that they know better than he would where his money will have the largest impact.

He made his first donation to the Movement Voter PAC in May 2022 for $500, then another donation for $2,162 a month later, then another $500 a few days after that. For a while, that was the pattern — $500 monthly, sometimes twice a month. Eventually, Taijala ramped it up. From June 28 to July 30, 2024, Taijala donated $10,000 five different times for an even $50,000. 

“This year, with the election, it just feels very important,” Taijala said. “I kind of think of it like a civic duty … this is something I should do so that hopefully things are better for everyone. What’s the purpose of having more money if you’re living in a world you don’t want to live in?”

Taijala said that if he wasn’t donating the money, he’d probably just be saving it or donating it to charity. 

Despite the pile of money he’s given to the Movement Voter PAC, Taijala is humble about its potential impact.

“It’s such a small amount in the grand scheme of things,” Taijala said. “It’s a lot of money for us and for most people, but in the grand scheme of things, it’s not much. I think oftentimes, you have a collective action problem. If you’re an individual, the individual things you do are almost never going to be the one thing that makes a difference. So it’s easy to not do anything, because it’s like ‘My one vote or my one donation is not going to make the difference one way or the other.’ But if everyone thinks that way, then it does make a difference.”

Press release from Hambro:

Hambro Recycling is excited to announce they are opening a new CRV BuyBack location in Eureka. The new location will be in the Redwood Acres Fairgrounds at 3775 Harris St. Eureka customers can finally “Get Cash Back” for their California Redemption Value (CRV) on beverage containers in Eureka! The new location is scheduled to be open in early December.

“We have been trying to open a location in Eureka for years and have finally found a location” said General Manager Randy Scott “Every year customers ask when we will open in Eureka? We would like to thank Eureka Fair Grounds for working with us and getting this location finally open.”

The new location will add convenience to customers who currently redeem at Hambro’s other locations who live in the Eureka area. Hambro Recycling is the only CRV redemption centers in Humboldt and is excited to offer this new location. “Recycling has become a standard in our lives and now Eureka customers will have the option to get their cash back and help the planet” said Kurtis Shaul, Marketing Manager.

Consumers pay a California Redemption Value (CRV) fee when they purchase beverages and receive CRV refunds when they redeem containers at a Hambro Recycling.

Hambro Recycling currently operates in Crescent City, Arcata, Fortuna, Willow Creek and Redway. These locations refund the deposit on beverage containers under the California Beverage Container Recycling Program. For more information please contact Kurtis: Kurtis@hambro.biz